Special Faculty Meeting Discusses Reorganization

The Faculty spent two hours yesterday discussing plans for its own reorganization, but it adjourned without voting on any of the proposals.

Yesterday's special meeting-which was called to consider the Fainsod Committee's report on Faculty organization-covered only one of the report's four broad recommendations.

That recommendation-which suggests the creation of a new "Faculty Council"-and the rest of the report will come up at the Faculty's next regular meeting, Nov. 18.

The Dean's Cabinet

The Faculty Council discussed yesterday would serve as a combined "Dean's cabinet and steering committee of the Faculty." and would replace the present Committee on Educational Policy. It would be made up of 18 Faculty members, with the dean of the Faculty as chairman and the dean of Engineering and Applied Physics as vice-chairman.

Most of yesterday's debate centered on the question of how the Faculty members on the Council would be chase. Two general alternatives were presented:

the Fainsod Committee-through its chairman, Merle Fainsoid, University Librarian-suggested a plan that would give both the Dean and the Faculty roles in selecting the Council members;

several Faculty members spoke to support an amendment that would give the Faculty all the power to nominate candidates for the Council and to elect them under a "proportional representation" (PR) system.

Fainsod Plan

The plan Fainsod presented would have the Dean choose a slate of candidates each year for seats on the Council. Faculty members could then look over the list and could add-by a petition with ten signatures-extra candidates to the list. The Faculty would then hold a mail vote to choose the Council members.

Two Economics professors-Kenneth A? Arrow, professor of Economics, and

Christopher A. Sims, assistant professor of Economics-presented and amendment that would change the process in two major way:

The Faculty itself would nominate the candidates for the Council. Each Faculty member would be able to nominate a certain number of candidates, and anyone who got 20 or more nominations would be a formal candidate for election.

The election would be then run on a PR system (see News Analysis on Page One) instead of the simple majority system proposed by Fainsod.

Arrow Suggests Study

In addition, Arrow suggested that a new Faculty committee should study some of the other detailed chages that a PR system would make in the Faculty Council plan Fainsod presented:

Fainsod said that the 18 Council members should serve staggered threeyear terms, with six seats up for election each year. Arrow and others suggested cutting the term to one or two years, to make more seats available for election each year and to reduce the load on individual Faculty members who serve:

Fainsod's plan had a strict quota system, with six members each from 'he Humanities, the Natural Sciences, and the Social Sciences. But some supporters of the amendment arged removal of the quotas, claiming that a PR system would still represent departmental interests.

25 Speakers and Their Themes

The 25 speakers at yesterday's meeting argued on several recurring themes:

the "democracy" of the election election procedure. In presenting his plan, Fainsod called it a "modified elective system." He said the Dean-who would have to work with the Council-would have "some power of initiative," while the Faculty retained final rights to approve or reject his choices.

But Edwin E. Moise, James Bryant Conant Professor of Education and Mathematics, said that Faculty decorum would soon turn the system into a purely appointive set-up. And several professors-especially those who had come from universities with PR election systems-said "the time for democracy has come"

Politicization of the Faculty

"politicization" of the Faculty and the Dean. Arrow said that his plan would present all political interests and would therefore remove the incentive to form organized political groups within the Faculty. He said it would also remove a potential source of friction between the Dean and the Faculty by taking the Dean out of the nomination process. In Fainsod's system, he said, the elections would turn into votes of confidence in the Dean.

Andrew M. Gleason, professor of Mathematics, challenged Arrow's claim that PR would reduce political tension. He said it would actually encourage more campaigning. And another Faculty member said that regular tests of confidence in the Dean would be an advantage, not a drawback;

Faculty Pluralism

making the Council representative-Fainsod and several others said that the Dean would be best able to choose a group representative of political, educational, and departmental interests. Bruce Chalmers, Master of Winthrop House, said that "the Dean sees the Faculty from another point of view; he can take different considerations into account." Chalmers added that the current CEP-whose members are appointed-is "far from a monolith."

Hollis B. Chenery, professor of Economics, replied that a PR election would "be simple and would seem to be fair ... It is hard for the Dean to be as fair as a representative process." Sims said the PR system was the only way to keep a disciplined minority from taking over the elections.

Representative Council

the importance of representation on the Council-Arrow said that "if there is a conflict on the Faculty, it shold be represented on the Council ... In times when there have to be quick decisions, the Faculty should feel that the Council's decisions represent the Faculty's feelings." The Council's "legitimacy" would suffer if the otherwise, he said.

However, James Q. Wilson, professor of Government, pointed out that all the Councils decisions would be subject to final scrutiny by the full Faculty. He said that all arguments for exact proportional representation would be more important if the Council were to become some kind of Faculty Senate, with full legislative power.

Both sides agreed at the end of the meeting to postpone a vote and give the Faculty more time to think over the issues.

When the Faculty meets again on Nov. 18, Fainsod's committee will present the rest of its proposals, including creating a Docket Committee for the Faculty, forming four student-Faculty Committees, and inereasing the Faculty's role in many administrative matters.