Reporter Volume 25, No.26 April 28, 1994

By MARK WALLACE
Reporter Staff

Of the two primary alternatives for university reorganization
discussed in the Triggle Report, focusing on the general concern for
the delivery of undergraduate education, the Faculty Senate Academic
Planning Committee prefers implementation of what they call the
"Coordination Model," Dennis Malone, chair of the committee, told the
Faculty Senate Executive Committee last week.
	The Coordination Model would form an intermediate structure
consisting of three separate Faculties in the Arts and Sciences which
would function as a single unit, responsible for the curriculum and
the delivery of undergraduate education, Malone said. The system would
thus retain the present decanal structure, and administrative
authority for the unit would consist of a committee of the three deans
and the Vice Provost for Undergraduate Education, Malone said.
	The essential principle of this structural change would be
that the accountability and authority for undergraduate education
would lie in the faculty concerned with the delivery of undergraduate
requirements, Malone said.
	The other possible model for reorganization, the
"Consolidation Model," would form the three separate faculties into a
single College of Arts and Sciences which would have a single dean,
Malone said.
	The Academic Planning Committee believes that the advantage of
the Coordination Model is that in retaining the present decanal
structure, at least for the present time, there will be less impact on
faculty concerns about possible effects on the promotion and tenure
process, Malone said. The Coordination Model also retains the already
existing processes within the three Faculties with respect to
administrative structures, and budget and personnel processes, Malone
said.
	The Committee feels, therefore, that the Coordination Model
represents a less "severe" structural change than the Consolidation
Model, and affords an opportunity to determine whether this new
organization can effect an improvement in the delivery of
undergraduate education, Malone said. But Malone stressed the
intermediate nature of the Coordination Model, suggesting that should
this sort of consolidation prove successful, further consolidation
might follow.
	Roger Burton of Psychology asked to what extent this
reorganization will solve the problems currently associated with
undergraduate education.
	Malone responded by saying "There are no guarantees. We think
this proposal is more likely to succeed."
	Provost Aaron Bloch added that the fundamental problem with
undergraduate education is that curriculum decisions and decisions
about resources are currently made in different places. Thus there is
currently no location where comprehensive planning of undergraduate
education is possible, Bloch said.
	Maureen Jameson of Modern Languages and Literatures said that
it was unclear how the new Coordinated Model would be different from
either the currently existing system or the Consolidation Model.
Jameson said that if there were a central governing body that had
control over the "trade-offs" involved in making decisions about
undergraduate education, then that seemed like consolidation, whereas
if there were no such body, then the proposed changes would be little
different from the current system.
	President William Greiner responded that "There are any number
of ways to reorganize the Arts and Sciences." The difference in the
new system, he said, would be that the three Arts and Sciences
Faculties, however organized, will be told collectively that they will
have responsibility for undergraduate education, and responsibility
for a whole set of related education issues.
	Stephen Bennett of the Educational Opportunity Center asked if
the Coordinated Model was the model of reorganization that the Provost
wanted.
	Provost Bloch responded that "I do have some questions about
it. A large majority of the Triggle Committee favored full
consolidation. My intention would be to put the Coordinated Model in
place. If, over time, it works, that's great, but if not, then the
Consolidated Model could be put in place."
	On the subject of whether the FSEC should put forward a
resolution regarding the proposed changes, President Greiner said that
"Maybe this is a time for the Senate to put no resolution forward, to
wait and see what happens." After lengthy debate, the FSEC withdrew
several proposed resolutions, although none of them were voted down.
	In other FSEC business, Phillip Yeagle, chair of the Faculty
Senate Committee on Research and Creative Activity, and Dale Landi,
vice president for research, presented the FSEC with a draft of the
document on "Policy on Responsible Conduct in Intellectual and
Creative Activity," which will develop a process for handling academic
misconduct and conflict of interest cases at UB.
	"This is a policy that doesn't just meet federal regulations,
which we must do, but that also defines our own standards as a
university," Landi said.
	"We've created a document that enables us to keep the process
on our own campus and not have it taken away by federal jurisdiction,"
Landi said. "The federal government can take such cases out of our
hands any time they want, and so it's necessary for us to craft a
document that won't cause that."
	Landi said that it was also important that UB have a process
that is fair and that protects its faculty.
	Phillip Yeagle pointed out that the current document deals
only with academic misconduct cases, and not conflict of interest
cases, because the federal government is still debating how to define
conflict of interest.
	"We have to wait for the federal government decision in order
to respond," Yeagle said. "We have collected information on conflict
of interest, and the committee is thinking about these issues, so the
groundwork is there, but at this time it wouldn't be fair to have the
committee write anything about conflict of interest cases."