November 10, 1994: Vol26n10: Mission statement, safety among FSEC topics

By STEVE COX
Reporter Staff
President Greiner and the Faculty Senate Executive Committee
concluded, at the Nov. 2 meeting, that the best policy regarding a
university mission statement might be to simply continue with no
policy. 		Greiner told the FSEC that, although he had
submitted a draft statement to them for comment, he did not foresee it
becoming a divisive issue. "I suspect you are going to burn a lot of
calories trying to come to closure on this, and that's really not
necessary," he said. "There is no institutional imperative that you
take a position on this. If you want to simply 'receive and file' it,
that's fine with me."
	The FSEC and the full Faculty Senate had struggled with
language of the mission statement in several meetings during the past
month. The Middle States Association, as part of their reaccreditation
process last year, mandated drafting of a mission statement for UB,
which has been without one since the 1970s. Greiner drew the current
proposal largely from a speech he gave to the Voting Faculty last
year, but said he sympathized with the FSEC's frustration over it.
	"A mission statement should be succinct and focused, and I
think that works at the unit level," said Greiner. "But, at the
institutional level, that's virtually impossible. We are too rich and
complex a university for that."
	Greiner reported that he had invited and received written
comments, which he had taken into account in redrafting the statement.
He repeated his invitation to Faculty Senate members to submit their
comments to him directly. Nevertheless, several FSEC members took the
opportunity to raise their concerns with Greiner directly.
	Feeling that the statement contained too many goals, John Boot
of Management said that "People can comfortably count to three, not to
15." He urged Greiner to cut back the number of issues raised by the
document, focusing instead on UB's commitment to "serve the citizens
of New York State."
	Judith Adams of Lockwood Library, told Greiner that "This
statement says more by what is left out." The omission of a reference
to the arts and sciences troubled Adams the most, she said, claiming
it adversely impacts morale of arts and sciences faculty and opens the
door to external forces that could use the omission in threatening
arts and sciences funding.
	In other business, FSEC members quizzed facilities personnel
on problems with classroom space, traffic flow and safety. Voldemar
Innus, senior associate vice president for university services, and
Ronald Nayler, associate vice president for university facilities,
fielded complaints of inadequate class space and unsafe lighting on
the South Campus.
	Classroom assignments, Nayler said, have entered the computer
age with the coming online of "Schedule 25." All classroom space
requests are factored into the new program, he said, with the goal of
matching class size and space as closely as possible. Claude Welch of
Political Science chided that it may not be up to par yet, noting that
a class of fewer than 50 students that he is to teach next semester,
is scheduled for a lecture hall seating 450. Mehrdad Hadighi of
Architecture and Planning agreed, noting that he is scheduled to teach
one class in two places at the same time next semester.
	Bernice Noble of Microbiology complained that she could find
no room on the South Campus large enough to hold 80 students and that
she and many of her colleagues see their productivity drained because
of unsafe lighting conditions that prevent working after dark. "A few
years ago, as part of a conservation move, every other light was
removed," said Noble, whose office is in Cary Hall. "Since then, other
lights have burned out. It leaves many of us afraid to walk through
our own corridors." 
	Nayler said that he would be happy to inspect the corridors to
which Noble referred to ascertain whether light levels there meet
"nationally accepted standards."
	Samuel Schack of Mathematics replied, "If you are telling us
that, if the light levels meet some arbitrary standard, you won't do
anything, then that is a completely unacceptable answer. When a
professor has told you she does not feel safe going to her place of
work, we have a serious problem."