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.
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