We would like to thank Provost Staton for her thoughtful consideration of the procedure approved by the Faculty Senate. We appreciate her inviting us to assist in providing a mechanism for careful deliberation and decision making in difficult circumstances. We especially applaud her decision to modify the Procedure that was originally sent from the Provost's office to the Business School to include an opportunity for the faculty to express its support for or opposition to the reorganization of the business school. The relative strength of that support or opposition is important information for all concerned.

While the Provost's Procedure has many of the aspects of the Senate's Procedure that was forwarded to her, there are several issues that are not clearly resolved. For example, in her e-mail message to members of the Senate of the Faculty, Provost Staton stated that she "is prepared to follow, with some modifications recommended by the School of Business faculty, the proposed recommendations of the Faculty Senate." Does this mean that, except for specific changes, the Senate Procedure will be followed? We urge that the procedure used to solicit information and votes from the Business School faculty be more fully spelled out. We suggest that:

1. the revised proposal submitted to the Business School faculty contain the information required in the Senate Procedure;
2. a specific amount of time for the review of the revised proposal be clearly stated and that the review include a full faculty meeting of the School of Business Administration;
3. the voting procedures be fully set forth, mcluding how abstentions will be counted, whether the whole Business School will vote as a unit, the ramifications of a positive or negative vote, who will collect and tabulate the votes, and how the results of those votes will be conveyed to the affected parties. We urge that the Provost use the Senate Proposal voting procedure. That procedure has the advantage of being complete and conducted by a body that is not affected by the outcome of the vote, has no role in the planning or implementation of the proposed reorganization, and has no position on the merits of any proposal.

Given the contentiousness of the issue and the Provost's concern for "minimiz[ing] the potential
for any adverse personal consequences for individual faculty members or the perception of such, "
it is vital to the integrity of the procedure that all persons involved clearly understand the
procedures and perceive them to be fair and even-handed. By this resolution, the Senate of the
Faculty makes known its support of this statement and offers a mechanism towards achieving
these goals.