The Union senate recently passed and presented a resolution to the Board of Trustees that criticized the possibility of custodial layoffs and suggested cutting the wages of upper level employees to save the jobs of lower-paid ones. The resolution was passed by a majority of the senate, although not unanimously, or without first consulting the administrators for more detailed information. Later, it turned out that the allegations in the resolution were unsubstantiated and false. Some administrators were allegedly very upset with the resolution.

Although Brandeis reduced its contract with Hurley of America, a contract company that employs 20 custodians on campus, no Brandeis custodian has been fired since the mid-1990s. Instead, five custodians have been reassigned to other Hurley of America contracts.

Union President Ben Brandzel '03, who along with Union Special Projects Coordinator Lauree Hayden '03 proposed and was the main advocate for the resolution, said the resolution passed without sufficient information, and said he thought it would be part of a more detailed presentation. "We were wrong about that though and it put the (Student Representatives to the Board of Trustees) in an awkward position," Brandzel said.

At last week's senate meeting, the senate submitted an apology for their abrupt actions. It was also discovered that Hayden received an advanced copy of an e-mail that Executive Vice President Peter French sent to the entire community explaining the movement of custodians. Hayden said she didn't realize that it pertained to the custodian issue.

Referring to the Board of Trustees, part of the resolution said, "(Senate) also recognize that you are privy to facts which we are not, and have experiences in this regard which we lack. Our intention here is to join with our representatives to the Board of Trustees in expressing some key principles which we ask that you take into account in making your difficult decisions."

Student Representatives Jonathan Sclarsic '03 and Ebone Bishop '04 presented the resolution to the Board of Trustees. "We had not figured out where the (cuts) were going to be," Sclarsic said. "Part of it was us wanting to make sure that while the administration and trustees are doing this, they keep principles in mind."

According to Brandzel, custodians expressed apprehension about losing their jobs because of the University's current financial situation. Brandzel said this reaffirmed the senate's desire to form the resolution. But due to recent information, Brandzel said he believes the administration is handling the budget in a fair and equitable manner. "The take-home message from this in terms of our position is we stand united on the principle," he said. "And speaking on behalf of the senate and Executive Board now, any accusatory tone that was reflected in the resolution (we) would like to replace with a note of congratulations to the Board of Trustees and senior level administration for pushing values. We encourage them to continue in that direction in the future."

Off-Campus Senator David Pearlman '06 refused to sign the resolution, saying, "I believed that taking such prompt action on the alleged firings of custodians, without the presence of corroborating evidence to demonstrate that these individuals had in fact been completely relieved of their duties was premature."

Pearlman said he agreed Brandeis should not fire custodians because of economic problems. But he said it was inappropriate to advocate salary reductions. "There was simply no need to advocate for the reduction of high-salaried employees when there exist more impersonal options for raising the necessary funds," he said. "Rather than devaluing and belittling the efforts and vast accomplishments of Brandeis' top employees, I preferred a measure in which no one individual would suffer."

Pearlman proposes that cuts be made to specific budgets instead of to specific salaries. He said this would make it less likely for a top employee to leave Brandeis for an institution that offers higher pay.

Responding to how the resolution affects the image of the senate, Pearlman said, "I questioned the efficiency of an ill-informed senate resolution that expresses a clear lack of appreciation for the fine work rendered by our institution's upper level employees. I felt that the tone of the paragraph which explicitly called for targeted salary cuts was somewhat antagonistic and thus counterproductive to the purported goal."

"Instead of opening the lines of communication between the student body and the University administration, I feared that we were closing them down by supporting a stance, which while hopefully motivated by admirable intentions, was far from ideal," he said.

East Quad Senator Andrei Khots '05 also refused to sign the resolution. Khots said that salary cuts to top employees would cause a negative impact on their dedication and input to the University. "A common habit in our American society is that when an employee receives a salary cut, this implies a poor performance of the employee's functions," he said. "However, the high level of involvement and personal dedication that (University) President Reinharz and other employees have demonstrated to Brandeis University indicate just the opposite."

In a campus-wide e-mail, Executive Vice-President Peter French said, "In recent days there have been many rumors and inaccurate statements surrounding the University's cost reduction initiatives and their impact on custodial staff. I am writing to set the record straight."

According to French, since cost-saving initiatives began in fall 2001, 47 staff members have been eliminated the University payroll. Ten were academic staff and 37 were non-academic staff. He said several of those non-academic cuts have been at the senior management level, and that the majority of cuts have been to positions with salaries of at least $50,000 a year.

French refused to comment about the senate's resolution.