Senior administrators attempted to end confusion about proposed changes to be made in the University's budget over the next seven years during a special faculty meeting on Dec. 16 in Sherman Function Hall.While many faculty members in the meeting persistently referred to the changes as "cuts," University President Jehuda Reinharz and other administrators stressed that the Brandeis community should view the proposals as "shifts in resources."

Executive Vice President and Chief Operating Officer Peter French said during the meeting that over the next seven years, the university hopes to add academic programs, improve campus facilities and raise salaries for faculty and staff to competitive levels. He later referred to these goals as part of a "wish list" for Brandeis.

In the meeting, French said that if current budgetary expenditures remain constant through 2012, the university's revenue will exceed its expenditures by $15 million. The additional annual cost of items on the "wish list" will add up to $40 million that same year.

All of the proposals together are part of what the administration is calling the Integrated Plan. According to the president's Web site, "Integrated planning is an ongoing activity designed to bring together diverse perspectives and articulate the challenges and potential choices that will determine University direction for the years to come."

Reinharz said that unlike past efforts to increase the budget, he now does not think it is in the University's best interest to raise the difference or take out a loan, options that would allow the school to reach all or most of its goals while making fewer changes to current program funding.

"I have to squeeze $40 million into $15 million," he said.

Other administrators that made presentations at the meeting, including Provost Marty Krauss and Vice President for Students and Enrollment Jean Eddy, emphasized that in order to accomplish much of the $40 million worth of goals, resources would have to be shifted from current programs, both in the academy and in administrative expenses to fund items on the "wish list."

The shifts in funding in the School of Arts and Sciences would amount to $2.5 million, or 10 percent, of the $25 million needed to fund the goals on the "wish list."

After administrators made their presentations, faculty members responded.

Prof. Eric Chaslow (MUS) said that while he understands that the University must make choices about its future, it should be harder to end old, established academic programs.

Chaslow said that his particular area of expertise, music composition, was risking termination under Dean of Arts and Sciences Adam Jaffe's plan. He said his program costs the University $100,000 a year.

"Why trade a whole program for incremental improvements in other programs?" Chaslow said.

Chaslow also said that he did not understand why there was such a strong push to bring the theater program back to its once "world-class" status while another great program like music composition is on the chopping block.

Prof. Bob Meyer (PHYS) said that he was glad to read in Jaffe's latest document that none of the core values stated by Jaffe included any kind of pre-professional program. Meyer said he liked that these programs were only listed later in the document, signifying their secondary importance to the arts and sciences.

"What I don't like to see are these [pre-professional programs] being incrementally pushed into pieces of programs in a half-way measure that is ending up threatening our core activities," Meyer said.

According to the administration's presentation, $1 million out of the $40 million in goals is designated for a graduate education initiative, which would aim to better prepare graduate students for teaching.

Union Director of Academic Affairs Alan Tannenwald '05 was present at the meeting and said that while it is important to train graduate students, it is not in the undergraduate population's interest to see more graduate students teaching them in the classroom.

In response, Jaffe said, "I have not proposed replacing any faculty with graduate students."

In an effort to gain a better understanding of faculty opinion, Krauss created the Faculty Review Committee. Members were recommended by the faculty senate and approved by Krauss. [See related story on page 5].

When asked about the manner in which the committee would affect final decisions, Krauss said that while the entire faculty will have the opportunity to view and comment on the committee's report, the faculty handbook states that the provost and board of trustees are invested with making final decisions.