Nancy Sinkoff (Jewish Studies and History), New York City It is critical that the departments retain their administrative independence. The "plan" thus far outlined is murky and Central needs to explain clearly what it has in mind to the faculty.

This plan sounds like the opposite of efficiency. A certain amount of institutional knowledge and continuity obtains in the department admin's position, the loss or dilution of which will have ripple-effect consequences for how effective faculty and staff can be in every area of their jobs.

In Comparative Literature, we witnessed the demoralization of faculty department officers who could no longer count on working with loyal staff, and staff "silo-ed" into a dean-run chain of command that was confusing, inefficient, and made everyone angry. Why is SAS declaring war on its departments? The student "experience," which SAS is always trying to improve, depends on strong coherent departments where faculty and staff pull together. A staff realignment will fracture and cripple us and be terrible for students.

Our staff is already cut to the bone, and we have worked steadily for years to make sure that the assignments and divisions of labor make sense. I would be seriously opposed to being forced to participate in centrally shared staffing. Please do not implement this! "Silos" are often condemned in management-speak these days, but I implore you to think about when divisions of labor make good sense. Furthermore, when a staff person is part of a department culture, her or his work is going to be more dedicated and more productive. Breaking these ties would harm the work ethic and working culture of SAS.

Before moving forward with any realignment it is essential that Departments and programs where staff was consolidated have a chance to provide feed-back. Ample documentation on the failed RAB/AB building reorganization is available.

The use of Cornerstone and increased reporting requirements already have made administrative staff increasingly unavailable to department chairs, faculty, and students; have diverted essential resources from scholarship, teaching, and service as faculty are forced to perform these administrative services themselves; and have substantially worsened departmental morale. Executive Dean Peter March should convene a full SAS faculty meeting in September or October so that informed discussion can determine whether administrative reorganization is wise at this time and, if it is, can shape whatever plan of administrative reorganization does take place.

By shifting accountability the department is no longer able to manage the means that allow it to exist. It would be akin to having world-class concert musicians work with rented instruments. No matter how good the musicians are, if they have no control over that which gives their performance shape, there is no guarantee of how the work will sound. Departments must have direct authority to operate their administrative staff because those professionals alone understand the necessities and exigences of their fields, students and what type of administrative support is required to provide for effective and adequate study. If the University trusts their Professors to recommend mastery of fields, I find it anarchic and patronizing to presume their Professors can not understand how to administer education in those fields.

The proposed alignment will potentially disrupt departmental operations.