He concluded that the task force's "final recommendations are badly flawed."

Because the proposal for the benefits standing committee preempted his motion, Paul did not move that the Faculty recommend to the Corporation to rescind the one percent pension cut or that Knowles appoint a committee to study the faculty retirement and medical benefit plans.

McKay Professor of Applied Mathematics Anthony G. Oettinger, scheduled to make two motions at the meeting, also declined to do so in light of the proposal for the benefits standing committee.

He did, however, suggest that the committee should carefully consider what, assumptions the task force made in arriving at its conclusions.

Rudenstine assured the Faculty yesterday that "The standing committee...will take your concerns seriously."

Loeb Associate Professor of the Social Sciences Mary C. Waters said that the report's assumptions were inaccurate.

"The report implied that Harvard was more generous than other institutions across the board" in regard to benefits, Waters said. "It assumes that junior faculty will reap the benefits of faculty members over 40 when they get to be over 40. But most junior faculty, as we know, do not spend their senior years at Harvard."

Gaylord said that young, non-tenured faculty members are getting short shrift from the plan.

"I would rather we would take the cut as over-40 faculty members and work to eliminate the discrepancy between young and old," Gaylord said.

She also raised the problem of discrepancies in staff and faculty benefits.

"I submit that if Princeton and Cornell, with far smaller endowments, can provide the same benefits for faculty and staff, then Harvard can do that too," Gaylord said.

Since Harvard staff members are disproportionately women, she added, giving lower benefits to staff members means making life more difficult for female staff members.

"I'm embarrassed that Harvard would thus want to contribute to the feminization of poverty in retirement," Gaylord said.

Structure Report

Although the Report on the Structure of Harvard College was held from last month's meeting and was the first item on yesterday's docket, it generated little discussion.

Undergraduate Council President David L. Hanselman '94-'95 expressed the council's support for keeping the current Dean of the College and Dean for Undergraduate Education positions rather than collapse them into one.

"The big issue for the student is accessibility," Hanselman said. "If the Faculty selects the two-dean model, students will continue to have more direct access and better quality access to the Dean of Harvard College. If the Administration goes with the single dean model, the Dean of the College will be insulated from the students by an additional level of administrative bureaucracy."

Dean of the Faculty Jeremy R. Knowles said last week that he wanted to wait to make a decision on the structure of the Dean of the College until-after he heard faculty input at yesterday's meeting