Johnson and Epstein currently hold those positions.

At a meeting of the PBHA Association Committee last month PBHA and HAND leaders charged that University administrators with interfering with their planning for next year by refusing to establish a timeline for the appointment of a new dean.

"The Executive Director of PBHA signs off on about $100,000 of grants and funding proposals," King said at that meeting. "If Greg is let go in the middle of his contract [which ends this June], there's ambiguity about whether he'll feel comfortable signing off on those grants."

At that meeting, Nancy L. Maull, administrative dean for the faculty of arts and sciences, said that if Knowles decides to conduct a search for the new assistant dean, the University would be careful not to interfere with PBHA programming until at least next September.

Yesterday's letter to the faculty recommends the faculty allow Johnson and Epstein remain in their current positions, maintain current public service staff deployment, and appoint a faculty standing committee on public service to oversee public service funding.

Despite the students' attempt to notify the faculty of their deadline, no faculty members spoke about the report or public service at yesterday's meeting.

Faculty members responded with silence to Knowles' request for their comment on the report and the search for a new Dean of the College.

King and PBHA Secretary Harvetta E. Nero '96 said last night they were frustrated by the faculty's apparent lack of interest.

"It's terribly unfortunate that it didn't come up for discussion," King said. "It certainly doesn't say much for the type of participation that we can expect from the faculty standing committee."

Nero said she is concerned that the lack of debate on the report indicates an apathy toward public service.

"Today's meeting gives very little credence to [administrators'] claim that they're concerned about student issues," Nero said.

Both King and Nero said programming could be effected even if the faculty do debate public service at their next faculty meeting on December 13.

"They're cutting it awfully close," Nero said.

And McNeill said she was not surprised by the faculty's silence.

"I think this is one of the difficulties about their idea of having a standing committee with more faculty involved," McNeill said. "They assume that more faculty will get involved. Clearly this is not a priority for the faculty."