The hubbub began last fall, when faculty members complained they were inadequately consulted by the University's task force on benefits. It continued in February, when Coolidge Professor of History David S. Landes unexpectedly said communication is poor and relations are strained between the Faculty of Arts and Sciences (FAS) and the central administration.

Dean of the Faculty Jeremy R. Knowles added fuel to the fire with his March budget letter, which urged more Faculty involvement in areas of institutional policy and administration. And the contentious issue of faculty relations with the central administration is still simmering, as shown by a Faculty Council discussion on this topic two weeks ago, spearheaded by Landes and two other professors.

Obviously, it is time for the central administration to wrestle with FAS members' complaints of little interaction, communication and involvement. There are no easy answers, however, to this long-term problem.

Indeed, members of the Faculty Council said after their last meeting that the topic is interesting and important and the goals and objectives are clear, but that there is no general agreement on how to reach those goals.

And, according to seasoned faculty members, these problems have been brewing for the past decade or two, as the size of the central administration has expanded dramatically reflecting its increased role in University affairs.

To make sure that these gaps in communication do not persist for 10 or 20 years more, we propose two improvements, linked to Landes' statement, faculty outrage about benefits changes and Knowles' budget letter: more openness by the central administration about records and more regular faculty involvement and input in central administration decision-making.

At the February faculty meeting, Landes brought up two projects, the Inn at Harvard and the Medical Area Total Energy Plant, as examples of University-sponsored projects for which the faculty was not sufficiently consulted.

Although those two examples occurred years ago and are thus slightly out-of-date, the central administration would be well-advised to ask Knowles and a few involved faculty members about such enterprises before they become reality. Then the faculty will have a chance to air their views through chosen representatives; if the faculty members have complaints about the intended projects, they can discuss their concerns before the buildings become realities.

The problem with the two ventures stretched beyond a lack of consultation, however. At the time, the central administration had no standard accounting procedures or budget. It now has the central administration budget committee, chaired by Provost Albert Carnesale, which is an improvement.

Even so, the central administration does not release enough records to the faculty or, for that matter, the community at large. All parts of its operating budget should be available to anyone who wishes to see them. Such openness will enable better-informed conversations between faculty members and central administrators. Those may be conversations that administrators do not want to have; all the better, then, that they will be forced to explain the reasoning behind their actions.

Just as serious as finances is the issue of faculty involvement in central administration decisions. The most notable recent degradation of the faculty-administration relationship came with the task force on benefits; although its members decided upon changes in benefits for the University's nine faculties, not one FAS member was on the committee. That was an egregious mistake, and many people, including Knowles and President Neil L. Rudenstine, acknowledged that. To right the error, the FAS voted into being a standing committee on benefits, which has thus far made clear the task force's mistakes.

Benefits, however, was an example of reactive instead of pro-active action. In order for the faculty to feel they are valid participants in administrative decisions, they must involve themselves before the fact by asking questions, looking over documents, talking to the dean and being a strong force in faculty-administration committees.

Although faculty members turn to Knowles for guidance in these matters, he may not be the best man for the job. Knowles is caught between a rock and a hard place--he must simultaneously keep costs down and respond to his faculty's needs.

In his most recent budget letter, Knowles himself issued a call for greater faculty involvement in FAS administration. The problem with asking for more faculty involvement, however, is that many faculty do not want to serve on another committee. They have chosen to be faculty members and not administrators for good reasons, because they want to do research and not attend meetings all day. Paradoxically, the university suffers when faculty input is not there, but faculty members do not want to take time away from their studies to provide that input.

There is a happy medium, as many involved faculty members have found: involve yourselves in the issues that are important to you, and leave the rest to others. But all faculty members must make sure to involve themselves in something.

The relationship that once existed between the FAS and the central administration has eroded over the past decades, as the administration has burgeoned and many members of the FAS have retreated into their studies. But the faculty and administration cannot ignore this disintegration, or the confrontations will increase as the solutions become less and less apparent. We commend the Faculty Council for its discussion of this issue and hope it makes some strong moves as soon as possible.