"The bigger general question is that there's no great accountability about what's going on in the center and the Faculty would like to have more accountability," Paul said.

Much of the report's significance and conclusions stem from the way power and money flow at Harvard--a policy those in administration circles dub, "every tub on its own bottom." This approach gives each unit, school or organization within Harvard final financial responsibility for itself.

Because the central administration has few income sources of its own, the fees it assesses each of the faculties to cover the core activities it undertakes lead to a tension between the power of the center, sitting atop the University hierarchy, and the perception that it cannot fund itself.

What this report underscores is that much more of center's funding comes from returns on investing the GOA than from these assesments.

Both sources of income lead the Faculty to view their assets as the prime source of the center's funding and, therefore, claim a stake in how the money should be spent.

The report also gives a glimpse into the complex finances of the central administration.

Generally, the center's activities are divided into two categories: services to which the faculties can subscribe, such as the Faculty Club and Harvard Dining Services, and core administration--necessary activities for the day-to-day operation of the institution--which are funded by general assessments on the Faculties.

The core administration budget totaled $83 million in fiscal '96 and came from four major sources: $23.3 million from the University Assessment, which requires each faculty to pay an annual fee of 6.75 percent of its salaries to the center; $9 million from the University's share of research overhead from the federal government; $11.7 million from miscellaneous fees and expenses, and $39 million from interest on the GOA.

The report stems from an 18-month investigation by the Resources Committee. The committee was founded in 1995 following nearly a year of concern over the University's handling of a crisis in the funding of health and retirement benefits.

The committee is charged with identifying and discussing issues, projects, proposals and trends that may affect the allocation of significant resources within the FAS or between the central administration and the FAS