“I can’t provide details on this matter right now since it remains an open topic of discussion among relevant faculty and administrators,” Hyman wrote in an e-mail.

Planning for these science initiatives is occurring mainly behind closed doors, and whatever faculty involvement there has been has been largely for show, several professors said.

One professor who sat on a committee that was studying possible initiatives last year said he knew about the proposal going before the Corporation this week, and was not surprised. The committee was not taken seriously by top administrators, especially Summers, he said.

“He’s more inclined to make decisions with perhaps less of the consultations and less building consensus, certainly than [former] President Rudenstine,” the professor said. “I think communications have been far from ideal.”

One FAS professor who has served on several committees agreed Summers has been reluctant to rely on faculty committees, a fact that has slowed progress on the life sciences initiatives.

“Summers seems to have less interest in using faculty committees than has been the practice in FAS,” the professor said. “He uses them mainly to get legitimacy, rather than input. But you can’t go very far in planning for the future of the sciences without involving faculty in a serious way.”

The jury is still out with regard to planning for Allston, another process taking longer than initially projected. One planner had suggested the University would have some direction by August, but officials have since said that date is not realistic.

Meanwhile planning proceeds in a number of venues, including a University-wide faculty planning committee. The committee has been receiving the reports of a pair of consultants studying issues related to the land in Allston, and the committee does remain a central body for faculty input. But planners say it is unclear whether the committee will continue its work next year, and in what form.

A number of the University’s schools have created their own planning processes and faculty committees to study the issues at their particular schools. These committees report to the schools’ deans, not Summers, underlining that despite efforts to centralize planning for the future campus, the various faculties will have to play a role.

Two years ago the Law School faculty nearly unanimously voted to reject the idea of a move, and it’s unclear whether Summers has worn down their opposition.

The test will come after Summers makes the internal decision of who will move, and then has to go out to sell the plan.

Leader of the Pack?

Though Summers has yet to realize many of the broader initiatives he has set forth, professors across the University disagree on whether they think he possesses the skills necessary to build consensus.

When Summers began involving himself in schools’ affairs last year, he was seen as aggressive, outspoken and relentless—and some say this earned him the respect of faculty.

Conant Professor of Education and GSE Academic Dean Judith D. Singer said that Summers’ propensity to take a stand may yield both friends and enemies.