“We do need your ideas. We do need your participation. We do need the recommendations that will come out of the working groups,” Smith said at an open forum in September.

Though some groups progressed faster than others—the Social Sciences division worked particularly quickly, according to members interviewed last spring—all of the groups had submitted their list of budget-saving recommendations by the end of the semester, more than two months after the original Halloween deadline.

At the February Faculty meeting, Smith presented his preliminary extractions from the working groups’ findings, referencing a carefully prepared Power Point presentation. But the specifics of the groups’ recommendations remained elusive. Smith said only that they had been divided into three “buckets”—ranging from items that were most feasible, for which he would launch “targeted implementation groups,” items that “would be discussed further,” and items that would be tabled indefinitely.

Also at the meeting, Smith announced that the FAS deficit had fallen to $80 million—a drop of an additional $30 million from the planned upon $110 million.

“It’s really clear that the ideas within the FAS are what are fueling us here,” Smith said at the meeting, adding that the “strategy” for budgeting had not changed despite the optimistic budget figures.

‘IN THE HANDS OF THE DEAN’

Following the February Faculty meeting, the dean’s office posted a select set of recommendations that arose out of the budget streamlining process on the newly created FAS Planning Web site. The site noted that FAS had entered an extended “third phase” in its response, following immediate cost-cutting measures and administrative restructuring.

But the FAS Web site, the locus of the bulk of Smith’s communications about the working groups’ activity, still includes outdated information. Some groups list incorrect members, and some list members who, in interviews with The Crimson, were entirely unaware of their membership. The site also identifies a SEAS working group that was ultimately folded into a standing Steering Committee led by the Dean of the school.

Since the February meeting, new working group proposals have not been posted and the subject of the groups was not breached at the subsequent Faculty meeting, painting a dubious picture of their staying power in the long-term. According to FAS spokesperson Jeff Neal, the planning Web site will be updated in the next few weeks.

Neal emphasized that the third phase will be a long-term process—a process for which, some professors said, Smith’s centralized oversight is now the key factor.

Government Professor Daniel P. Carpenter, who served on the priority working group for the Social Sciences, called it “one of the most productive administrative exercises I’ve ever been involved in.” He said that the shift from group recommendations to dean-level decisions appeared consistent with the spirit of the process.

Carpenter said that the goal of the working groups was never to legislate or mandate, but rather to offer guidelines—or even boundaries—around the dean’s approach. The dean has final word, Carpenter said, but the working group gave divisional members the opportunity to voice their concerns and delineate specific areas that should not be cut. “It’s not absolute agenda setting,” he said. “But partial agenda shaping.”

Said Sampson, “It’s in the hands of the dean.”

—Staff writer Noah S. Rayman can be reached at nrayman@fas.harvard.edu.

—Staff writer Elyssa A.L. Spitzer can be reached at spitzer@fas.harvard.edu.