Appendix — NLRB v. Yeshiva Univ.
Supreme Court brief1980
Ask Donna
What actually matters in this document.
Text
a a
“Supreme Court, Us .
FILED
APPENDIX || uN 5 79 {I
Volume II, pp. 391-772
~%ite
CLERK
7
—_
In the Supreme Court of the United States
OCTOBER TERM, 1978
Nos. 78-857 and 78-997
NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
and
YESHIVA UNIVERSITY FACULTY ASSOCIATION,
Petitioners,
—v.—
YESHIVA UNIVERSITY,
Respondent.
ON WRIT OF CERTIORARI TO THE UNITED STATES
COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SECOND CIRCUIT
PETITION FOR CERTIORARI IN NO. 78-857
FILED NOVEMBER 27, 1978
PETITION FOR CERTIORARI IN NO. 78-997
FILED DECEMBER 19, 1978
CERTIORARI GRANTED FEBRUARY 21, 1979
ee
I ee ee
Iu the Supreme Court of the United States
OCTOBER TERM, 1978
Nos. 78-857 and 78-997
NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
and
YESHIVA UNIVERSITY FACULTY ASSOCIATION,
a Se Petitioners,
YESHIVA UNIVERSITY,
Respondent.
ON WRIT OF CERTIORARI TO THE UNITED STATES
COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SECOND CIRCUIT
INDEX
Page
Chronological List of Relevant Docket Entries ...................... 1
oo Me |, Ea EReees Rene ne RN awn 3
Excerpts from Transcript of Proceedings |.................0...00000000.... 5
Witnesses :
Joshua A. Fishman “
SRO FE APNEA SES We OA ve Ae AP ERT SEY eT 6
BLA SIERO He: HON EE. ene Ee ee RR eRe 8&3
SE eae Pee ELF, OCR OCONEE BODES PR ee 116
Sheldon Socol
ESR RE PN DRC RL I 116
dh A Pe PII SSW Pee aS oul TO ESR OS SaICR 145
RE SE, ERLE SM 5S) ALTACE Be 152
Martin Miller
eas AI ca FE A oY ROO OEE MN BAH any SoS 155
David Mirsky
RUNES hs thailg inh tcc hack da Seale chihinks hvedede nesnedbaabadaenowiddnessinlasaubtin 180
ETERS aN cae SORES, Ui ASEH ee Mist Oe SPIRE OANA 223
ITI schcisicihcecunssminetcenltaiesdelactabcdpsnidtsacmonsescindibassanentabenealsigiios 240
ii INDEX
Page
Excerpts from Transcript of Proceedings—Continued
Dr. Isaac Bacon
Ap RR tase aay RRP AT Yr er one Bar ou ea OES OM BO 243
MUI, anshih Naat eachoccs cae: casleagisedhds tadieen Sein tlcceabieallicherionahsdinaheorent 285
BARR TRS Set Pig SoA ecard ED Ra aces ML BIOIO 391
(EO aEL ERLE RAL ADL EOE RCT 304, 392
Jacob Rabinowitz
EEE RSS LSE ae RAs tl AA? BS ER AL SO a 304
NSE RENOIR SEE EGR i Necse ANT DOL rar Ie cpl Ta 341
PIII rales riecssnissthsn inccadasiaiehcedibatnasdNMNatccenentaniomcamnesesvaaledted 351
IER EERO D EON PM OROROOON > TORT oP yO te EE 352
Rabbi Morris J. Besdin
GE a Na SRP eats Rais Ml Ce RM BIER REE Pace 352
RESIS E SAAS RSs ile BURP eet Be ARE SS 366
ALL Aa RTS Oo MONS AECE OER TAT 371
Rabbi Baruch Faivelson
ROR EAE nn Per aD OP AS IO AILS. 5 rr 372
a a ee ek ee 388
Rabbi Herbert C. Dobrinsky
REL cate LENE LD aa CO RE ODEN PE 443
Dean Arthur Komar
EERIE RSS) Res ORAS oh GOO eos RTE OM Re? © 393, 453
ae 469
RU rnceteel Sati iether te 489
a a a oe a ee 494
Solomon H. Green
Ea sed IRIS LEP IO tI W Pe ns ey AOE We Ml te 495
Leo Landman
EN ES CERT COP i Ste eee PRS Seen eT 540
ERE ene Ra BTN AC POLE ot oe) OE 553
EEDA eevee LIOR a 559
ba PRC ER a Pr, OL ee PART 559, 580
ET ARIES OEE EAL ee EN AT f 591
Zevulum Charlop
aed OA Np rade O Pe, BM San FOP LSet tae 562
RII Sceiceutishectalceiaivisshtntntehiak tcepastarntiiabomeninstSdéchalinscsd.sodsb kati. 575
INDEX iii
P
Excerpts from Transcript of Proceedings—Continued us
Joseph Gittler
BNI siclnci Ioivaciadtitesiccetnsnecceertaanea oiecsnsdecuubia enseaiema ciaeiuendein aie: 595
MEINE 0. sccieed shineciccedigh odeRtodand tacecenelishiasansaaoniocaswainabeaeaaiaas tents 661
IE aiid. since tncbindctcuddsnckencesaticudcbasbiachinttehsbleaiamiemaseuiael 678
Rear ea Os Sikes eI Pe OR PERAER Fee Ie YS 679
Manfred Weidhorn
a cicich inl ss ccs 0 na cettteeccoeaesnapesbedaasindllaetamapammecee 679
ER EREL SON LPN OAL OM LORE AY be PAREN IA YS Pere 697
MIEN oes K.osnscukacirshenntosamrip tists Rosoesalartecaeds ecinleneiioaem 715
Ralph Behrends
BINNIE 6 cat. encokscdn tc cceud dp actceatichecadsdtiehadidboetiplabtaswbabeciacaocbatidinash 716
| RE SP es nei Sos No Mary AEB ee, CN Grae POCO Ars. Pa 743
II iin co csunis Siiskeccaaaditaniacabagcgpetiliceasidadsctiabbipediantod: 751
III. iasvieh snsicrniscnniiecpenicibhiesaliatendetadicaeslaeecbentnies Liiutodininndaat 761
Max Lipsicas
| WAR TIDE car est RoR art ESS Tense Sateen as SAL 752
Eee Le \ seis pocuhses ai abaaieteiaepilbmaanaeeinateat tea 767
Exhibit Volumes III and IV indexed separately.
391
[3078] ISAAC BACON,
being previously sworn, resumed the stand and testified
further, as follows:
REDIRECT EXAMINATION
[3094] A On reconsideration I kust say that I am not
very sure and I prefer to check on that. But by defini-
tion, my definition, the appointment of an assistant pro-
fessor by our own definition, assistant professor means
automatically full-time because if it were-—if it were part-
time they would not need a visiting assistant professor
or visiting professor. And letters—letters that are not
for full-time appointments are not written by the presi-
dent.
MR. SCHECTMAN: Letters of full-time—
THE WITNESS: Letters for not full-time appoint-
ment are not written by the president.
Who are they written by, Dean Bacon, in your
[3095] A For part-time people are written by me.
And signed by me.
Q Now, I’d like to turn now for a moment to the
senior member in the speech department.
Who is that?
A Dr. Tauber, Abraham Tauber.
Q You recall, dean Bacon, when you were here last
you were asked by Mr. Shectman whether any of the
senior members had any reduction in their teaching loads
attributable to their being senior members.
As I recall the record you said no, except that one
was in a gray area. Which one is in the gray area?
A The gray area I referred to was Abraham Tauber.
Q_ All right.
Now would you tell us whether Abraham Tauber has
a reduction in teach loads?
A The reason why I indicate—
Q Does he have a reduction in teaching load?
[3096] A I would have to say yes.
392
Q All right.
How much is that reduction?
A Two hours.
Q All right.
Now, is this the reduction in teaching load that you
described as being within the gray area?
A Yes, I did.
Q Would you tell us why that is a gray area, Dean
Bacon, because the record is not clear on this subject?
A Because sometimes he teaches more than the re-
quired 12 hours which means he would be getting addi-
tional money for it and at that time when I was asked
it was not very clear in my mind how to define it.
But I think on thinking about it I would have to
say that is a reduction of two hours because if it
would be teaching 14 hours, let us say, I would pay him
compensation for four hours, which means two above—
four above the ten and two about the 12 which is con-
sidered a full-time appointment.
Q In any event, it is a fact, that he does receive—
A He does.
Q —an hour’s reduction or compensation in lieu
thereof on account of his functioning as the senior mem-
ber of that department?
[3097] A That’s correct.
Q That is a fact?
A That’s correct.
Q That was not in the record previously, was it?
A Well, not that clearly, yes.
Q To the extent the record does not reflect that from
your prior testimony it should be corrected to so re-
flect ; is that right?
A Yes.
RECROSS EXAMINATION
[3099] Q (By Mr. Shectman) How many hours is
Professor Tauber—I am referring to the Tauber in the
Speech Department—currently teaching?
A From memory I would have to say 14 hours.
Q Each—He is teaching 14 hours?
A Yes. Excuse me, 12 hours.
Q He is teaching 12 hours?
[8100] A 12 hours, plus the two hours compensation.
393
Q And how much compensation is he receiving?
A The same as a professor’s rate, whatever the pro-
fessor’s rate is.
Q So he is receiving then the full-time faculty sal-
ary attributable to his seniority in his title; is that
correct?
A That’s correct.
Q On the salary scale which obtains at Yeshiva
College?
A Right.
Q He is receiving no additional salary; is that cor-
rect?
A I said an additional compensation.
Q What is that additional compensation?
A The professional rate I think is 13 dollars and
some change; I forgot what it is, per hour.
Q And what do you—And what duties is he perform-
ing for which he is—receiving additional compensation?
A As the senior member of the Speech Department.
Q I am asking now specifically what duties is he
performing for which he is receiving that compensation?
A Hs is supervising the Speech Department.
* * * *
[3107] Whereupon,
ARTHUR B. KOMAR,
being first duly sworn by the Hearing Officer, testified
as follows:
DIRECT EXAMINATION
Q (By Mr. Kramer) Dean Komar, by whom are
you employed?
A Yeshiva University.
Q Yeshiva University?
A Yes.
Q What capacity?
A Dean of the Belfer Graduate School.
Q How long have you been dean of the Belfer Grad-
uate School?
A Five or six years.
Q And prior to the becoming Dean of the Belfer
(Graduate School, did you work for Heshiva University?
A Yes, sir.
394
Q In what capacity?
A I was professor of physics.
[3108] Q You were a full professor of physics?
A Right.
Q How long were you a professor of physics?
A Well, I still am, so I have been with Yeshivz 12
years, I think.
Q And the other 7 years were as professor of physics;
is that correct?
A Right.
[8109] Q Are you presently teaching at Yeshiva
University?
A Yes.
Q Would you tell us what you teach and hof oten
you teach it? In terms of per term—
A I teach one course a semester. You want to know
which course I am teaching?
Q Yes, sir.
A This semester I am teaching thermodynamics and
statistical mechanics.
Last term?
That would be previous—
In the spring of 1974?
Spring of 1974 I taught quantum field therapy.
In the spring of 1975?
I will be teaching statistical mechanics.
Ai these courses taken by graduate students?
es.
(3110] Q (By Mr. Kramer) Dean Komar, would you
tell us the facts and circumstances surrounding your as-
suming the office of Dean of the Belfer School?
Would you put it in a time frame and then tell us
how that came about in your own words, please?
A It was in 1968, if I remember correctly. The fac-
ulty had grievances against the previous dean, and as-
sembled and petitioned the president of the university,
President Belkin, for removal of the previous dean. And
upon due consideration, it was then done immediately
in discussions, I don’t know what else went into it, the
previous dean, Dean Geldbar was removed, and then I
PO PO PO pO
395
was elected by the faculty as Acting Dean and a search
committee was organized to find a full-time dean.
The search committee was—one existed—consisted
[3111] of a number of members elected by the faculty
and a few members appointed by the president.
I think the president appointed the vice president
Kogel at that time, and he, I think he appointed one
alumni member, whose name I don’t recall at the moment.
In any case, that committee then functioned—pre-
pared a list of names of people to approach to become
dean and they went down, they made several offerings—lI
mean they—they did not make the offers. They recom-
mended to the president to make offers to several people.
Those people came down but then decided not to take
the position.
After approximately a year of this or fairly close
to a year the head—the vice president Kogel who was
the had of the search committee then recommended to
the president that I be given the position as full-time
dean.
The president approached me, asked me if I was in-
terested. I went back to the faculty and asked them if
they would approve, and they did, and I was appointed
by the president.
This was, I suggest, about six years ago or so.
[3113] Q Putting aside any limitations that I may
have previously placed upon my question and any per-
centage characterization is that you have made, would
you please just tell us what the grievances were?
A It is slowly coming back to me. The final cul-
minating act which really provoked the faculty was that
the previous dean attempted to rescind an appointment
letter of a member of the faculty claiming that there
was an error made in its issue.
I forget the exact details of the case. 1 just remember
that a member of the faculty, I think it was Professor
Snyder was—at—initially received an appointment let-
ter not stating a termination date and his understanding
was, I think it was a three-year appointment, and this
dean then sent him a revised letter informing him that
396
it was intended as a brief appointment, either two years
or [3114] something like that, and—which was contrary
to the understanding of the Chemistry Department or of
Professor Snyder when he accepted the position, and the
faculty read the—read this correction as an intentional
provication to antagonize members of the Chemistry De-
partment and get them to resign from the school.
I think that was the final issue which precipitated the
explosion.
Prior to that, there were lots of petty frictions which
I can’t even recall, but this, I think, was—
Q Was Professor Snyder what we call a new hire?
A No. He had been hired, I think—he had been
present already a year or two.
I think it was quite close to the two-year period when
he received this information that essentially he would be
out of a job.
Q Dean Komar, would you give us some examples of
the kind of thing you characterized as petty vrictions
without using names?
A Petty frictions, with regard to what?
Q Prior, Dean.
A Oh, not approving payment of certain obligations
such as professor travels on university business, I think
that was one complaint. Or various allocations of funds.
Interference in the appointments or promotions [3115]
of faculty members.
Q Interference with whom?
A I think there was trouble within the Mathematics
Department. I don’t recall the exact details. This is six
or seven years ago. But I know a number of mathe-
matics professors resigned because they objected to the
deans’ interfering in their considering for appointments
to the Mathematics Department and for promotions with-
in the Mathematics Department.
I think it would—I think two or three professors of
mathematics resigned or left at the end of that year
and went elsewhere as a result of this interference and
that was regarded as sources of friction, petty friction.
397
[3117] Would it also be fair to state that that de-
partment is in the depth of transition?
A Yes.
Q Would you explain about that, please.
A Until this past year, Yeshiva University had sev-
eral chemistry departments, depending upon how you
count them.
Let me just enumerate.
There was the Chemistry Department at Belfer Grad-
uate School, at Yeshiva College, Stern College, several
different chemistry departments at the College of [3118]
Medicine, and the State of New York, in its—has sent
investigators, I have forgot what they are officially
called, sent investigators around to evaluate the doctoral
programs in the State of New York.
And they had come last year to evaluate the chemistry
program. And they submitted a report which was ac-
cepted by the State of New York to the effect that the
doctoral program at the Belfer School should be dereg-
istered, and one of the reasons they gave is ‘ at the
program in the Belfer School is too small, it is not at
critical size, it has too few faculty members, it does not
have enough teaching duties and as such it is not a
viable program.
They strongly suggested that should the various che® -
istry departments of Yeshivan University be unified
then it would have a critical size and be a viable pro-
gram.
The University, therefore, is in the process now of
doing this. It has officially announced now that there
is a unified chemistry department for the entire uni-
versity with the exception of the college of medicine.
And that Dr. Pomerantz was chairman of the Belver
Department is now department chairman of the Chem-
istry Department of the entire university, Department
fo College and Medicine.
[3119] how much since this has just been promulgated
within this within this past semester, we are in a state
of transition. The faculty members listed on this list
are those who are in the Belfer School. There are now
other faculty members who are in the other Chemistry
398
Departments who are in the process of being incorpor
ated
into the Unified Department. 4 :
* * a *
Q (By Mr. Kramer) Dean Komar, you told us that
the state has deregistered the chemistry doctorate pro-
gram; is that correct?
A That is correcg.
Q Is that now a final decision?
A Yes.
[3120] Q Approximately how long did it take the
State Education Department to reach this decision?
A The better part of a year, I would say.
‘ P boning Byes course of that, Dr. Komar, of its de-
iberations, did the university send people to Al ir?
A Yes, sir, they did. ica cs cea
MR. SHECHTMAN: I’m going to object to this line
of questioning.
-_ & oe &
HEARING OFFICER: I ass ing i
PP nanan sotivolh ume you are going in a
MR. KRAMER: I am going into supervisor
status,
managerial status of Professor aeons sed 4 the
Chairman of the Chemistry Department, and we are not
[$121] going to get into the substance of the report as
4 Sila aeeeee at some length I agree
FICER: Okay. On that grou:
objection is overruled. . eee eee
Q (By Mr. Kramer) During the course
of the State
Education Department’s deliberations on this subject did
the university send representatives to Albany to nego-
ee nays Ph ec Education Department’s represen-
ives and try to convince them i
rereaant not to deregister the
Yes, they—I do.
Q Did you go?
A No.
Q And you are the dean of th of
A Rich? e school; is that right?
>
ee ee ee
Mee
399
Q Who went?
A Vice President Sokol, Vice President Fishman, and
Professor Pomerantz.
Q Did you discuss with Professor Pomerantz what
was going on in Albany?
A I believe I spoke to him before he left, and I spoke
to him some time after he came back. But it was some
time after because I was out of the country in the in-
tervening period.
[3122] Q Did you give Professor Pomerantz any in-
structions as to what he should say or do in Albany?
A No, no. The discussion consisted of his informing
me of what went on.
Q Was this a discussion in the regular course of your
deanly functions?
A Whatever that may be.
Q Im the regular course of business is the normal
term?
A During the business day we had a conversation,
let’s put it that way.
Q Is is normal for you to have conversations with
chairman of your departments?
A Yes.
Q About their functioning as chairmen?
A Yes.
Q Would you tell us what Dean Pomerantz reported
to you about the chair—what chairman Pomerantz re-
ported to you?
As best you recall, and in your own words, please.
A He told me that he went with the other two officials
of the university, and they brought with them—I’m not
sure whether it was a letter from President Belfin, but
at least the assurances of President Belfin—Belfin that
the [3123] university is prepared to make additional in-
vestments in the chemistry program, and the unification
of the departments, in order to overcome the state’s ob-
jections to the present status of the doctoral program.
And with these assurances they had hoped that the
state would then reconsider their position. He then re-
ported that—well, when he was therek of course, they
took it under advisement.
400
_ Subsequently a letter was received by President Bel-
kin from Commissioner Nyquist to the effect that he
would not overrule the decision at this time, at least.
Q This is the same Professor Pomerantz who is
Chairman of the university-wide Chemistry Department;
is that right? :
A Right.
The university proceeded to carry through the pro-
— in any event. I mean sir, of unifying the depart-
ment.
* * * *
(3135] Q (By Mr. Kramer) Dean Komar, I show
you a document marked as Employer’s Exhibit 131 for
identification and a document of eight pages entitled on
the first page “Constitution, Belfer Graduate School of
Science, Yeshiva University.”
Are you familiar with this document?
A Yes.
Q What is it?
A It is the document—it is the constitution which
tells the organization of the faculty of the Belfer School.
Q You also made reference in your previous testi+
mony a minute ago to bylaws. Does this document also
contain the bylaws of the Belfer governing—
A Yes.
Towards the back of the document; yes.
Q That would be on page 5 and pages thereafter?
A Yes.
; Q Would you tell us, Dean Komar, how this constitu-
tion and bylaws came into being?
18196) A
t the time, in 1968, when there wa i
turmoil in the school due to the previous thes os
ao 5 arms — up a subcommittee to prepare
ch a document for the for izati
Saciie. ormal organization of the
The document was prepared and approved
faculty and submitted to the president of the ae
And the president sent, sometime thereafter, some type
of letter, saying he accepts this document.
401
Q The document was promulgated at the initiative of
the faculty?
A Yes. It was written by the faculty and promul-
gated at their initiative—I mean—yes. And ratified by
the president of the university.
Q Now, the constitution, Dean Komar, at page 2,
makes reference to a faculty council.
Q That would be in the first textual line on page 2?
A Right.
Q Is there in fact a faculty council at your school?
A Yes.
What is the faculty council?
A It is the entire faculty of the school. I mean as
written in the constitution it is the full-time professors,
the assistant—the associate dean, the dean, and the
president [3137] of the university is technically a mem-
ber also.
Q And—
A By the way, let me say, there is no associate dean
at the moment. At the time it was written there was
one.
* * * *
[3138] Q Now, in addition to the faculty council, do
you also have a faculty committee at Belfer?
A Yes.
—Q And that committee is described, is it not, in the
constitution?
A Itis.
Q It states there, Dean Iomar, that the faculty com-
mittee shall consist of the president of the university, the
dean of the school, and the faculty committeemen selected
with due regard to representation of various departments
as specified in current bylaws.
A Right.
Q Does the president of the university in fact par-
ticipate in the faculty committee meetings?
A He never has.
Q Atnotime?
A At no time has he ever.
Q Otherwise, the representation is as stated in the
constitution on page 2?
A Yes.
402
Q Now, lets turn to page 5 of this document, par-
ticularly Roman Numeral I, which states, and I won’t
read it all by any means, that the faculty committee
shall consist [3139] of, and then it describes under that
the complement.
A Right.
Q Putting aside the president, who has not partici-
pated at any time, are the members of the committee
made up as specified on that page?
Yes.
Q They are designated as specified there?
A Right.
Q How frequently does the faculty committee meet?
A There are two statutory meetings each academic
year and they may meet on other occasions.
So at a minimum of twice a year and could be three,
four times a year, depending upon whether there is busi-
ness for them.
Q What has been the actual practice?
A Two to three times a year.
Q Does the faculty council meet?
A Yes. |
Q How frequently does that take place as a matter
of actual practice?
A About the same. Maybe slightly less, in other
words, two times a year.
Q Are there in addition to the faculty committee other
faculty committees?
A Yes, there are.
Q Would you tell us about those?
A Well, there is a library committee, there is a
[3140] computer committee, I imagine there are other ad
hoe committees. I think credentials committee, welfare
committee.
Q I did not hear that.
A I think there’s a credentials committee, welfare
committee, but I don’t recall the meeting in recent
years,
Since its function was to review the credentials of new
appointments and we don’t have new appointments—
MR. SHECTMAN: Did the witness refer to another
commiteee after the credentials committee?
403
THE WITNESS: Yes. Welfare.
Q Dean Komar, turning to the faculty council itself,
what is the function of that faculty council? How does
it fit into the goverance of your school?
A Well, it is the principal governing body in the sense
that the—that it constitutes all the faculty. Any subject
of interest or relevance to the faculty can be faised there
and discussed and voted upon.
Q What kind of subjects have been discussed there
in the last two years?
A Everything from curriculum to welfare benefits,
fringe benefit program has been discussed, occasional ap-
pointments, policy or—In other words, sizes of depart-
ments, formation of new departments or new [3141]
programs or anything of that nature can be raised
there. Sometimes the financial status of the school, the
wage policy of the school, anything that is on the feculty
members’ mind can be traced and is in order fe* dis-
cussion.
Q What other type of items that are taken up in the
faculty committee?
A Same. Exactly the same. It is just that the faculty
committee is a more—sir—is a smaller body. It is more
like an executive or presidium body because it is just un-
wieldly to have literally everyone present all the time
when you want to discuss things.
The faculty committee also has additional functions as
given in the bylaws such as if a department elects a
department chairman, it has to be approved by the faculty
committee.
So that is a function of the faculty committee which
the faculty council does not have.
Q_ Let’s turn to the library committee, for a moment.
Would you tell us what that committee does?
A The library committee consists of several faculty
members of the various departments. They determine the
priority of ordering of books and journals. They make a
recommendation to the librarian as to how much money
they would need for books and journals, within the con-
text of the budget given to the librarian then they would
[3142] set the priorities of which should be ordered be-
fore which.
404
Since it has generally happened, you cannot order every-
thing that is generally desired.
Q_ All right.
A They also make recommendations with regard to
the hours of the library or the staffing of the library,
when it should be opened, how many days, and so forth.
Q Are the recommendations of the library committee
generally accepted?
A On priorities they are always accepted. On hours
it is subject to staffing problems which become a financial
consideration.
In other words, it is taken into consideration, but the
amount of money involved becomes a relevant factor.
Q Now, Dean Komar, let us turn to the appointment
of new faculty members.
A Right.
That is covered, is it not, on page 6 of Employee’s
Exhibit 113?
A Yes.
Q Now would you tell us, Dean Komar, how new
faculty members are hired at your school? And I’d like
you to start at the beginning and describe the process as
it typically takes place.
A Okay.
[3143] Q We will assume that someone has left and
there is a vacancy to be filled.
A Due to the financial exigency of the past few years
there had been a slight change in the policy but now we
have reverted back to the old system.
Now we have authority from the president that when
someone leaves he may be replaced and so we don’t have
. go to the president to request permission to fill the
slot.
In other words, when someone leaves then the de-
partment—when they know someone is going to leave the
department involved starts soliciting names of people who
might—they might want to hire to replace him.
They write to friends and call colleagues and so forth.
When they compile preliminary list of names, they re-
assemble in a departmental meeting and they go over the
list of names and the credentials.
oe eee ee
405
As they zoom in one one or two people they generally
would invite them down to give a talk, a colloquy. Once
these preliminaries are over, they would typically vote in
the departmental meeting as to who to approach first or
who to approach.
And once that is decided upon, the department chair-
man would come to me with the department’s recom-
mendation that they want to make an offer to so and
so, and I discuss with the chairman at what salary [3144]
level to make the offer at, and it has—basically it is
within a—a number of factors come to play there. What
is he making elsewhere. What is the likely salary at
which we could get him to come here and is it within
the normal range of salaries within the university.
Q These are questions that you ask the chairman?
A Right.
I would ask him typically what do you think he is
earning there. What do you think we would have to
offer him to get him to come here.
And he would give me his recommendation of salary,
and assuming that it is not something wild and out of
the usual range of what we are paying professors cur-
rently employed with us, if it is within that range, then
the letter is written at that—
Q You have no salary schedule, do you?
A No. We don’t have a salary schedule. We have de
facto range of salaries.
Q The highest to the lowest?
A Right. As long as the highs were in that range
then no problem arises.
If it has to lie outside of the lowest range, of course
there would be no problem either.
Outside of the highest range I suppose I would have
to clear it with the president.
Does the—
[3145] A Although that has never happened.
Q Does the chairman normally recommend a figure to
you?
‘A Yes.
Q Do you generally accept the figure recommended
by the chairman?
A Yes.
406
Q Po you conduct salary negotiations or discussions
in a typical situation with the faculty member being
hired?
A I never have.
Q Is it the chairman who conducts those negotiations?
Yes.
Q And brings the recommendation to you in the
typical situation?
A In a typical situation the chairman would make
the contact and speak to the person; yes.
Q The recommendation that he makes is generally
accepted by you in the typical situation?
A Yes.
Q Now, Dean Kome2r, have you ever refused to make
an appointment that was recommended to you by the
chairman of the department?
A No.
MR. SHECTMAN: I object to the question. The prior
testimony is the recommendations came from the [3146]
departments, not from the department chairman.
MR. KRAMER: The question was not bearing on the
earlier testimony. I will rephrase the question.
HEARING OFFICER: Thank you.
Q (By Mr. Kramer) I take it you receive a recom-
mendation from the departmental members and for that
matter from the chairman with respect to an appoint-
ment; is that right, sir?
A Right. ’
Q_ And that is a typical case?
A Yes.
~Q Have you, during your sojourn as dean, refused
to make the appointment recommended?
A No.
Q At no time?
A Atnotime.
Q Now, Dean Komar, one function of the eppoint-
ment is salary. Another is length of appointment?
A Right.
Q How is that determined, Dean Komar?
A Again, the department discusses and decides what
kind of appointment they want to make, whether they
407
want to make it for two year appointment or one year
or three year or open-ended or—whatever the depart-
partmental recommendation is, that is what usually hap-
pens.
The one qualification is if the departments [3147]
wants to recommend tenure in the appointment that can
only be granted by the president of the university.
They can recommend it and they would have to for-
ward it to the president for his consideration.
Q Putting aside tenure recommendation for a moment,
is it a fact then that in the typical situation it is the
department, including its chairman, that would recom-
mend the length of the appointment to you?
A Always; always.
Q Is it your testimony that that has been regularly
accepted by you?
A Yes.
Q Without exception.
Q Have you ever negotiated in a typical situation,
have you negotiated with new faculty people as to the
length of their appointments?
A Never.
Q Now, let’s turn to the tenure point that you raised.
I gather that is not typical for a faculty member to
be hired with tenure; is that correct?
A Very rare.
Q When is the last time that happened in your
school?
A If I look through the list—I can’t think offhand
anytime. It may have.
MR. SHECTMAN: Show him the exhibit.
[8148] THE WITNESS: Offhand I can’t think of any
case. No. There is nobody on this list, no. It has never
happened.
Q (By Mr. Kramer) Dean Komar, do you have the
atuhority to make appointments on your own without—
- A You mean to initiate appointments?
Q To initiate appointments without consultation or
recommendation without faculty committee or—
A Definitely not.
408
Q Now, Dean Iomar, you have told us that several
things are recommended by the department, the person
to be hired, the salary—strike that.
You told us that you receive recommendations con-
cerning the person to be hired, the salary and the term
of appointment; is that correct?
A Right.
Q Now, whose recommendation is it that you are re-
ceiving with respect to who should be hired?
A Im receiving the department’s recommendation to
hire the particular faculty member.
Q By the “department” you mean a consensus of the
members of that department. Is that correct?
A That’s correct.
Q Now—Let’s focus on salary for a moment. With
respect to the salary to be paid, whose recommendation
are you receiving? Is it the recommendation of the
[3149] department consensus or is it the recommenda-
tion of its chairman?
A Itis the chairman’s recommendation.
Q It is the recommendation that you generally ac-
cept?
A Right.
Q Now, let us turn to the question of length of ap-
pointment. And I would like you to tell me, you get a
recommendation on that, too, that’s part of this package
so to speak, is it not?
A Right.
Q Is that the recommendation of the department by
consensus or is that the recommendatio:. of the chairman
individually?
A That fluctuates.
Q Would you tell us about that?
A I would say generally the department discusses
how long the appointment should be for. On certain oc-
casions it may happen that the department simply has
not discussed it or did not consider it and the chairman
may have his opinions and make the recommendation
directly.
I can’t think of specific cases. I would say more often
than not the department does discuss that.
Tall
Pte eee
409
Q By “department” you mean by consensus?
A By consensus, yes, I would say that is the general
[3150] rule.
Q Now, you belong to the Physics Department, don’t
you?
A Yes.
Q Do you participate in meetings of the Physica De-
partment as a member of that department?
A ‘Jes.
Q Do you participate as a member of the Physica
Department in the hiring process?
A Yes.
Q Do you participate as a dean or as any other pro-
fessor would?
A Just as any other member of the department.
Q Now, Dean Komar, do you have the authority to
disapprove the recommendation of a new appointment?
A I don’t really know. It’s never—since it has never
happened, and it does not—in the constitution it makes
no statement about it.
What I could say is how I view my authority. That’s
about the best—
Q Why don’t you tell us about that?
A I view my position as sort of first. among equals.
In other words, I could put in—excuse me—I can cause
a lot of friction, namely, if the recommendation is—if a
recommendation were made which I strongly disagreed
with, I could get, say, the ear of the president of the
university [8151] to put in my point of view. However,
the department chairman or members of the department
can and on occasions have gone directly to the president
to get their point of view heard and then the president
has to weigh one man against the department or one man
against a senior member of the department. And then
it is the president’s decision. But whether I have the
authority to say no, I don’t think I do. And I know
of occasions not specifically with regard to appointments
but where individual faculty members simply went di-
rectly to the president and they have the authority to do
that any time they want.
\
410
In other words, I don’t have any constitutional au-
thority to oppose an appointment. I can just recommend
against it.
[3152] Q (By Mr. Kramer) Would you tell us, Dean
Komar, how—strike that.
Would you tell us how the chairmen are selected?
A It is stated in the bylaws. They are elected by the
faculty with respect to faculty members for three year
interval and have to be approved by the faculty com-
mittee.
Q Idid not hear that last—
A And have to be approved by the faculty committee.
Q Is the actual appointment made by the president?
A According to the bylaws it says the chairmen of
the departments are appointed by the president on recom-
mendation by the department, recommendation by the
faculty committee and approval of the dean.
In practice, I don’t know whether any of them have
ever received a letter of appointment from the president.
Q_ In practice—
A In practice they are elected by the faculty mem-
bers, chairman, unless the faculty committee chooses to
[3153] reject such a recommendation.
@ Now, approximately how many chairmen have been
selected during your time as dean?
A Well, every three years, and four departments and
so in the six-year period on the average twice, it would
have come up twice in each department, offhand.
So eight plus or minus one or two.
Q Out of these approximately eight appointments
have oo approved all of them?
0.
Q Would you tell us about that, please?
A One—At one time the Chemistry Department
elected one person to be department chairman, and I was
opposed to it. I took—So when the case came before
the faculty committee for approval, which it has to in
any event, I brought my position why I was against this
to the faculty committee, and they sustained me on this,
in other words, they refused to approve this particular
i tl ca a aca mal a
411
election, and it was sent back to the—in this case it was
the Chemistry Department.
Q As dean of the school, Doctor Komar, do you view
the choice of the department chairmen in each of the de-
partments as a significant thing?
A Oh, yes.
Q Why is that so?
A They have to represent their members in other
[3154] university bodies. In other words, both within the
school and outside the school. And who they chose as
their representative, it creates an image for the school
and for the department.
Q Now, you opposed a particular choice in the Chem-
istry Department?
A Right.
Q What were the kind of reasons that motivated you
to do that?
A Very simple. I thought tempermentally he would
not have—he was a very excitable person, and would
frequently become hysterical and have tanreuma and I
thought that that would not be a proper image to project
outside of the school or the department, for that matter.
Q That would not have been useful in the negotia-
tion with the state, would it have?
A With the state or with the rest of the university,
for that matter.
Q Would it be fair to state that the chairmen take
part on—in the management of the school?
A That is so.
Q And inthe management of the university in broader
perspective?
A Toa lesser extent.
Yes.
[3155] A Yes.
Q Let’s turn to the curriculum. Dean Komar, who
decides what the schools curriculum is going to be?
A The faculty.
Q I assume the curriculum is what you are offering
to your graduate students apart from research; is that
right?
A Right.
412
Q That is the merchandise the school has to display?
A Exactly.
Q And would you tell us how curriculum is set in
your school?
A It is set individually within each department. The
faculty of the department decides what courses: to offer
and what curriculum, whether to revise the curriculum
and who should teach each course and which semesters
it should be given or given—whether to be given at all,
whether it should be revised.
All of that is discussed within the departmental meet-
ings, and settled there upon consensus.
Q Do you get yourself involved out—
A Only in the Physics Department, only my own de-
partment. I never show up at a faculty meeting [3156]
except at—at each departmental meeting. I have never
attended any meeting, except that of the Physics De-
partment, of which I am a faculty member.
Q Do you tell the Chemistry Department people what
to offer or what not to offer?
A Never.
Q Do you tell the mathematics people what to offer
or not to offer?
A No.
Q That is a faculty decision, I take it?
A Right; their prerogative.
Q Does both the quality of the courses and the num-
ber and type of course have an affect on people coming
to your school?
[3157] A I would hope so.
Q On the number of people coming to your school?
A I would hope so.
* * * a
Q (By Mr. Kramer) And on the quality of people
coming to your school?
A Yes.
Q Now, is the level of tuition paid by students taking
courses in math and science education departments rele-
vant and important to you?
A The actual tuition they pay?
7 & &
413
A Yes.
Q Does the tuition level have an effect on the num-
ber of students who would participate in such courses?
A Very definitely.
Q Now—
A There’s strong competition in the city for such—
Q Why is there such strong competition, Dean Komar?
A This is basically an in-service training type of
program for high school teachers. As they get a certain
number [3158] of credits, their salaries go up; and, if
they get a master’s, they get a corresponding increment
in salaries.
As such, they have an economic interest in obtaining
these credits. Therefore, there are quite a few schools
in the New York City area who run such programs.
We are one of them. NYU runs one. I think Fordham
runs one. City University, and so forth.
So, it’s quite a competitive enterprise.
Q Now, turning to last academic year, that. time
frame, Dr. Komar, was the subject of a tuition increase
for students in that department dealt with in your
school?
A Yes.
Q Would you give us all the facts and surrounding
circumstances, please?
A In general, due to the inflation, it was proposed
t’ the tuition be increased in the various schools
tl..cughout the university.
Q Who made that proposal, Dean Komar?
A I don’t really know. It was again—much of this
is done by consensus.
There is someone directly in charge of questions of
tuition. I don’t recall his name.
MR. SHECTMAN: Is the witness now referring to
persons at the Belfer School or—
THE WITNESS: No. Just, again, in the university
[3159] administration there are people concerned with
tuition and students and so forth. And there was a
recommendation made that the tuition at the various col-
leges of the university be increased by a certain amount
next year and then by a certain amount the year after,
and so forth.
414
Q Now, was that recommendation put in effect at
your school for the math—
A For this department, no.
The department chairman objected, pointing out the
competitive nature of the program, and the chairman
felt that, should the tuition rise in this program, they
would lose a substantial fraction of their students. And
therefore, for this particular department, there was no
increase in tuition. .
Q Did the chairman make a recommendation to you?
A Yes.
Q What did he say to you?
A Well, it’s a woman.
She said—
Q She.
A Yes.
She simply pointed out what I just said: that, if we
raised the tuition, it would—it may undermine the stu-
dent—the number of students that would come.
And so I forwarded this statement of hers—well,
[3160] among others, I forwarded to vice president, and
so forth, who is the vice president of business affairs.
I don’t recall whether I did it directly to him or whether
I a it first to the other person whose name I can’t re-
call.
Q Was this recommendation of the chairman accepted
and the tuition rise cancelled?
A Yes.
Let’s turn to salary treatment, Dean Komar, for
the 1973-74 school year and the 1972-73 school year.
What role, if any, did the department chairman play
in determining the salary increases to be received by the
various members of their departments?
A At the time when I have to start considering the
budget for the following year, the department chairmen
come to me with their recommendations for salaries.
And they come to me on a piece of paper; it could be
scratch paper or—just listing all the faculty members’
names and their recommendations for what the salary
should be for the following year.
Q Now, you say it comes to you on a piece of scratch
paper.
415
A Well, they come to see me, and they may write
it on the back of an envelope or piece of paper, whatever
is available.
Q And they make a recommendation as to the salary
in- [3161] crease for each of the members of their de-
partment?
A For each of the members of their department,
right.
Q Is that their recommendation?
A Yes.
Q Is there any question in your mind that this is not
the product of a vote or consensus?
A No. This is their own recommendation.
Q Now, we’re focusing on ’72-73 and ’73-74.
Were those recommendations generally accepted?
A No.
Q_ All right. Would you explain?
A The actual dollar amount couldn’t be accepted be-
cause there is—there was a budgetary freeze; the over-
all budget of the school had to be kept within bounds, and
all increases in salaries had to be absorbed by making
cuts in other areas of the school. So the actual dollar
amount could not be fully accepted. However—
Q Which year was this?
A Both years.
Q Go ahead.
A But the ordering and the orders of magnitude were
accepted.
In other words, the priority sequence of the faculty
members and the rough order of magnitude of the recom-
mendations were accepted.
[3162] What I mean by that, they may have been
shaved $100 or $300 off or even $500 from what was
recommended, but the sequence of who gets the most and
who gets the next most and so forth, that sequence was
left intact.
Q Now, did the determination of the priority of who
would get the most, the largest increase, and who would
get the next largest increase, and so on down the line,
416
was that a function of independent judgment on the
part of the chairmen?
A Yes.
Q That required him to appraise the function of
the members of his department?
A Yes.
Q Now, in your discussions with the chairmen, did
you discuss his view of how the members of his depart-
ment were functioning?
A Yes.
Q Just so that I’m clear, Dean Komar, in each in-
stance the chairmen provided a list of names of the
members of their department; is that correct—of his
department; is that correct?
A Right.
Q_ All right.
A Each instance is a very precise statement.
Perhaps there were—on occasion they may have [3163]
been done verbally; in other words, it may not have al-
ways been a written list.
But they would come—they would discuss each name
individually, and generally write it down on paper. On
occasion they may say remember this, remember that,
remember the other thing; in other words, without writ-
ing it down. They expect me to remember it while
they’re talking.
Q And he would recommend an increase, or she, for
each member of the department?
A Yes. Yes.
Q An increase of a particular amount?
A Right.
Q And these increases would have a relationship one
to the other within the department?
A Yes.
Q And it is a fact, as you have testified, that, while
on—you may not have been able to grant all of the money
proposed because of budgetary considerations, you may
have granted less, but you nevertheless kept the priority
order and relationship; is that correct?
A Yes.
ne nn ee
417
[3165] Q (By Mr. Kramer) Now, Dean Komar,
after you received the recommendations that you’ve just
described—strike that.
In the last instance, Dean Komar, are the increases
given in a particular year subject to approval by the vice
president for financiai affairs?
A In what we were just speaking about, you mean?
Q Yes.
A Yes, subject to the approval of the vice president
for business affairs.
Q Once the increases have been adjusted in the fash-
ion that you’ve described, is that approval routine or
not routine, once there has been a reduction as you have
described it?
A Yes. As I recall, I was never questioned—I mean,
_ it was routinely done.
Q To your knowledge, any time you were dean, has
the vice president of financial affairs—for that matter,
anyone at central administration-—interfered with the
priority of the department chairmen’s rating, the rank-
ing, so to speak, of this annual review that you’ve talked
about?
[3166] A Individual faculty members at times have
gone to the president directly over my head and his head
and have gotten adjustments—
Q Apart from that?
A Apart from that, no.
Q Is that a frequent occurrence?
A No, it’s not a frequent occurrence, but it does
happen.
Q On occasion?
A Yes.
Q Now, you told us there was a salary freeze at the
university. I think you’ve made some reference to that.
A Yes, about three years ago, was it, or about four
years ago.
Q You told us about 1972-73 and ’73-74.
Prior to 1972-73 were the salaries of the Belfer fac-
ulty frozen?
A Yes.
418
, ., Do you recall for how many years that was in ef-
ect?
A Two. .
Q Now, in 1974-75 has Belfer received a salary in-
crease?
A Yes.
Q And what type of increase was that?
A It was uniform across the board. There was no
input at ali from the faculty members, chairmen, or
myself. It [3167] was just a universal—
Q That was the first tine, was it not, that such an
increase was implemented?
A Right.
Q Was there a reason for this across-the-board in-
crease treatment, as opposed to the—I use the word
merit” treatment previously afforded?
A Yes.
Q Would you tell us?
A Yes. It was due to these hearings.
On advice of counsel, it was deemed that, if anyone
were discriminated against, either by getting more than
someone e'se or less than someone else, the union rep-
resentative might claim that it was an unfair labor
practice.
Q That’s your understanding—
A That was my understanding of the reason why
this was done.
3 _ did not, however, discuss that with me?
0.
Q So that, when you’re referring to counsel—
A This is the understanding that I was given. It
was not given by a lawyer.
NY All right.
oe let’s turn to the nonrenewal of faculty appoint-
[3168] Who makes the decision not to renew a f
appointment? How is that decided? er
A The department. The department.
Q How do they—How does the department in a
typical case go about deciding that?
- ee ee eae
419
A Well, obviously that would be a member who
doesn’t already have tenure, so he—when his term of
appointment is coming up for reconsideration, the de-
partment assembles, without his presence, and he is dis-
cussed as to whether one wants to renew the appoint-
ment or have him leave and have him be replaced by
someone else, or whether we would want him as a ten-
ured member or not. I mean, that’s all discussed within
the department.
And then the department decides what recommenda-
tion to make; basically on a consensus basis.
To my knowledge, there has never been a vote on this
subject.
Q Dr. Komar, do you have the right, your view of
your rights, to require the retention of a faculty mem-
ber whom the department choses not to renew?
A Definitely not.
Q Now, let’s turn to tenure.
What is the procedure utilized in your school for
the determination whether a faculty member is to be
recommended for tenure?
[3169] A It’s quite similar to just reappointment.
The department again meets to decide whether they want
that particular faculty member to be granted tenure.
Should they so agree, they pass that recommendation
on to me, and I then forward that recommendation either
directly to the president or to the vice president Fish-
man, who then forwards it to the president. In the end,
tenure can only be granted by the president of the uni-
versity, though.
Q Dr. Komar, have you ever disapproved a faculty
recommendation for tenure?
A No.
Q Have you ever disapproved a recommendation
against tenure?
A That—no.
Q In your view of your authority, Dean Komar, do
you have the authority to disapprove such a recommen-
dation?
A No.
420
[3170] Q Now, how are standards for admissions set
at your [3171] school?
A By the department—respective departments. They
review applicants, their credentials, their letters of rec-
ommendation, their transcripts, and then the students
are discussed at a departmental meeting.
MR. SHECTMAN: At a what meeting?
THE WITNESS: At a departmental meeting.
Q Now, do the departments determine—strike that.
What role, if any, do the departments have in deter-
mining whether financial aid, apart from tuition remis-
sion, will be granted to entering students or students
who have matriculated and are proceeding to a degree?
A There are two kinds of funds above tuition remis-
sion, above subsistence remission to the student, two
sources of funds.
’ One is a grant given to individual faculty member or,
in some rare cases, to a department or, in fact, to the
school when there were trainingship grounds some years
ago available from the government.
Each department, or the chairmen certainly of each
department, and the department as a whole knew how
much money was available from these various sources.
I repeat, the government, perhaps private foundations
and the university. ;
Within the context of the money available, the de-
[3172] partment would meet and decide which students
should be granted money, and how the part should be
divided up among them.
Q What other sources are available?
A Well, each department had a different—had its
different policies, which are their own.
In the physics department, for example, the general
poe pe oo when there is money available from re-
search grants, it is pooled and is-
tributed in that fashion. hoardings
With a certain few exceptions. Some professors take
issue with that and insist that the money available on
their grant can only be used for students of their choice
who are working on their grounds.
———
421
In the chemistry department, that exceptional case
turns out to be the rule. The chemists refuse to pool
their money and insist that only students which meet
with their approval and are working on their grants
can be paid out of their budgets.
Q These are predoctoral students?
A Yes.
Q When they work on a grant, they’re called research
assistants; is that correct? :
A That’s correct.
They are not called research associates, however?
[3173] A No.
Q Does the availability of research assistantships
have an effect on the number of students and the quality
of students you are able to attract?
A Very much so.
Q Now, Dean Komar, would you tell us what process
you employ in determining or having determined, as
the case may be, the budget for your school?
A Well, basically I look at the previous year’s budget,
and there are certain increments which I have no con-
trol over: namely, increments that—for secretarial staff
and technicians which are predetermined through other
agreements outside of the school with the university, and
I have to simply absorb those increments.
Then there are the faculty increments, which I’ve
already discussed how that takes places.
And, finally, there are supplies and—where I just try
to get some input from the various people in the school,
individual faculty members, department chairmen, lab
management, in what ballpark of figures they would need
for supplies, and whether there are any other expenses
one should—one will have to anticipate, such as purchase
of new equipment or servicing of old equipment, and put
in an estimate of what that might come to in the next
year.
And all of this—when all of these recommendations
[3174] are assembled, they’re all put into a preliminary
budget and totalled.
The total typically exceeds the previous year’s bud-
get, and I am under instructions not to exceed the pre-
422
vious year’s budget. And so then I have to find out what
can be cut out to come down to the previous year’s
budget.
: And there again it’s subject to discussions and nego-
tiations, up and back, whether a secretary can be dropped
or moved over to a grant, or whether a technician is
really necessary who is being paid for from university
funds, or whether he is working for a grant and can
be charged for grant funds.
It goes up and down, until finally I come back with
somewhat reduced budget, which then exceeds the previ-
ous year’s budget, and then I throw up my hands and
present it to the vice president.
Q What role do the—What role, if any, do the de-
partment chairmen play in this budgeting process?
A Very essential one. They’re the ones who make the
estimates of what they will need in the nature of sup-
plies and services, equipment, and what have you. They’re
the ones that present me the estimates of what will be
required. I have no way of knowing what they will need.
Q Do they get that on some kind of vote or con-
sensus—.
A It’s a consensus. They talk to their faculty mem-
bers. [8175] They know what’s doing in their acauh
ment. They know what was spent last year in those cate-
gories.
And, as a result, they reach some sort of consensual
estimate.
Q Dean Komar, who decides whether students are
performing adequately in your school?
A The department. The faculty members in the de-
partment.
Q Who sets the standards for adequacy?
A The faculty members of the department.
Q And do the faculty members have it within their
province to flunk students out of your school?
A Yes.
Q In the math and science education department
does the chairman teach one less course than the regular
load?
A Yes.
MR. SHECTMAN: That’s one department?
ote ——_/!
423
MR. KRAMER: Math and science education depart-
ment, which is one department.
Q Is that to offset the administrative functions of
the chairman?
A Yes.
Q Now, the other chairman, chemistry, math and
physics, teach how many courses on an average?
A An average they teach the same as the other mem-
bers [3176] of the department.
Q Which would be again?
A Two courses a semester.
Q Can it sometimes be even less than that?
A It can be less. However, other faculty members
sometimes also teach less.
Q I understand that.
And they receive no other stipend or further re-
duction in course load as a result of their being chair-
men?
A That’s right.
* * &
[3179] Q Do the department chairmen play a larger
role in the selection of part-time faculty members than
they do in the selection of full-time faculty members?
A If by a larger role do you mean am I less in-
volved, the answer would be yes. But, I mean, they
would do it again in censensus with their department.
I mean, they would not do it without taking—getting
the agreement of their department.
Q You are even less involved in the part-time hiring
than you are in the full-time hiring?
A Right, if it’s possible to be less involved.
Q Dean Komar, in addition to your administrative
chores as dean, do you get involved in research?
A Yes.
Q@ You have an academic function in the research
area?
A Yes.
Q And you also teach?
A Right.
424
[3183] Q Now, you have an assistant dean, do you
Yes.
Q What’s his name?
A Charles Patt.
Q Is he a member of the faculty?
A Yes.
Q What is his rank? :
A He’s an assistant professor in the mathematics
department.
Q How many courses a term or a year, as the case
may be, does he teach?
A One course each semester generally.
I’m trying to recall whether he’s not teaching two
courses this semester. I vaguely remember, but I’m not
[3184] positive. He generally teaches one course per
semester
: sq does he presently have a research grant?
0.
Q Has he had a research grant in the last three
years, to the best of your recollection?
A He’s never had a research grant.
Q Never at any time to your recollection?
A He does no research.
Q So that I am correct—Am I correct that Professor
Patt teaches only one course each term?
Right.
= four courses each term?
0.
Now, if you can recall—And he does no research?
Right.
Can you recall Professor Patt’s salary?
It’s in the low twenties, over $20,000 a year.
Would you doublecheck that figure for me for the
Bae hearing, please? Make a note of that.
assume we’re going to finish t :
A wey g oday and we’ll be
HEARING OFFICER: We might.
3 I think it’s 23,000.
Would you just check it just so th
ici ten j o the record has a
{3185] A Okay.
OPOPO POP
425
Q Would you tell us as best you can, Dean Komar—
strike that.
Does Professor Patt have tenure?
A Yes.
Q He’s eligible for Blue Cross-Blue Shield major med-
ical?
A Yes.
Q And life insurance?
A Right.
Q He teaches only one course each term?
A Right.
Q And does no research?
A Right.
Q What else does he do, Dr. Komar?
Would you go sowly and try to get all the various
duties?
A He’s assistant dean, and as such he has respon-
sibility for innumerable things. He is in charge of grant
‘accounting, preparation of grant proposals, charging and
billing to grants, expenditures.
He’s in charge of keeping track that the correct re-
ports are made concerning hours taught, faculty work-
loads. He’s in charge of seeing that curriculum require-
ments on the part of students are fulfilled.
[3186] He provides liaison with the registrar’s office
and with the student admissions office concerning new
applicants to—applicants for degrees, that they have
fulfilled the appropriate credit hours and requirements,
language requirements.
Let me see. He’s in charge of measuring the various
schedules of classes and assignments of rooms and hours
to see that there are no conflicts in assignments of
courses and hours and credits, what have you.
He would have to—he frequently has to negotiate with
the individual faculty members to see to it that the uni-
versity’s interests are protected in writing budgets for
grant proposals, that the appropriate categories are
placed in the budgets, such as appropriate amount for
secretarial services, for overhead, for supplies.
He sees to it that they don’t overspend in these cate-
gories or that, if they want to make a transfer from
426
one category to another, it’s permissible if the faculty
member claims it’s permissible and there’s a disagree-
ment. He frequently has to call Washington and check
the agency and obtain written approval to find out
whether it is permissible: or not.
I mean, all questions of this sort are done by Patt.
* * * *
(3187] Q (By Mr. Kramer) Now, you’ve told us,
Dean Komar, that Professor Patt—Mr. Patt is involved
in grant accounting?
A Right.
Q Tell us what that entails.
I’m not presupposing here a great detailed knowledge
of the procedures, but I’d like you to tell the reader of
the record something more than what you’ve just said to
give him a feel, and us a feel, of what’s involved in that.
A Principal investigator has a grant with a budget.
The budget is—has to be approved by the agency, the
federal agency giving the grant. :
Once the budget is approved by the federal agency,
then the principal investigator proceeds to make charges
against that budget for supplies, for bringing in col-
leagues, assistants, associates, consultants. They take
trips, they [3188] charge it to their account, and so
forth.
Then there are categories in the budget which they
use but which the university bills them; for example,
secretarial services or overhead or supplies—computer
time or use of the xerox machine, all this is billed
against categories in the grant.
Now, Dr. Patt has to keep track of these charges to
see that none of the categories are overspent.
Q In other words, the money is the university’s
money; is that correct?
A The money is given to the university by the fed-
“a ai"
nd it is represented by a grant; is t ight?
yeh yag hat right
Q It’s Patt’s function, in the first instance, to make
sure that the faculty members in your school do not
overspend their grants?
A Right.
oo 6 eT Sr Se hoe otal a a
427
Do not—for personnel?
For personnel.
Or for overhead?
Right.
Or for equipment?
Right.
That’s his function, one of his functions?
[3189] A Yes.
Let me give an example how they could overspend on
overhead. It sounds rather odd.
Q I prefer at this point to go on.
A It’s a source of conflict between Patt and faculty
members.
Q You know, witnesses of this intellectual quality,
counsel will bend. Go ahead, Dean Komar. I don’t have
very many experts in general relativity testifying.
A Personally I’m not lecturing on general relativity
at the time.
A frequent source of conflict between Patt and the prin-
cipal investigator is when the principal investigator at-
tempts to transfer funds from a supply item to a salary
item.
The reason why is that overhead is computed only on
salaries, not on supplies. So, if he takes $1,000 out of
supplies and puts it into salaries, he would like to spend
$1,000 on salaries of hiring personnel.
But he cannot, because as soon as it’s put into the
salary column, 50 percent of that has to go as over-
head to the university.
So, if he wishes to, for example, spend $1,000 on
salary, he would have to transfer $1,500 out of supplies.
And that’s a frequent source of friction.
[3190] Q And under these circumstances, you say it’s
a source of friction.
Does Patt—Patt has, I would assume, authority in the
first instance in this situation; is that correct?
A Yes. To simply refuse—I mean to simply insist
that, if he wants to spend $1,000 on salaries, he has to
transfer $1,500 from supplies, yes.
Q Now, you’ve told us that Patt has a role in grant
preparation and the charging and billing to accounts.
A Right.
OPO PO PO
428
Q Without duplicating your prior testimony, would
you tell us what this is all about?
A When a grant proposal is prepared, the principal
investigator prepares the scientific part of the proposal
in its entirety. The budget he will give to Dr. Patt, his
estimates of what it is he wants to include in the bud-
get and how much he proposes to request in funds.
Patt then has to prepare it in the proper format to
see that the other cost factors of the university are in-
cluded within the budget, such as the overhead, such as
secretarial services, such as fringe benefits. All of that
the principal investigator generally forgets about when
preparing a budget.
Q Is there—I know the reader—the reader of the
record of course can’t get the inflection in the voice.
[3191] When you say he generally forgets about it,
and smile, which you’ve just done, what do you mean
by that? I gather there’s a secondary meaning within
what you’re saying.
A Yes.
Very frequently he chooses to forget about it be-
cause he feels that the granting agency has a limited
amount of funds to give him, and he wants the funds
spent exclusively on the research part of the proposal
and is reluctant to have a large portion of that fund
spent on the mandated items.
Q Are faculty members generally required to put in
the grant application to include the university’s share
of expenses?
A They’re requested to.
Q And do they do so in most instances?
A Fifty-fifty. I mean, they—it depends on the—it
depends on the faculty member. Sometimes they do;
sometimes they refuse.
Q And I assume it is Patt’s role to make sure that
the grants go in properly?
A Yes.
Q Regardless of whether the faculty member has
put it in or not?
A Well, he—it’s his role to do that, yes, to insist
[3192] on that.
a
429
Q Is that a scurce of friction between Patt and the
faculty members as well?
A Yes, very frequently.
Q Now, you’ve told us that Dr. Patt corrects re-
ports—I’m not using your exact words but, as close as
my notes will show, corrects reports about the hours
taught by the faculty and faculty workloads.
A Yes.
Q Would you tell us what is involved in that, Dr.
Komar?
A Well, there are two parts involved. One is that
the university requires information as to who is teach-
ing which courses for which hours, what semester; that
the university requires.
Patt has the duties to assemble this and provide it
to the university.
However, there is a new feature—new, that is—
required by the government for people working on grants.
The government, basically the NIH, who does the prin-
cipal monitoring for Yeshiva University, their aduitors
require that the—that each principal investigator cer-
tify the hours that he put in on his grant each month,
and the hours that are put in by any person employed
on his grant each day. And he—and the principal in-
vestigator has to certify this for the federal agencies.
[3193] And Patt has to check on—to assemble this, col-
late it, to check that it’s really being done properly, and
forward it on to the business office.
Q Do you check that it’s really being done?
A No.
Q Does the president of the institution check that it’s
really being done?
A No.
Does the vice president of financial affairs check
that it’s really being done?
A No.
Q It’s Patt that checks that it’s really being done;
that’s a fact, is it not?
A He is the—he is the first line of—in the administra-
tive tier that checks what is being done.
430
9 oly up to him—
e extent to which he does it I’ i
wie, s it I’m not going to
Q He has the responsibility +s see—
A He has the responsibility.
Q And the authority to do it?
A To check? Oh, yes.
Q Now, is it a fact that Professor Patt gives faculty
their room assignments?
A Yes.
3194] Q And that he also gives them their
course
assignments as to when the course will be taught?
A That less so, That—it’s generally the faculty mem-
ber expresses a preference, and he then will mediate
aT ae if there are conflicts.
ow, I want to stick with the i
for amoment. That he does? she i ig
7) ae that he does.
_ Now, with respect to times he seek i
conflicts between faculty members? 2a eciasta
A Right. If there are conflicts in schedules
i » yes.
2 ay Dean Komar, you’ve told us that you teach?
Q_ And you do research?
A Yes.
Q 7 you’re also an active dean of the school?
Q
Were Mr. Patt not available—or, P
, Profes
not available to do the administrative chores that are
oe — would they fall to you to do?
ey would be my re ibili i
hin in ta y responsibility to see to it that
Q When—how often a
Pe SE sasoa re you away from the school,
A You mean all totalled in a vear ,
[3195] not quite sure how you mis it. ap ence si
Q oa it to me both ways.
ell, most weeks I am generally there four
days, but I can be away for blocks of time like evi
weeks or in fact a month or two at a time.
431
Q Several weeks or a month or two while the school
is functioning?
A Well, the month or two would be more often in
the summer. But the school functions in the summer.
The teaching doesn’t go on, but the school is open, and
there’s research going on and laboratories. There’s just
no classes given in the summer. The libraries are open
in the summer.
When you’re away from the school, would it be
fair to say that Mr. Patt is in charge?
A Yes, definitely, yes.
Q_ Dr. Komar, you know Professor Musher?
A Yes.
Q Is Professor Musher currently in the employ of the
university?
A No. He died.
Q When did he pass away?
A Last October, I think it was.
Q When you say last October—
A ‘Previous October.
[3196] Q October 1974?
A Right. I think it was in October.
Q In other words, long after the start of the initial
proceedings in this matter.
A Yes.
MR. KRAMER: By “initial proceedings,” I mean
what we call the first case, which is represented by Board
Exhibit 2 and the many exhibits appended thereto.
HEARING OFFICER: Yes, I understand.
Q And who replaced Professor Musher?
A Professor Beck.
Q@ When did Professor Beck first come to work in
your school?
A I think summer of 1974. Summer or fall, that
I’m not positive.
Q But it was prior to the death of Professor Musher?
A Yes.
Q Did Professor Beck work on Professor Musher’s
research grant?
A Yes.
Q That’s a fact, I take it?
A Yes.
432
Q Now, he didn’t come to the university, did he,
until the summer of ’74?
A Right.
[3197] Q Now, do you know a Professor Malliavan?
I’m going—
A Malliavan.
Q Malliavan, M-a-double l-i-a-v-a-n?
A Yes.
Q Does he teach as your school?
A I don’t recall whether he gives a course or a semi-
nar. But I guess you would say he teaches. It may
not be a course listed in the catalogue; it may just be
an advanced seminar.
Q_ In other words, you have some courses that aren’t
listed in the catalogue?
A Oh, yes.
Q_ And he teaches at your school.
Does he also during the course of an academic year
teach at some other school?
A Yes.
Q Would you tell us about that, please?
A He’s very prominent member of the faculty of the
Sorbonne in Paris.
Q Would you explain how this prominent faculty
member at the Sorbonne comes to teach at your school
and also at the Sorbonne during one year—each year?
A Well, for one semester each year for the past two
or three years, I guess, Professor Ehrenpreis of the
mathe- [8198] matics department has a grant and invites
him to come, essentially hires him to come here. One
doesn’t call it hiring at this level; it’s called inviting.
Q Now, Dean Komar, is Professor Malliavan a mem-
ber of the faculty of the Belfer School, or is he a full-
time faculty member or part-time faculty member?
A He’s a visting faculty member, I guess you would
call it, full-time when he’s here. He’s visiting full-time.
Q One semester a year?
A Right. Right.
Q And is he on the payroll of the university?
A Yes.
PT PR Sn
433
Q And he draws the money—the money to pay him is
drawn from Professor Ehrenpreis’ grant; is that right?
A Right. 7
Q And is Professor Ehrenpreis he who invites him to
come?
A Yes.
Q Who chooses him to come?
A Yes.
Q Selects him to come?
A That’s — ee
With this—strike that. eit
Now, I show you Employer’s Exhibit 62, which is ap-
pended to Employer’s—Board Exhibit 2, which is in evi-
d C." . . . .
[3199] Did you prepare this exhibit (handing to wit-
ness) ?
A It was prepared at my request, yes.
Q But did you prepare it?
A Personally, no. +
Q So that you did not prepare this exhibit?
A No.
MR. KRAMER: I will stipulate with counsel that
this exhibit was introduced on June 27, 1974.
MR.SHECTMAN: So stipulated.
[3200] Q This exhibit does not detail any fact that
took place after June 27, 1974.
A Right.
Q In fact, Dean Komar, have additional grants been
granted to members of your faculty since June 27, 1974?
A Yes.
And have some grants been completed since June
27, 1974?
A Yes.
Q By the way, you don’t handle the grant accounting,
do you? ere.
A Nor the completion dates, termination dates, or any
of that. That’s handled by Dr. Patt. —_
Q You are generally aware of the grant situation in—
A Yes.
434
Q_ In fact, you sign—normally sign each of the grants?
A Yes.
Q Before they’re sent in to the government for
processing?
A Yes.
Q_ By that, I mean the grant application.
A The application I sign, not when they’re granted
by the government, just the application.
Q I see Professor Musher is listed on the first page
of this exhibit, Musher, J.
[8201] A _ Right. ;
wt That is the professor who passed away since June
A That’s right.
Q And Professor Beck, who you referred to in your
testimony, is not listed; is that correct?
A That’s right.
Q That would be because he came afterwards?
A That’s right.
MR. SHECTMAN: Is counsel implying that Profes-
sor Beck is a member of the Belfer full-time faculty and
is a principal investigator to which this exhibit is di-
rected?
MR. KRAMER: Professor Beck is whatever the wit-
ness testified he was. I believe the witness testified that
he’s a full-time member of the faculty.
THE WITNESS: That’s right.
MR. KRAMER: And he’s taken Musher’s place on
that grant. And he has—
MR. SHECTMAN: I don’t think this witness has
testified to that.
THE WITNESS: No, I haven’t.
MR. KRAMER: All right. Strike that.
He’s testified that Professor Beck was working on
that grant during the summer; that it’s not reflected on
this exhibit because the exhibit came in June 27.
THE WITNESS: Right.
[8202] Q (By Mr. Kramer) Who has replaced Pro-
fessor Musher on his grant, if anyone?
A Professor Beck.
ee
435
Q That grant, I take it, is one of those grants con-
tinuing; is that so?
A It is continuing.
Now, I see Professor Malliavan’s name on page
2 of this exhibit.
Is that the Professor Malliavan that you’ve just dis-
cussed?
A Yes.
Q By the way, is he the only visiting professor who
is listed on this exhibit? .
We’re only referring now to your school. There are two
schools covered by that exhibit.
A The only visiting professor listed on this exhibit,
yes—no. I see Bergman is listed. And—well, he’s part-
time.
Q He’s part-time.
A You mean visiting?
Q. Exactly.
A Oh, visiting.
I guess it’s only—I only see Mulliavan’s name listed
in that category.
And Mulliavan was listed under the heading involv-
ing [3203] other full-time faculty under grant?
A Right.
Q If Professor Mulliavan is not ultimately considered
a full-time faculty member, he would not belong in that
column; is that correct?
A That’s correct.
Q He would belong in a column visiting faculty?
A Visiting faculty.
Q Or visiting full-time faculty, as the case may be?
A Right.
Q Now, although this exhibit—lI’m not asking you
now to update the exhibit, but, although this exhibit
clearly states one visiting faculty member who partici-
pated in grants or under grants or worked under grants
during 1972-73 and ’73-74, in fact were there other
visiting professors who worked under grants during 1972-
73 and ’73-’74?
A Yes.
Q Now, could you give us an idea of how many such
visiting professors were employed on the grants?
And we’re asking only for an approximation.
436
About a dozen.
For 1973-74?
Yes.
How about 1972-73?
About the same.
[8204] Q Now, for 1978-74, could you give us some
idea of the amount of time—I don’t mean now research
hours, but how long these visiting professors stayed at
your school to do work under these research grants?
A Some would come for several weeks; some for a
month or two; some for a few days. It varied all sorts
of possibilities. Some for a whole semester.
Q You told us that Professor Mulliavan came for a
whole semester.
A Right.
Q Are there any others you can recall by name who
came for a whole semester the last academic year? If
you can.
A I can’t recall, no. I can think of some who came
for extended periods, but I just don’t recall how long
the extended periods were.
Q Can you tell us who came for extended periods?
A Oliver Penrose—what’s his name?—Oscar Lan-
ford, L-a-n-f-o-r-d, Elliot Leel, L-e-e-l.
There were others. I can picture their faces. It takes
a while to recall their names. There were quite a few
others. I can’t recall the names at the moment.
Q You told us about Professor Mulliavan. He taught
last year too, did he not, for a semester?
A Yes.
Q Who established his salary?
[8205] A Professor Ehrenpreis.
Q You didn’t negotiate the—
A_ I don’t even recall what it is.
Q Now, who selected the visiting professors that
worked at your school during 1973-74, the people you’ve
named, the dozen or so you’ve named?
A The principal investigator.
Q In each instance?
A In each instance.
PO POP
as —
437
Did he also establish the salary?
Yes,
For each of the vising professors?
Yes.
Did these visiting professors engage in research?
Yes.
Do they teach some classes?
Some did; some didn’t.
Did they engage in colloquia?
Some did; some didn’t.
Who decided what they would do?
The principal investigator.
In each instance?
In each instance.
You didn’t decide, did you?
No.
6] Q Professor Patt didn’t decide, did he?
No.
The president of the university didn’t decide?
No.
Just the principal investigator?
Right.
In each instance?
In each instance.
Was that also so in 1972-73?
Yes.
Does that situation exist today, Professor Komar?
Yes.
You have visiting professors at this school for
1974-75?
A Right.
Q On the same basis that you had them for ’73-’74?
A Yes.
Q These visiting professors that were’re talking
about, when they visit, in essence, act like full-time
employees, I would take it?
A Yes. om
Q To that extent they’re different than the visiting
part-time professors that have been talked about in this
proceeding?
PO pO
[3
OPOPO PO PO POPPY PO PO PO PO PO PO
438
A They’re different. I wouldn’t say that they’re more
[3207] or less similar to the full-time. I mean, they’re
just different.
They are different in the sense if they teach a course
or if they give a seminar or whatever they do is not
determined by the department by consensus but by the
principal investigator exclusively. In that sense, they’re
quite different from the others.
Q Now, when these visiting professors are at the
university—I’m talking about the ones at Belfer—
A Right.
Q -—the ones that you’ve just testified about, are
they employees of the university?
A Yes.
Q They draw a paycheck from the university?
A Some are paid by a paycheck; some are paid by a
check, a university check, but it’s out of funds—it’s
not out of salary funds, but, say, out of consulting—
Q They get a university paycheck?
A Yes. |
Q Regardless of the source of the funds.
A Right.
Q And there is withholding taken from that pay-
check?
A For the Americans, yes; not for the foreigners.
Q For the Americans?
A Yes.
[3208] Q They’re covered by the university’s work-
men’s compensation?
A I wouldn’t know. I assume so, but I don’t know.
Q There’s no question in your mind that they’re not
employees of the principal investigator?
A No. No.
Q Therefore, they’re employees of the university?
A Right.
Q Selected by the principal investigator?
A Yes.
Q And, if a principal investigator is happy with the
functioning of the visiting professor, it’s within his au-
thority to invite that professor back the following year?
A Yes.
Ne ee ee
439
Q And this is exemplified by the Ehrenpreis-
Mulliavan situation, right? :
A Yes.
Q If he’s not, it's within his power not to invite
him back?
A Yes.
Q Returning to this exhibit, Dr. Komar, I see a term
“predoctoral fellow.”
Is that the same as a research assistant?
A Yes.
[3209] Q You’ve used that term in defining research
assistant for us before; is that correct?
A That is correct.
Q I see the term “faculty associate.”
A Right.
Q Is that—Does that term have any different mean-
ing from the term “research associate’’?
A No. It’s the same thing.
Q So the fact that there are different names does not
imply a different meaning?
A No.
Q I see a reference to a “full-time fellow” on page
two.
A Yes.
Q Is that in reference to Professor Mulliavan?
A Yes.
Q Would that more properly be called a visiting pro-
fessor?
A Yes.
Q To the extent that he’s called a full-time fellow in
this exhibit, full-time fellow, the e..hibit should be cor-
rected?
A That’s right.
Q Now, remember we’re dealing with the time pe-
riod from June 27 back to the beginning of the 1972—
’73-’74 school year and before when we talk of this
exhibit.
[3210] A _ Right.
Q On the third page of the exhibit there’s a Pro-
fessor Raccah, correct?
A Right.
440
Q Now, next to his name there is no listing of full-
time faculty working under the grant, no listing in col-
umn four.
A Right.
Q Is that correct?
A That’s correct.
MR. SHECTMAN: You are referring, are you, now,
Mr. Kramer, to the fourth page?
MR. KRAMER: I stand corrected, Mr. Shectman.
It is the fourth page.
Q To the best of your recollection, Dean Komar, prior
to June 27, 1974, were there in fact full-time faculty
working under Professor Raccah grants?
A Yes.
Q Who were those faculty, as best you recall?
A Professor Halpern, Professor Bell and Professor
Pollack.
Q These are not listed on these exhibits?
A Right.
Q To the extent they’re not listed, this exhibit is in
error, I take it?
[3211] A_ I guess so.
@ vo should be corrected by adding those names?
es.
Q Now, I show you Employer’s Exhibit 129, Dean
Komar. Professor Halpern’s name does not appear on
that exhibit; is that correct?
A That’s correct.
Q Was he inadvertently left off?
A No.
Q Is he working for the university?
A He’s no longer employed with the university.
Q Will you tell us the facts and circumstances of
how Professor Halpern, whom I think you’ve identified
as a research professor in your prior testimony—
A Right.
Q —is no longer working for the university?
; A Professor Raccah decided to dispense with his serv-
ices.
Q Had his services previously been dispensed with
by any other principal investigator?
at te
441
A He was previously employed under a national sci-
ence foundation departmental development grant under
the direction of Professor Liebowitz.
He was then, when he—Professor—I don’t recall
whether the funds ran out in that category or whatever,
but Professor Liebowitz decided to have him go off that
[3212] grant, and Professor Raccah then employed him
under one of his research grants.
Q Did Professor Liebowitz’s decision to either hire
or terminate the services of Professor Halpern under the
grant require your approval?
No.
Q Did it require any financial officer’s approval?
A No.
Q Did it require approval of the president of the
institution?
A He was not invoived, no.
Q It was Professor Liebowitz, wasn’t it?
A Yes.
In the case of the hiring of Halpern, I don’t know who
was consulted. But, in the case of terminating him, no
one was consulted. Perhaps Raccah was, but I don’t
really know. I was not involved.
Q Who decided to place Halpern on Liebowitz’s grant?
A Liebowitz.
Q By “hiring,” that’s what I mean.
It was Liebowitz who decided to take him on?
A Yes.
Q It was Raccah who decided to hire him, or assign
Professor Halpern to his grant?
A Right.
[3213] Q And it was Raccah who decided to dispense
with his services and terminate him?
A Right.
Q Asa result of that termination, Professor Halpern
left the employ of the school; is that right?
A Right.
Q I mean of Yeshiva University.
A That’s right.
Q No other principal investigator, I take it, was will-
ing to hire him?
A No.
442
Q Or utilize his services?
A No.
Q Have there been other situations like that from
time to time?
A Yes.
Q Would you tell us about that, Professor Komar?
A Well, there are dozens of people who come and go
in this capacity, and I don’t keep track of them at all.
It never even crosses my desk.
You mean--I mean occasionally I see their names. If
I wanted to, I could look up the charges and find out
who they are. But basically there are names—in antici-
pation of this hearing, I looked through some of the files,
and I found names that I had never even heard of before.
{8214] Q These are research professors of the type
we’re talking about?
A Yes.
Q I’m not talking about research associates.
A No. These are professors, PhDs, and they’re not
typically research associates.
® 2 * *
[3220] HEARING OFFICER: On the record.
In the off the record discussion, the parties reached
agreement on a number of points, stipulations, which I
will read into the record and ask for the parties agree-
ment to them.
The first stipulation has to do with the Rabbi Isaac
Elchanan Theologic Seminary, referred to in the prior
testimony as RIETS, R-I-E-T-S.
For purposes of this hearing, RIETS shall not be con-
sidered a part or division of Yeshiva University, and any
services performed at RIETS shall not be considered
[8221] in determining full time or parttime status of
the individual at the University.
Further, the Community Service Division referred to
earlier as CSD, and the Cantorial Training Institute,
referred to here in as CTI, are divisions of RIETS, and
therefore services performed at CSD, or at CTI, shall
not be considered in determining the full time or part-
time status of individuals at Yeshiva University.
i ies wk BS ii RL Ro
443
The final part of the stipulation has to do with Yeshiva
University High School, which the parties agree is not a
part or division of Yeshiva University, and therefore
such services performed at the Yeshiva University High
School shall not be used in determining full time or part-
time status at Yeshiva University.
Do the parties agree to the stipulations as stated in
the record?
Mr. Bodner?
MR. BODNER: Yes, Mr. Hearing Officer, with the
understanding that some individuals associated with
RIETS and or CSD, and or CTI, and or Yeshiva High
Schools, may have teaching responsibilities in Yeshiva
University as herein before referred to, so that the stip-
ulation is intended to exclude only that part of their
service for the respective entities previously referred to,
namely RIETS and or CSD and or CTI, and or the
Yeshiva High Schools.
[3222] HEARING OFFICER: Mr. Shectman, do you
agree to the stipulation that I read into the record?
MR. SHECTMAN: Yes, I accept that stipulation.
So stipulated.
* * * *
RABBI HERBERT C. DORINSKY
was called as a witness, having been first duly sworn by
the Hearing Officer, was examined and testified as fol-
lows:
[3223] HEARING OFFICER: Go ahead, Mr. sodner.
DIRECT EXAMINATION
Q (By Mr. Bodner) Rabbi Dobrinsky, will you tell
us what your position is at Yeshiva University?
A I am the executive assistant to the president.
Q To the president of the University, Dr. Samuel
Belkin?
A Yes.
Q How long have you held that position?
A Since July 16, 1973.
444
Q Did you previously hold any other positions at the
University?
A Yes. I was the associate director of the Com
munity Service Division.
Q Okay.
A CSD, at RIETS.
MR. BODNER: I would just note, Mr. Hearing Of-
ficer, that the CSD just referred to by Rabbi Dobrnsky,
is the subject of a stipulation that was previously entered
into the record, and I will not further inquire as to its
nature.
Q (By Mr. Bodner) Rabbi Dobrinsky, when was
the Sephardic Studies Program formed at Yeshiva Uni-
versity?
A In 1946.
Q Would you describe for us the nature of the Sep-
hardic Studies Program?
[3224] A The Sephardic Studies Program was found-
ed by Dr. Samuel Belkin, president of Yeshiva University,
and the Haham, H-a-h-a-m, Rabbi Dr. Solomon Gaon,
G-a-o-n, Chief Rabbi of Sephardic Jews of the British
Commonwealth, who came to Yeshiva University at that
time as a visiting lecturer.
The other program founded at the same time was the
Sephardic Community Activities Programs—Program,
which is located under the aegis of CSD.
I was appointed as director of Sephardic Community
Activities, at that time, and have for the past ten years,
continued to direct that particular program.
Q Would you briefly describe for us, Rabbi Dobrin-
sky, what you mean by Sephardic Community Activities?
A The Sephardic Community Activities Program in-
cludes all programs relating to the Sephardic community
in America, and by that I mean the United States and
Canada, Latin America, in particular the more than
seventy Sephardic congregations which exist in North
America, by providing a program of synagogue leader-
ship conferences, cultural activities, such as the annual
Sephardic cultural festival, hosting the American Society
of Sephardic Studies, which is an autonomous group of
academicians, of all faiths interested in Sephardic studies,
i
'
445
who meet each year at Yeshiva University, placing of
Rabbis, Hazzinim, (Cantors).
[83225] MR. SHECTMAN: If the Witness will pardon
me for interrupting at this time, if I may, Mr. Bodner,
the testimony indicates that the Sephardic Community
Activities Program is under CSD.
I think it’s generally understood already the nature of
this program, and rather than extend the record, I think
we can—I would move or ask that we limit testimony in
this regard.
MR. BODNER: Yes.
I had only inquired as to the nature of the activities to
clarify that the Community Actvities Program, the
Sephardic Activities Program, is a part of one of the
affiliates, and I take it that is correct, Rabbi Dobrinsky?
THE WITNESS: Correct.
MR. BODNER: So it is clear for the record, we are
distinguishing between the Sephardic Studies Program
and the Sephardic Community Actvities Program, and
as to the latter, namely the Sephardic Community Ac-
tivities Program, it is correct, I take it, Rabbi Dobrinsky,
that this is a part of the Community—this is a part of
the Community Service Division?
THE WITNESS: Correct.
MR. BODNER: This is a part of the Community
Service Division, which was the subject of a previous
stipulation of exclusion.
[3226] So that I will not go into any further details as
to the Sephardic Community Activities Program.
I will continue my testimony of Rabbi Dobrinsky as to
the other element, and that is the Sephardic Studies Pro-
gram.
Q (By Mr. Bodner) Rabbi Dobrinsky, with regard
to the Sephardic Studies Program, just so that it is clear
for the record, does the Sephardic Studies Program offer
degrees of its own?
That is, can you receive a degree from the Sephardic
Studies Program, a Bachelor’s or Masters degree?
A Not a degree of its own.
Q Okay.
Does it offer course credits of its own?
446
That is, can one receive credit listed as being from the
Sephardic Studies Program or a degree? ;
A No.
Q Or—
A No. One can major in Sephardic Studies, as a part
of the Erna Michael College program, but the degree ‘will
be the regular Bachelor of Arts degree, Hebraic Studies
diploma, or the Bachelor of Science d :
Teachers’ diploma. egree or the Hebrew
Q I see.
Of the Erna Michael College. But it is not spe-
cifically [8227] and exclusivel a
pier a y a degree for Sephardic
Q So that the Sephardic Studies Program is not a
school or degree granting institute unto itself, is that
correct?
Q That is correct.
And it does not issue transcripts of it ?
° That is correct. ‘ sucess
Rabbi Dobrinsky, you mentioned the Sephardi
Studies major in Erna Michael College. eer
hi = you describe that for us, please?
Q. Or I should say affiliated with Erna Michael Col-
ege?
A The Erna Michael College curriculum i
, provides
for a Bachelor of Arts and Bachelor of dues dino
and students may also qualify for Hebraic Studies di-
ploma or Hebrew Teachers’ diploma.
Under the Bachelor of Arts program, a student may
persue a secondary concentration in Sephardic studies
op oro for a position in the Jewish community
an educator in general, and in particul
_— of Sephardic schools. sPiowen sabato tng
‘Major in Sephardic studies is offered in the pr
leading to the Bachelor of Science degree, he Siacale
Studies diploma, or the Hebrew Teachers’ diploma.
[3228] Now, the requirements for this particular major
are that all of the courses in the Erna Michael College
catalog, in all disciplines numbered 70-79, while open to
all students, are designed for those who wish to con-
centrate in Sephardic studies,
TRE ed
447
They are listed in a document that I can present to
you, if you wish, or I can stipulate them as Education
77-78, History 5.1, 6.1, and 4 of the following courses.
71, 72, 73, 74, 75, 76. Those are all history courses.
Q Can I just interrupt for one moment?
MR. BODNER: Off the record.
HEARING OFFICER: Off the record.
(Discussion off the record.)
HEARING OFFICER: On the record.
MR. BODNER: Rabbi Dobrinsky, you were referring
in your testimony to a document that you were holding,
and I will offer this document for identification as Em-
ployer’s Exhibit 132, the document being entitled Erna
Michael College of Hebraic Studies, Yeshiva University,
Sephardic Studies Major.
(Whereupon, the above-mentioned document was re-
ceived as Employer’s Exhibit No. 132 for identifi-
cation.)
MR. BODNER: I will simultaneously offer for identi-
fication as Employer’s Exhibit 133, a document entitled
[3229] An In-Department Report on the Progress of
Yeshiva University’s Sephardic Studies Program, and
Sephardic Community Activities Program, with the ad-
ditional designation on it, September 1971-September
1972.
I would note that the document marked for identifica-
tion as 132 is—constitutes an update of a significant part
of the Sephardic Studies Program, namely that part
involved in the Erna Michael major in Sephardic Studies,
and while Employer Exhibit 132 has not been formally
adopted by the University, Rabbi Dobrinsky has read
through it and will indicate any parts of it as to which
there is still some uncertainty as to its final adoption.
(Whereup, the above-mentioned document was re-
ceived as Employer’s Exhibit No. 133 for identifi-
cation. )
Q (By Mr. Bodner) Rabbi Dobrinsky, would you
just identify for us on what page of the document marked
448
for identification as Employer Exhibit 132 there is a
listing of those courses offering in the Erna Michael
College that are part of the Sephardic Studies Program.
A Pages 2,3 and 4. That is Erna Michael.
The bottom portion of page 4 we have graduate level
Sephardic Studies courses, and the reason that that’s in-
cluded here is because some selected upper classmen may,
with the approval of the dean of Erna Michael, and the
dean [3230] of the University’s Bernard Revel Graduate
“.) take graduate courses for undergraduate credit.
see.
A And the instructors for these courses are drawn
from the faculty of the Bernard Revel Graduate School,
and on page 5 there’s a listing of, and on page 6, there
are listings of those courses that would be considered
as graduate courses which may be taken by Erna Michael
students for undergraduate credit.
Q_I notice, Rabbi Dobrinsky, in Employer’s Exhibit
133 for identification, there was also contained a list of
courses of the Sephardic Studies Program at Erna
Michael College, on pages 1 and 2 thereof, and is it
correct to assume that the courses listed in Employer
Exhibit 132, referring to Erna Michael College, essential-
ly are an update of the courses listed in 133?
A That is correct.
There are some courses listed in this Exhibit 132,
which are not listed in Exhibit 133.
Q Now, in addition you referred to Sephardic Studies
Program courses in the Bernard Revel School.
Would you briefly describe whether credit is given
for those in the Bernard Revel School, and that consti-
tutes the courses of the Sephardic Studies Program in
the Revel School?
[8231] A The formal major in Sephardic Studies is
currently available only in Erna Michael College.
However, there is a study presently under way in the
Bernard Revel Graduate School, by faculty and—asking
for the suggestions of our visiting Professor of Sephardic
Studies, who serves in the Bernard Revel Graduate
School, as well as in the Erna Michael College, a pro-
gram of Sephardic major is being formulated in the
Naiett eee
449
Bernard Revel Graduate School.
At the present time, there are many courses of Sep-
hardic interest in the Bernard Revel Graduate School,
which have attracted a number of Sephardic students,
but the program is not formalized as a Sephardic major
in the same way, yet, as it is in Erna Michael.
MR. BODNER: I will not go into the courses that
are not part of the Sephardic Studies Program, though
they may be of interest to Sephardic students. _
Q (By Mr. Bodner) I would ask you, Rabbi Dobrin-
sky, if there are Sephardic program study courses In any
other schools, other than Erna Michael and Bernard
Revel, the schools you previously described?
A There is a course, Jews Under Islam, offered in
Eastern College. ne
Q This is ae to in Employer’s Exhibit 133 for
identification, on page 3 thereof?
[3232] A That’s correct.
And there are other courses offered in Eastern College
for women as well.
I do not know which courses are being offered this
semester.
Okay.
In Jewish College there is a course on Ladina,
Judao-Spanish, which is to be offered this semester, de-
pending upon the number of students that enroll.
Other courses are in the affiliate schools, such as
RIETS, Cantorial Training Institute, which provides two
different courses in Sephardic Liturgy or Hazzanut back-
ground, teaching both the Oriental, Eastern and the Oxi-
denta!, Western, Sephardic Nusach, N-u-s-a-c-h, (Cantil-
lation of Liturgy).
MR. BODNER: I will just note for the record that I
will not go into further detail as to Sephardic Studies
Programs courses offered in any of the entities which
were part of the stipulation of exclusion.
I would just also note that there is reference in Em-
ployer’s 133 to courses in the Cantorial Training Insti-
tute, at page 2 and 3 thereof, and as to this, as well,
since it was the subject of a stipulation of exclusion, we
will not go into any further detail.
450
(By Mr. Bodner) Rabbi Dobrinsky, the courses
to which [3233] you have referred that are presently
taught in various schools of Yeshiva University, the
faculty who teach these courses is the next subject of my
inquiry.
Are any of these courses taught by an individual who
holds a Chair in Sephardic Studies?
A Yes. Dr. Hayyim, H-a-y-y-i-m, J. Cohen, is the
first professor to hold the Chair in Sephardic Studies at
Yeshiva University, and he is teaching two courses in
Erna Michael College for Hebraic Studies, and two
courses in the Bernard Revel Graduate School.
Q So that his total combined course offering is four
courses?
A Considered to be full time, in terms of the course
load, because in addition he also has to handle disserta-
tion work, in that he’s a consultant for, and overseeing
the dissertation, right now, of at least one student that
I’m aware of.
Q And this is a student in which school?
A Bernard Revel Graduate School.
Q I see.
A And he’s also available as a resource for research
information to the University, so that he’s teaching four
courses and in addition, he is required to be available
for additional time for consultation, and for research in-
formation.
ody MR. KRAMER: I propose the following stipu-
ation.
Page 3108, line 16, duties should read degrees.
Page 3109 Professor Behrings name is B-e-h-r-i-n-d-s.
HEARING OFFICER: How about the bottom of
3108, where we have theoresical physics?
MR. KRAMER: I’m not going to try to correct the
typist. There are so many.
HEARING OFFICER: I see what you mean.
MR. KRAMER: Page 3116—
[3249] HEARING OFFICER: I don’t have that page
I’m sorry.
Aan fos Pa»
451
MR. KRAMER: Line 23, should read math and sci-
ence education department.
Page 3117, line 10, Belfer should read Ferkauf.
Line 16 of that same page, the words, “the depth,
should be replaced with the words “a state”.
On page 3119, line one, the line should read “now
since much of this has just been promulgated within
this, as opposed to what it reads now.
On page 3118, line 24, after word university, should
be inserted, “except for the”.
HEARING OFFICER: Except for what?
MR. KRAMER: The department of the, should be
after “of College of Medicine”.
That line should read, to correct it by stipulation, line
24 of page 3118, “department of the entire University,
except for the department at the College.”
Page 3128, line 16 and 17, should read as follows:
“Tf we had television for the reader of the record, if he
saw the smiles in the room, he”.
Page 3130, line 4, striard, should read striar, s-t-r-i-a-r.
The paragraph beginning at line 5 and ending at line
12 should read. However, as I recall the record, putting
that aside, all witnesses have testified basically that the
[3250] University load is 12 hours or four courses. As I
recall Dr. Fishman saying, it is the requirement of 12
hours or the equivalent of that, I do not recall, putting
aside those two witnesses which I cannot comment on,
because I haven’t read their testimony, that the record
is not to that effect.”
Page 3132 line 8, the word the should be replaced
with the word each.
3135, line 18, the word governing should be replaced
with the word governance.
8137 line 6, the word natural should be replaced by
the word actual.
Page 3138 line 10 and thereafter, where ever this
errow may appear, the words Dean Iomar, I-o-m-a-r, the
I is incorrect, it should be Komar, K-o-m-a-r.
HEARING OFFICER: Excuse me, before you go on,
Mr. Kramer.
3136, what line did you see natural on?
452
MR. KRAMER: Off the record.
(Discussion off the record.)
HEARING OFFICER: On the record.
Phare KRAMER: 3140, line 6, the word the shouid be
em.
3143, line 18 should read as they zoom in on one or
two people, they.
[3251] And on line 20, “colloquy” should be colloquium.
3171, line 18, the word trainingship grounds, should
changed to training grants.
I stand corrected.
Those words should be traineeship, t-r-a-i-n-e-e-s-h-i-p
grants, instead of training grants.
HEARING OFFICER: Anything else, Mr. Kramer?
MR. KRAMER: No, sir.
That is my stipulation.
HEARING OFFICER: Mr. Shectman, do you agree
to the stipulation?
MR. SHECTMAN: I’m in agreement with the stipu-
lation.
[8253] A The ranges of new employees, or in general?
Q_ In general?
A I think I testified to that last time.
Full professors run, well, it’s changed since my last
—— because there have been so promotions, I
ink.
Q Your testimony reflects a range of from 12 to 40
thousand. It makes no differentiations?
A That’s right.
It’s in that range, yes.
Q No, no. For each rank now, Dean Komar, approxi-
mately.
A Okay.
Approximately. Let’s say full professors I’d say run
from approximately 19,000 to somewhat under 40,000
on a nine month basis.
Q Yes.
A Academic salary. Associate professors run, I’m
trying to think, I would say from 14 to about 23, and
453
assistants—Well, sought or—no, no assistants, I’m sorry,
run from 13 to 23.
Associates—do we have any associates? Oh, some-
where an—say between 15 and 25 would be safe. Some-
where in that ball park. I don’t know off hand.
[3254] Q You have told us that the salaries in the
range you have just described apply to the academic
year, or nine month year, is that correct?
A Yes.
Q Do your faculty members, however, work only a
nine month year?
A No. Many of them work a 12 month year.
Q Where does the—correction, strike that.
- What is the source of the additional three months em-
ployment, or the sources of the additional three months
employment, as the case may be.
A Generally, their additional income is derived from
research grants. They’re permitted to earn a third more
over the nine month salary, if they have grant support.
Q Grant support, however, Dean Komar, is not limit-
ed simply to the summer, is it?
A No.
[DEAN ARTHUR KOMAR—
DIRECT EXAMINATION, RESUMED]
« x * *
Q (By Mr. Kramer) In preparation for your testi-
mony today, Dr. Komar, at my request did I ask you to
prepare an updated list of current grants and pending
grants, and I’m referring to research grants, in your
school?
[8255] A Yes.
Q Did you have such a list prepared by someone un-
der your overall supervision and control?
A Yes.
Q Who was that, Dean Komar?
A My secretary.
Q Did you check the list that she prepared against
your own recollection?
A Yes, I did.
Q To the best of your knowledge, is that list correct?
A Yes.
454
Q Now, in preparing this list, did I ask you to limit
your self to faculty type personnel, as opposed to tech-
nicians, secretaries, and research assistants?
A That’s correct.
Q I show you Employer’s Exhibit 134 marked for
identification, a document entitled Belfer Graduate
School of Science, Yeshiva University, current grants, in
the right hand corner, updated 1-17-75.
Is this the document I asked you to have prepared for
us?
A Yes.
Q The document has certain names underlined in
blue, and certain names underlined in red.
Would you tell us, Dean Komar, what the blue [3256]
underlining stands for?
A The blue underlined name is the principal investi-
gator.
Q And the red underlined names are other doctorial
faculty members who are on the grants in varying ca-
pacities, depending upon the grant.
Q You have not included, have you, research assist-
ants?
A No.
Q Those would be pre-doctoral people?
A Those would be pre-doctoral people.
Q Let’s turn to the second page of this Exhibit.
To the first grant on that page. I’d like you to number
the page at the bottom in pencil, please, if you would, as
page 2.
Would you number each of the pages thereafter, too?
(Witnesse complies. )
Q Looking to the first grant on that page, to the name
Dr. h. Choi, C-h-o-i—
A Right.
Q Is that the Dr. Choi that you referred to previously
in your testimony?
A Yes.
Now, iet’s turn to the second grant on that page,
to Donald Beck. Is that the Donald Beck to whom you
referred previously?
[8257] A Yes.
| oe aT OT.
455
Q Next to his name is Ian Cooper. Who is lan
Cooper?
A Well, I never met him personally. He was hired
by Professor Musher. He is professor at another uni-
versity, I don’t recall which one. I don’t recall which one.
He was hired by Musher to work on his grant for some
period of time.
Q Now, did he in fact work on that grant?
A Yes.
Q Was he paid by the University for that work?
A Yes.
Q Let’s turn to the next name, Dita, Hellwinkel,
H-e-]-]-w-i-n -k-e-].
A Dita Hellwinkel. He was a professor from Ger-
many. He is I—I think his regular post is at a German
university if I remember correctly. He again was hired
by Professor Musher to work on that particular grant.
I have never met him.
Q Did he in fact work at Yeshiva University?
A Yes.
Q Was he an employee of the University, when he
worked there?
A Yes.
Q Now, Jeremy Musher, you have told us, has passed
away?
[8258] A Correct.
Q Has been replaced by Donald Beck, is that so?
A That’s correct.
Q Let’s turn to the fourth name on the second grant,
page 2 of the Exhibit 134, and to the name Dr. V.
B-o-n-a-c-i-c, K-o-u-t-e-c-k-y.
Would you tell us what his status is?
A It’s a woman.
Q Her status is?
A She is a chemist, doctoral chemist, I believe from
Romania, and she was employed at that time by Pro-
fessor Musher, to work on that grant for him.
Q Does she have a full time appointment as a member
of the faculty at Belfer School of Science?
A She did at that time. She did during some period
during the lifetime of the grant which ran from 1971 to
456
1975. She’s no longer employed. She left. She’s now in
Germany.
Q Who was she hired by?
A Professor Musher.
Q As a result of that hiring, she became a full time
faculty member of the school?
A Yes.
Q She’s now no longer with the school, I take it?
A Right.
Q Now let’s turn to the third grand on page 2 of the
[3259] Employer’s Exhibit 134.
I see there the principal investigator is Jeremy Musher.
He’s passed away. Has a replacement been selected?
A Iam not sure. If so, it would be probably Profes-
sor Beck, but the—that’s not a government grant, that’s
a grant from the American Chemical Society, and it’s a
litle more freewheeling in discretion.
Q Donald Beck appears as a faculty associate on that
grant?
A Correct.
Q You told us how Dr. Beck came to be employed in
the University.
A He was hired by Professor Musher, initially.
Q That was last summer?
A Yes.
Q_ Let’s turn to the second name on that third grant
on page two, H. Nakatsuji. Would you tell us what
Professor Nakatsuji’s status is?
A He is—I really don’t know him at all. I have
never seen him. I never, in fact, was aware of the name
until we were preparing this list.
However, he was hired by Professor Musher, he is a
post-doctoral person, to work on his grant, to aid Musher
in the research being performed on the grant.
[8260] Q While he worked on the research on the grant
with his post doctoral degree, he was an employee of the
University?
A Correct.
Q Doing scholarly work, Dr. Komar?
A That’s correct.
457
Q Now, let’s turn to page 3 of the Employer’s Ex-
hibit 1384. The second grant on the page. That grant,
principal investigator is Louis Coburn, is that correct?
A That’s correct.
Q A full time faculty member of your school, is that
right?
A That’s right.
Q Under his name are two co-principal investigators,
Charles Berger and Arnold Lebow. Are they both faculty
members, holding full time appointments at your school?
A Yes.
Q Now, let’s turn to a fourth name on—under the
grant, also underlined in red, together with Berger and
Lebow, an §. Anastasio, faculty associate.
What is his status or her status on that grant?
A He is a post-doctoral person who was hired by
them to work on that grant. I don’t know who he is.
There again, I was not familiar with that name until
we went through the records to prepare this list.
[8261] Q That hiring was made by whom?
A By Professor Coburn.
Q Did Mr. Anastasio, or Ms. Anastasio, engage in
scholarly work under that grant?
A I presume so. The grant is a research grant, and
this is a post-doctoral person.
Q Let’s turn to the third grant on page three of
Employer’s Exhibit 134, and I note there the name, un-
derscored in red, next to the appellation visiting faculty
associate, Paul Malliavin, M-a-l-l-i-a-y-i-n. Is that the
same gentleman to whom you referred in your prior
testimony?
A That’s correct.
Q Now, let’s turn to the fourth grant on page three,
the principal investigator on that grant appears to be an
Adam Koranyi, correct?
A Correct.
Q He is a fuli time faculty member at your school?
A Yes.
Q Holding a base appointment in your school?
A Yes,
458
Q On that same grant is the name Robert Putts next
to the title faculty associate?
A That’s right.
Q Do you know Robert Putts?
A Yes.
[3262] Q What is his status, Dean Komar?
A He is a post-doctoral, I think he’s an assistant
professor, if I remember—either an instructor or assist-
ant professor in the mathematics department. A full
time faculty member in the mathematics department.
Q Who hired him for that grant?
A Professor Koranyi, K-o-r-a-n-y-i.
Q Now let’s turn to the fourth pafe of Employer’s
Exhibit 134, to the first grant thereon.
That grant shows a principal investigator a G. W.
Cameron, is that correct?
A Correct.
Q Full time faculty member at your school?
A Yes.
Q_ By the way, all the principal investigators on this
list a full time faculty members at your school, are they
not?
A Yes.
Professor Cameron is on leave of absence without pay,
for the past few years, but he still administers the grant
in our school.
Q Does he draw salary from that grant?
A I don’t—he did at one time. For the current year,
I don’t believe so, hut I’m not sure.
Q He’s on leave of absence, but still administers the
[3263] grant?
A Correct.
Q He’s still an employee, is he not, of Yeshiva Uni-
versity?
A Yes.
Q Though on leave of absence?
A Yes.
Q Now, who are the four—there are four—strike
that.
There are four names underlined in red on that grant?
A Yes.
}
ys
Bene en ee A eS am
459
Q Let’s take the first one, R. Buchler. Do you know
who R. Buchler is, B-u-c-h-l-e-r?
A He was a, I think assistant professor was his
range, in the physics department.
Full time?
Full time.
Base appointment in your school?
Yes,
Hired by whom, orto this grant?
By Professor Cameron.
The next name is L. Landovitz, La-n-d-o-v-i-t-z. Do
you know who L. Landovitz is?
A Yes. He’s a full professor of physics in the physics
department.
[8264] Q Who selected him to work on this grant?
A Professor Cameron.
Q Let’s look at the next name, J. Littleton. Do you
know who J. Littleton is?
A Not really. He was hired by Professor Cameron.
OPO PO PO
I don’t believe I have ever met him. But he’s a post-
doctoral person doing research with Professor Cameron.
Q Selected by Professor Cameron?
A Yes.
Q When he did hs research as the case of all post-
doctoral fellows—
A Yes—
Q —he was an employee of Yeshiva University?
A Yes.
Q Engaged in scholarly work?
A Yes.
Q TurntoJ. Truran.
A Yes.
Q Do you know J. Truran?
A Yes.
Q Would you tell us his status at Yeshiva University?
A Since he left us this passed year, or was it two
years ago, but he was, I believe a full professor of physics
in the physics department, regular appointment. And
he has since resigned his appointment.
[3265] Q Who secured his assignment on that grant?
A Professor Cameron.
460
Let’s turn to the third grant on page four of Em-
ployer’s Exhibit 134.
A Right.
Q I see there the principal investigator is a Joel
L. Lebowitz, is that correct?
A Correct.
Q What’s Mr. or Professor Lebowitz’ position?
A He’s chairman of the physics department.
Q Now, underneath his name, next to the title visit-
ing faculty associates, are three names.
The first is O. E. Lanford III. Are you aware of his
status?
A He has visited Professor Lebowitz for an extended
period of time, and was supported by Professor Lebowitz’
grant. How long the period of time was, I don’t re-
call, but it was in excess of a week, because the list for
Professor Lebowitz was extremely long, and it would
fill several pages, if we didn’t have some cut off in who
we were to include.
Q In other words, just so that we are clear on this,
Professor Komar, you have not listed under Professor
Lebowitz’ grant, number AFOSR73-2430B, on page four
of Employer’s Exhibit 134, all of the visiting faculty
associates, is that [3266] correct?
A No. No.
Q What was the cut off that you used?
A In excess of a week, during this present academic
year.
Q I assume there were many shorter than a week?
A During this year, and many longer than a week
during previous years.
Q Those longer than a week during previous years,
are not listed at all, is that correct?
A Not on this list, no. Some of them may have ap-
peared on the earlier list.
Q By that you mean Employer’s Exhibit 62, appended
to Board Exhibit 2, is that correct?
A That’s right.
Q Now, let’s turn to QO. Penrose. That’s the second
name next to that third grant on page four.
461
Is that the name O. Penrose that you referred to in
your previous testimony?
A That’s right.
Q Finally, there’s an L. K. Runnels, R-u-n-n-e-l-s. Un-
derlined in red, next to that title, visiting faculty asso-
ciate on that third grant on page four of Employer’s
Exhibit 134. Do you know his status?
A I don’t know who he is. I just know from the
records [3267] that he visited us during the present aca-
demic year, for a period in excess of a week. But I have
no idea who he is. He’s a post-doctoral person, from
another university. But where, I don’t know.
Q Is it a fact, Dean Komar, that Messrs. Lanford,
Penrose and Runnels, were all employees of the Uni-
versity?
Yes,
All paid by the University?
Yes.
Ail did scholarly work at the University?
Correct.
All on Professor Lebowitz’ grant?
Yes.
All hired by Professor Lebowitz?
Right.
There are additional faculty members—correction.
Additional visiting faculty members this year, who
v.zited for less than a week?
A Yes.
Q Who were selected an hired by Professor Lebowitz?
A That’s right.
Q Is it also a fact that there were faculty members
during the 1973-1974 term, visiting faculty members, who
were not—who were hired by Professor Lebowitz, who
are not shown at all on this Exhibit?
([3268] A That’s correct.
Q That’s so whether they worked a week or more?
A Right.
Let’s turn to the fourth grant on page four of
Employer’s Exhibit 134, a grant of Paul M. Raccah,
R-a-c-c-a-h, listing two faculty associates, T. Halpern and
F. Pollack.
OPO PO PO POY
462
Is the T. Halpern the gentleman about whom you tes-
tified last time?
A That’s correct.
Q Let’s turn to the name of F. Pollack. Will you tell
us what Mr. Pollack’s status is?
A Professor Pollack is a professor of physics in the
physics department.
I’m just trying to recall now whether—I think he’s
a full professor.
Either associate or full, I just don’t recall. But he’s
a regular faculty member.
[3269] Q Was Mr. Pollack hired for this grant, by
Professor Raccah?
A Yes.
Q Let’s turn to the next grant right under that, a
grant of $148,840.00 to—through a principal investiga-
tor, Paul M. Raccah.
Is that the same Progessor Raccah?
A Yes.
Q This grant shows three faculty associates, an M.
Bell, A. T. Halpern, and an F. Pollack.
Is that the same Halpern and Pollack you’ve referred
to previously? ;
A Yes.
Q Would your answers with respect to Halpern and
Pollack be the same for this grant, as they were for
the previous grant that I questioned you about?
A Yes.
Q Let’s turn to the name, M. Bell.
Would you tell us what the status of M. Bell is?
A M. Bell, Professor Bell is an assistant professor
in the Physics Department.
Q Who hired him for that grant?
A Professor Raccah.
Q Okay.
A I should say, Professor Bell is on a status [3270]
whereby he is supported entirely by grant funds, and
whether he would be retained or not depends on Pro-
fessor Raccah.
I mean, retained in the University.
ree
463
Q In other words, if Professor Raccah didn’t want
him on that grant, and he couldn’t secure employment
through another principal investigator, he would have
no job, is that what you’re saying?
A That’s exactly what I’m saying.
Q_ Let’s turn to the next grant, also a grant to Paul
M. Raccah, the next to last grant listed on Page 4 of
Employer’s Exhibit 134, the faculty associate on that
$40,000.00 grant appears to be F. Pollack.
Is that the same F. Pollack referred to above?
A Yes.
Q Would your answers with respect to Mr. Pollack be
the same as they were with respect to the other grants
in which he’s listed?
A Yes.
Q Would that be true with respect to the next grant,
which also shows principal investigator, Paul M. Raccah,
and a faculty associate, F. Pollack?
A Yes.
Q Let’s turn, Dean Komar, to Page 5 of Employer’s
Exhibit 134, more particularly to the second grant [3271]
listed there, the principal investigator on that grant
is Jonathan Wachtel, is that correct?
A Yes.
Q Is Jonathan Wachtel a full time faculty member
at your school?
A Yes.
He’s—He’s an associate professor in the Physics De-
partment.
Q But he’s a full time faculty member, is he not?
A Yes.
Q Holding a base appointment in your school?
A Yes.
Q That grant lists a faculty associate, H. Presby.
Do you know H. Presby?
A Yes.
Q Would you tell us about his status, please?
A He was an assistant professor in the Physics De-
partment.
He has since left the University.
464
Q Who hired him for the grant listed on Page 5?
A Professor Wachtel.
Q He was hired while he was an assistant professor,
was he not?
A Yes.
Q And secured employment on that grant, and com-
pensation [8272] as a result thereof, it that correct?
A That’s right.
Q Now, I note that Pages 6, 7 and 8 start under
the heading, Pending Proposals, is that correct?
A Yes.
Q How do those differ from Pages 1 to 5?
A One to five are proposals already granted by the
granting agencies.
So, they are in force at the moment.
Q But Pages 6, 7 and 8 are not in force, are they?
A No.
Q. All right.
Are all the persons underlined in blue, full time faculty
members, holding base appointments in your school?
A Yes.
Q Now, let’s turn to Page 7, and to the second grant
sought in the amount of $215,695.00 by Lewis A. Coburn,
and listing co-principal investigators, Charles Berger and
Arnold Lebow.
Are Charles Berger and Arnold Lebow full time fac-
ulty members of your school?
A Yes.
Q Now, Dr. Komar, this grant being sought in the
amount of $215,695.00, is for what period of time?
[8273] A From May Ist, 1975, to April 30th, 1978.
Q_ Now, given the amount of money being sought un-
der that grant, and given the terms of that grant, to the
extent that you may know them, will the faculty members
who are either principal or investigator, or co-principal
investigators, on that grant, have the authority, within
the grant, to hire faculty associates, research associates,
visiting faculty members, for that grant?
A They would have the authority, provided the funds
are available—provided funds are available within the
budget which is finally granted.
465
Q Assuming that number was $215,695.00, that au-
thority would exist, would it not?
A Yes.
Q Now, I note that the third grant lists a Leon
Erenprice as the principal investigator, and Paul Male-
vian as the investigating faculty associate.
Who chose Paul Malevian to be the visiting faculty
associate on that grant?
A Professor Erenprice.
Q Did you have anything to do with that?
A Nothing at all.
Q ‘That’s the third grant on Page 7, is that correct?
A Yes.
[8274] Third grant proposal.
These are proposals.
Q Yes, sir.
Now, with respect to the fifth grant on that page, I
note that it’s under principal investigator, Adam Koranyi,
and faculty associate, Robert Putts.
Are those the same gentlemen we talked about previ-
ously?
A Yes.
Q Who selected Robert Putts to be the faculty asso-
ciate on that grant?
A Professor Koranyi.
Q Did you have anything to do with that?
A No.
Q If that grant is granted by the government, will
Putts secure employment there?
A If Koranyi so chooses.
In fact, Professor Putts, I guess he’s either Professor
or Instructor, is planning to leave at the end of this aca-
demic year, in which case, it will be up to Professor
Koranyi to decide what to do about the grant, whether
to replace Putts by someone else, or to retain him.
Q He would have the authority to choose?
A Yes.
[8275] Q To make the hiring in this particular case?
A Yes.
466
Q Now, Dr. Komar, just so the record is clear, in ad-
dition to the faculty-type personnel we’ve just reviewed,
are other personnel employed on grants of the type, either
granted or being sought, which is described in Employer’s
Exhibit 134?
A Yes.
Q Would you tell us the type of non-faculty person-
nel that work on these grants?
Obviously, it differs from grant to grant, but give us
an overview, if you would?
A Generally, there are research assistants, who are
pre-doctoral students.
There are secretaries, there are, occasionally, tech-
nicians.
Lab assistants.
Q Now,—
A I guess that’s about it.
Q Let’s turn for a moment to the technicians you have
just referred to.
How were they selected, Dr. Komar?
A I—
Q I'll rephrase that question.
How were they hired?
[3276] A When a principal investigator requires the
services of a technician, he hired one.
From the outside?
Providing the funds are available in the grant, yes.
From the outside market?
Yes.
Do you hire him?
No.
Does Dr. Sokol hire him?
No.
He has to approve, I suppose, the payroll memo.
That’s about it.
Q That would be a routine approval, would it not?
A Yes.
Q_ The hiring is done by the principal investigator?
A Yes.
PO
PO PO PO
wn
ee eT
467
Q If the principal investigator is dissatisfied with
that laboratory assistant, he can have the authority to
terminate him, I would assume?
A Yes, to the extent that they’re not unionized.
I imagine that would present complications.
Q To the extent they’re unionized, he wovid have the
power effectively to recommend termination?
A Yes.
[8277] Q The same way that a foreman would in an
auto factory, isn’t that correct?
A Exactly.
Q Would you tell us how secretaries are selected for
this grant, for these grants?
A Well, it varies.
Those grants which have enough money to support an
entire secretary of their own, the principal investigator
simply selects a secretary.
Q By select, you mean,—
A He interviews them and says, this is the one I
want, or if he wants to terminate her because he doesn’t
like her work, he simply says, I want her terminated.
Many of the grants cannot support a full time secre-
tary, and so we have a secretarial pool, and the principal
investigators request secretarial service, and frequently
are assigned a particular person in the pool, which is
then charged to his grant.
If he is dissatisfied with the person assigned to him on
his grant, he can ask that she be removed and someone
else be assigned.
Q His request to that effect, about reassignment, is
normally granted?
A Yes.
[3278] Q Do you have any idea, Dean Komar, what
percentage of time, full time faculty in your school, who
are principal investigators, spend in supervising, manag-
ing, directing, assigning, the non-faculty type employees,
or non-professional employees, as we would call them, who
work under these grants?
A It varies from person to person.
I imagine that, I mean, I don’t know firsthand, I
imagine that someone—
A68
[8285] Q You have told us previously that you have
had research grants yourself, is that correct?
A Yes.
[3286] Q Have you had non-faculty personnel assigned
to those grants?
A Secretaries and graduate students.
Q Could you tell us with any degree of accuracy, what
percentage of your overall working time, during the par-
ticular academic year, when you had one of those grants,
was spent in supervising, managing, director or control-
ling those non-faculty personnel?
A Not really.
It varied all over the place.
Some weeks I was completely tied up with the secretary
or a graduate student.
Other weeks, I was not as much.
I mean, it would be very hard to estimate.
Q_ Are records kept on that basis, Dean Komar?
A No records were kept on that basis.
* * * *
{[8289] Q (By Mr. Kramer) Dr. Komar, who is re-
sponsible for seeing to it that the faculty or professional
type personnel employed on these grants, in fact, do their
work?
A The principal investigator.
Q You don’t go around seeing to it that they do it,
do you?
A Not at all.
Q Who is responsible for seeing to the quality of that
work?
A The principal investigator.
Q Who has the authority to transfer these profes-
sional personnel from one task or function or assignment,
to another?
A The principal investigator.
Q You don’t do it, do you?
A Not at all.
Q Assistant Dean Patt doesn’t do it, does he?
A No.
Q_ Dr. Fishman doesn’t do it?
A No.
469
Q_ Dr. Sokol doesn’t do it?
A No.
[3220] Q It’s not done in the grant accounting office
of the main University, is it?
A No.
Q If, in fact, Dean Komar, the professional personnel
working on the grants under the aegis of the principal
investigator are not being supervised by the principal
investigator, they are unsupervised, is that correct?
A I imagine so.
Q There isn’t anybody else?
A There isn’t anybody else.
* + * *
[3319] Whereupon,
ARTHUR G. KOMAR,
having been previously duly sworn, resumed and testified
further as follows:
MR. KRAMER: Yes, sir, I have two corrections for
the record.
HEARING OFFICER: Okay.
Will you please read them into the record.
MR. KRAMER: In the hearing of January 15th, at
page 3154, line 12, the third word from the end should
read “tantrums.”
HEARING OFFICER: And your second correction?
[8320] MR. KRAMER: And on page 3186 the word
“measuring” which is found on line 6 should be ‘“mesh-
ing.”
HEARING OFFICER: Okay.
CROSS EXAMINATION
[3323] Q Pursuant to the faculty handbook did these
members of your full-time faculty obtain your permission
to teach outside of the university?
A Yes.
Q And do they—does—and does Professor Pomerantz
[3324] have a full-time teaching load or its equivalent
at the Belfer Graduate School?
A Yes.
470
[3331] Q What percentage of your full time faculty is
tenured?
A About 80 percent, maybe 90 percent. I don’t really
know.
I mean, I didn’t do the exact estimate but it’s a very
high percentage.
Q Between 80 and 90 percent?
A I would guess offhand.
* * * *
[3336] @ The department chairmen at the Belfer
School of [3337] Science are elected, are they not?
A Yes.
They are elected by their faculty members in similar
discipline?
A In their department.
HEARING OFFICER: Are all the members of the
department allowed to vote?
THE WITNESS: Yes.
HEARING OFFICER: On the election?
THE WITNESS: Yes.
HEARING OFFICER: That would be part-time and
full-time?
THE WITNESS: It doesn’t work that way.
It is done—there is not a vote of yes or no. It is gen-
erally a consensus and if there are—if part-time person
is present at the meeting, his consensus is—he contributes
to the consensus as well.
I mean, it is not secret ballot or votes really
I mean, I suppose if someone wanted to insist on a
closed secret ballot, this has never—on a closed secret
ballot I imagine—I mean the department would then
have to decide whether to allow a part-time person who
is present to vote or not and since this has never oc-
curred, I don’t know what would happen.
I can see it going one way one time and another
[3338] way another time.
Q Are you then saying, Dean Komar, that the full-
time faculty of th« department might then elect at its
option the participation or non-participation of part-time
faculty time in this election?
A That’s correct.
ee
|
471
Q Do department chairman upon their election receive
any increment in their salary or compensation for service
in that regard?
A Formally, no.
Q Do they receive any equivalent time or reduction
in their work load?
A If they choose to take it, they can have it, yes.
Q Are there any department chairmen who have
chosen to take it?
A Yes.
Q Whois that?
A I believe Professor Pomerantz nas chosen to take
it.
I am not sure about Professor Lebowitz, sometimes he
does, sometimes he doesn’t.
Q Could you describe in more detail the situation with
regard to Professor Pomerantz?
A It depends to a large extent on the demand for
staffing courses.
[3339] If the demands on the—to staff courses cannot
adequately be met by the faculty for a given semester,
Professor Pomerantz who teaches normally two course
load, however, if the demand in any one semester is a bit
lighter he would have the option of taking a one course
load but it’s at his discretion.
Q Do department chairman have secretaries?
A Some do; some don’t.
Q Do those secretaries—
A They all have secretarial service. I assume you
mean do they have a private secretary exclusively for
themselves.
Q_ Yes, do they?
A Some do; some don’t.
Q Who does?
A Professor Pomerantz does.
For awhile Professor Grosof does not.
For awhile she shared one but until this year she had
a private secretary.
Q Is that secretary provided solely in connection with
any duties that they, that they have, such as department
chairmen?
A Solely?
472
Q Yes.
A No.
[3340] The secretary helps them not only in their ad-
ministrative work but also in their research, typing
paper.
The secretaries just don’t do one thing. It’s a mixture.
Q So then other faculty members have secretaries as
well?
A That’s right.
Q So then, the status of department chairmen does not
automatically or necessarily include provision of an as-
signed or designated secretary, does it?
A A department chairman has an assigned designated
secretary, yes.
Q You testified previously that not all department
chairmen do.
A They are assigned a specific secretary for depart-
mental matters but she doesn’t only do that. She does
other things, as well.
Q And do other members of the department have ac-
cess and the use of that secretary?
A Frequently.
Q You referred, did you not, to the proc»ss by which
new faculty are hired at Belfer Graduate School.
A Yes.
Q And is that process in fact conducted pursuant to
the procedures set forth in the Belfer Graduate School
[3341] of Science by laws?
A Whatever that may be.
Could you read me what you are referring to?
Q_ I will show you Employer’s Exhibit 131, Section 5,
new faculty appointments (handing).
Yes.
HEARING OFFICER: Paragraph 5, page 5 of the
exhibit.
Q To the best of your knowledge, Dean Komar, is that
process substantially complied with by the departments?
A In part, yes. In part, no.
Q Could you be more specific?
A Well, let’s take it point by point.
Ce
473
New faculty appointments including visiting appoint-
ments are made by the president upon recommendation
by the dean and the department.
That’s in part true and in part false, because visiting
appointments are frequently not made by the president
but can be by the principal investor, or by the chairman
of the department on some occasions.
So that’s false—not quite true.
Q On what occasions would the chairman of the de-
partment do so?
A Well, in the case of the Physics department, the
chairman of the physics department for a number of
years, for five years until this past June was the princi-
pal [3342] investor on a departmental development grant
from the National Science Foundation and in that ca-
pacity he made appointments.
Q So then he appointed someone to work with him in
furtherance of that grant?
A Not to work with him and not in furtherance of
the grant.
The grant was issued specifically for the benefit of the
physics department, not for that—for the benefit of the
research of the chairman and the appointments were made
to the physics department.
They were discussed in the physics department and they
were voted by the physics department but the appoint-
ment letter was sent by the chairman of the department.
Q And that was pursuant to the election of the other
—of the department members, correct?
A Yes, it was on a recommendation of the department
members.
But it was not—I don’t recali whether—some of the
appointments may have received letters from the presi-
dent but I don’t really recall.
I know a letter of invitation for many of them came
directly from the department chairman so that part is
not correct.
In addition the faculty committee shall each year
[3343] consider the number of new faculty departments
desired by the department at that time and make its
recommendations.
474
I don’t recall that ever happening.
Any situation that causes departures from these recom-
mendations by the faculty committee shall require re-
consideration and new recommendations by the faculty
committee.
I don’t recall that ever happening.
I mean, it may have happened once but I don’t recall
really.
To go on, each department may establish its own pro-
cedures for the investigation and recommendation of new
faculty members.
That certainly is true, except that recommendations by
the department shall require a two-thirds vote of the de-
partment for the proposed appointment and rank.
Well, as I testified earlier, one generally doesn’t vote
so it is done by consensus so one never worries about the
two-thirds requirement.
Q You are saying when the issue is raised before the
members of the department there is generally a conference
rather than any specific council?
A 'That’s correct.
[3344] Department recommendation for appointment
presented to the dean for approval, that’s correct.
Consultation with department chairmen regarding pro-
posal for the appointment, that’s correct.
And transmittal to the present, well, as I indicated
those which appointments which are transmitted to the
president are transmitted, but there have been those
which have not been.
Shall I go on?
In the absence of approval by the dean the department
originating the recommendation may upon due reconsid-
eration and by a two-thirds vote submit the matter to the
faculty committee for review, but that has never hap-
pened.
On the basis of this review, et cetera, it goes on the
basis of the review, well, this is talking about the situa-
tion that has never occurred.
That is the end of that section.
475
Q Do you have any knowledge of any departments
where in fact the proposed starting salary of a new
faculty member may be discussed by the department?
A Not offhand.
It may well have happened in some departments.
I don’t attend departmental meetings except in the
physics department.
[3345] Q You indicated that these department chair-
men were elected by the members of their department.
Do you have any knowledge of the members of any
particular department ever voting out of office or out of
position a department chairman?
A Oh, yes.
Q And when was that?
A It happened several times.
It happened in the mathematics department, when Pro-
fessor Schecter was chairman.
It happened in chemistry when Spindel was chairman.
Yes, it happens now and then.
HEARING OFFICER: Excuse me.
When a department chairman is removed from office, is
that done by consensus or by vote?
THE WITNESS: Since I was not present at any of
those meetings, because it never happened in the physics
department, I can’t give any first-hand testimony on that.
The minutes—I am trying to recall if they said in the
minutes whether a vote was taken.
Generally a department chairman is elected for a three-
year term, so there is no need to remove him—I mean,
unless you want to earlier. I don’t know the provisions
on that, but usually when his term expires [3346] you
have to either reappoint him or elect a new chairman and
my impression is that the consensus generally is that they
want a new chairman and so I don’t recall whether a vote
is taken.
HEARING OFFICER: Okay.
Getting back to that point has a chairman ever been
removed prior to the end of his term?
THE WITNESS: Well, prior to the end—the estab-
lishment of this document, the situation as to the status
of chairman was ambiguous in the school.
476
As such there was one chairman, Professor Schecter,
who was appointed by the dean, I believe.
There is some ambiguity or confusion as to how he
was appointed, whether by the dean with the approval of
the mathematics department or without.
Also there was some ambiguity as to whether he was
appointed for life or for a limited term.
These formal structures did not exist at that time.
HEARING OFFICER: This is before you became
dean?
A This is before I became dean—however, after I
became dean and this formal structure was set up, there
was an implied grandfather clause that this particular
chairman is chairman for life or whether he’s now subject
to this three-year reelection provision and there was a
big argument over that and finally—I don’t—|3347] he
—TI don’t recall the precise legal procedures by which it
was resolved but in effect he was no longer chairman.
He was either removed, I don’t know whether by fac-
ulty vote or what, but—or whether he ultimately re-
signed because of a lot of hostility about his claiming the
existence of a grandfather clause.
In any event, there may have been a vote at that
time to remove him but I don’t know for a fact.
Since then that kind of problem has never arisen.
Q Was Professor Gelbart another department chair-
man who was voted out of that position?
A Professor Gelbart was the dean of the school.
He also claimed to be the chairman of—he claimed to
be a member of the mathematics department but the
chairman of the mathematics and science education de-
partment, he claimed however, not to be a member of the
mathematics and science education department, so the
situation was totally confused.
Whether he could be the chairman of a department of
which he was not a member and be the dean of the school
and this again all had to do with a situation prior to the
formalization of all this.
Q But subsequent to his leaving the position as the
dean of the Belfer School, do you recall whether [3348]
CO , —
477
in fact he was voted out of that chairmanship you re-
ferred to?
A No.
I believe—I certainly—by the members of the depart-
ment, by his own claim did not include him, did not want
him to be chairman.
Whether they had the authority to remove him or not
was subject to dispute because he claimed that—he had
his claim on the chairmanship as directly from the presi-
dent of the university and therefore was not subject to
any of these rules.
He was—I don’t know whether he was voted out or
not, but he was certainly removed essentially by the
president of the university.
* * * »
Q Does there exist a promotions committee at the
Belfer Graduate School?
A No, not to my knowledge.
Q And have you considered or recently undertaken
any efforts to procure promotions for any members of
your faculty?
A Yes.
[3349] @Q Could you tell us what steps you took to
obtain the authority to make such promotions?
A I don’t have the authority to make promotions.
Q Could you tell us how you then obtained the au-
thority or permission to make such promotions?
A No, I don’t have it.
The promotions are made by the president of the uni-
versity, in a letter.
I assume your question means how do I persuade the
president to issue such a letter.
Q That’s correct.
A Okay.
The department recommends—there is a formal set of
rules—which I believe I testified to earlier—okay, I can
repeat it. _
The members of—the members of the department senior
to the person being considered assemble at a meeting and
discuss the credentials of the person being considered for
promotion.
478
After this discussion they then decide whether they
choose to recommend him or not.
There again it’s never been an issue of whether they
choose by a majority vote or two-thirds vote, it is general
consensus agreement.
If they so recommend they—they send this [8350] rec-
ommendation to me.
Q Are you then charged to—to undertake certain ef-
forts to obtain the authorization or permission from the
president of the university?
A I transmit this recommendation to the vice presi-
dent for academic affairs with my comments and he
transmits then his recommendation with his comments to
the president of the university.
Q So then before it gets to the president and between
you and the president there is yet another person involved
in that process?
A Vice president for academic affairs.
Q Has he ever modified any of your requests?
A Oh, yes.
Q And the promotion you indicated was finalized by
notice from the president of the university?
A Right. 3 : F .
[8351] Q Is there a library at the Belfer Graduate
School?
A Yes.
Q And have there been any plans to move that
library?
A Plans? On whose part?
Q On the part of the university admission, Dean
Komar.
A It’s been discussed occasionally up and back.
Q By whom?
A By various gossip things.
I never got a straight answer as to who—I mean, mem-
bers of the library committee came to me with rumors
that it was discussed with occasionally the vice president
of business affairs, with the vice president for academic
affairs, with myself, but—I gather it was—this is all
second-hand, I gather it may have been discussed with the
479
director of the libraries, but from my first-hand informa-
tion it seemed to be various rumors and gossip and I
never got a clear answer as to what was really the con-
tents.
Q Do you know in fact whether there was any con-
sideration of moving that library by—
A No, I don’t know in fact anything.
Q Did you ever set up a meeting to find out what the
status of this matter was?
A Not that I recall.
Meetings may have been held but I don’t recall setting
up one.
[3368] A In other words, how are the raises deter-
mined?
Q Yes.
A I think I testified how raises are determined al-
ready.
Q And you testified that the process first involved
some discussions with department chairmen, did you not?
A That’s right.
Q_ And how long has that been the practice?
A Ever since I’ve been dean.
Q With the exception of the last academic year?
A Yes, with the exception of this past academic year.
MR. KRAMER: By that you mean 1974-75?
THE WITNESS: Right.
Q And you testified did you not that those increases
were subject to the approval of the vice president for
academic affairs?
A That’s right.
Q_ All right.
MR. KRAMER: Can I have that last question and
answer read back, please?
(Record read. )
[3369] Q Has the vice president for academic affairs
or any other administration official modified any determi-
nations you made for faculty salary increases?
A They have influence on the modification, there’s
negotiations.
480
They also have the last word, but by modified I assumed
you mean I say this and they say that and that’s the end
of the story.
I don’t recall that quite happening. )
Q Is it then the process that you undertake certain
discussions or informal negotiations with members of the
administration as to the salaries of your faculty?
A I think I testified earlier that I submit my recom-
mendations to them and either they approve it or they
say trim everything by a certain amount and then it
comes back to me or trim it to get it under a certain
sum or something like that.
And then it comes back to me and then I have to trim
it.
I don’t recall actually discussing any individual per-
sons—it may happen on salary if an individual is par-
ticularly conspicuous, his salary is particularly out of
line or the raise being proposed is conspicuously out of
line.
But in general that is not the case.
[3370] In general I submit a list of salaries and in the
end it is approved after this up and back negotiations as
to the total sum.
Q And how long has the department of mathematics
and science education been in existence?
A As long as I can remember.
Q For the academic year 1973-1974 were the salary
increases for members of that department fixed pursuant
to or determined, pardon me, pursuant to discussions
between you and the department chairman?
A For that department I don’t recall, because it is
only three members to the department.
The department chairman generally tells me what she
thinks of the individual members of the department.
Q Did you have any discussions as to actual dollar
amount increases for members of the department of math-
ematics and science education with the department chair-
man?
A Actual dollar amount?
Q Yes.
A Rarely.
ee ate ett oe,
POREEITT Sie Ae
481
Perhaps just the dollar amount of Professor Walker
was discussed but the others, no dollar amounts that I
can recall.
{8373] Q And in 1978, 1974 do you recall what role,
if any, Professor Pomerantz played in these discussions
relative to salary increases for that academic year?
A °’73-’74?
Q Yes.
A There was one period, it may have been in 1973-
74 [8374] when he was away in Wisconsin and Spindel
then took over administering the department.
I don’t recall if it was in that period.
If he were there he would have played his usual role.
If he were not there, then Spindel took over that role.
Q Describe his usual role.
A It is as I described it earlier, namely to make
recommendations as to the relative merits of the various
faculty members and his recommendation as to what the
various orders of priority should be for his raises.
Q When department chairmen then come to you to
discuss such matters, do you on occasion have proposed
salary increases already listed and set forth before you?
A No.
I don’t have any lists set forth before me in any event.
I never do.
Q Have you ever made some tentative determinations
prior to talking with department chairmen?
A Not that I know of.
* * * *
[3376] Q In the last academic year, Dean Komar, were
there promotional increments granted to certain faculty
members who have been promoted in the last two or three
academic years?
A You mean in the present academic year?
Q Yes.
A Yes.
Q And could you tell us whether—how those were
fixed?
A The university decided to have a uniform salary
agreement—salary arrangement, rather, for its faculty
482
at least so I was informed, and so as I think was in
earlier testimony as was made clear I had no say in the
increments, in the ordinary increments.
It went purely by what the rank of the faculty member
was.
A few faculty members were promoted and in previous
years, at least in the Belfer School, there was no correla-
tion between rank and salary and there was [3377] no
such thing as a promotional increment.
I gather that’s not true in some of the other schools of
the university.
Some of the other schools have a salary scale which
we don’t have in Belfer School.
As a result the question arose whether the people this
year should also get promotional increments if they are
promoted, something that has never happened in the past
in our school.
We had no policy on this and we had no practice on
this matter.
So it was decided that whatever agreement was reached
concerning the promotional increments at the other school
would be applied to the Belfer School.
The faculty welfare council of Yeshiva University
negotiated with vice president Sokal concerning what the
level of promotional increment was.
When those negotiations were completed and applied to
the Yeshiva College, they were extended to the Belfer
School.
Q Were they extended to the Belfer School to cover
department chairmen as well as members of the depart-
ments?
A That would be impossible.
Department chairmen aren’t promoted. They are full
[3378] professors.
Q Imosorry.
What I am referring to—I will come back to that
subject.
Let me in fact correct myself and possibly can—you
can correct your recollection.
Wasn’t Professor Pomerantz promoted?
A Oh, I take it back.
483
Professor Pomerantz, I forgot was not a full profes-
sor. Yes, he was promoted and he received the same
promotional incrersent as he would have normally gotten.
Q In fact, Miriam Grosof is not a full professor
either, is she?
A Nor was she promoted.
Q_ All right.
And she is the department chairman of which depart-
ment?
A She was the department chairman of the math and
science education department.
However, as we have shown in previous testimony that
department is being dissolved and becoming a program
within the department of curriculum and instruction in
the Ferkauf school.
Q You indicated, did you not, that the salary incre-
ments, putting aside the promotional increments now,
given [3379] this year were uniform and a—on a uni-
versity-wide basis.
A They were uniform in my school and I was in-
formed by Sokal that they were determined on—by uni-
versity-wide criteria.
Q Did you have any discussions with vice president
Sokal to increase the salary increments given to your
full professors from $1400 to $1500?
A It wasn’t a discussion.
I simply asked him to.
Q And did he go along with that?
A Yes.
Q So in your school a $1500 increment was given to
those faculty members in the rank of full professor, is
that correct?
A That’s correct.
Q Was that increment given to department chairmen
in that rank?
A Yes.
Q And was that same increment given to members—
A To those that were full professors, right.
Q. Right.
To members of departments who were not department
chairmen were they given the same increment?
A Yes,
484
[3380] Q Do you know the last time your part-time
faculty got a salary increase?
A No.
Q Are—
A They are paid by the—they are not paid—well,
there’s all sorts of varying arrangements, I believe. It’s
not—one cannot speak in terms of getting an increase or
getting a decrease.
It is a negotiated thing each time.
[3381] Q Who negotiates that?
A The department chairman.
Q With the part-time faculty?
A Of course.
Q Subject to your approval?
A Yes.
Q And subject to the approval of vice president of
academic affairs?
A In principal, not in practice.
[3384] Q Now, I will ask you the question yet one
more time.
How was the welfare committee created at the Belfer
School?
I am not now referring under what authorization was
it created, but how, by what process, when?
Could you describe it?
A I don’t really recall the details.
I imagine it was created at a meeting of the faculty
council where they decided that certain members of the—
[3385] what is called the faculty committee shall com-
prise the faculty welfare committee, and—
Q When was that?
A Several years ago.
Q And you are saying at its inception the faculty
committee assumed the responsibility of a welfare com-
mittee?
A No. I said the faculty council said—if I remeinber
correctly that it was contained—those members of the
faculty committee who were elected by their respective de-
partments or something of the sort.
485
ry mean, it was a—some resolution in the faculty coun-
cil.
I don’t remember the precise wording of it.
Q Do you recall what responsibilities that committee
was charged with?
A i don’t recall the details of it.
Q Do you recall, not in detail but in general?
A In general it had to do with welfare matters as its
name implies.
Q Could you tel! us what welfare implies?
A It is a very poor view.
It implies anything that faculty members deem is rele-
vant for thier welfare and well being there at the school
{3386] Q Would that include their salaries?
A It could.
Q_ In fact, couldn’t it include virtually all the items
which might categorize as terms and conditions of their
employment?
A That would normally be provided as welfare, I
suppose.
[3389] Q Dean Komar, did the faculty welfare com-
mittee ever prepare specific demands with regard to cer-
tain terms and conditions of the employment of the fac-
ulty school?
A Not to my knowledge.
Q Did it ever submit any proposals for improvement
in faculty salary?
A They have expressed the desire to improve salaries
on occasion.
e * & *
[38407] But the government is more complicated.
Q If a principa
This text is long and has been trimmed here. Open the source document for the complete record.
This is a copy of a public record, reproduced as it was published. It is not legal advice, and it may not be the version a court would rely on. Check the official source before you cite it.