Faculty members who had been eager to see the University’s strategic planning task force reports got their wish last Friday when Provost Kent Fuchs released the documents to the public. Most faculty members have praised the decision as a giant step towards greater transparency in the “Reimagining Cornell” process. According to the Dean of Faculty’s Office, approximately 27 people have read the reports thus far — at least 13 of whom were University faculty members.

“Obviously I was happy [with the decision]; I was delighted,” said Prof. Shelley Feldman, development sociology, who co-sponsored a Faculty Senate resolution calling for the reports’ disclosure. “It’s about building a certain kind of trust with the faculty in the way in which the process unfolds and improving any concern or morale questions that would have been raised by not knowing about it.”

Some faculty members that had previously felt left out of the process said they were suddenly excited to read the documents and offer their input.

“I plan to offer my input. I think as many faculty as possible should offer theirs too, because this is something that affects all of us,” Prof. Mary Tabacchi, food and beverage management, said.

Other faculty members echoed this sentiment.

“My department and many others are in limbo. This is very serious, it’s important,” Prof. Charles Geisler, development sociology, said. “The University administration needs to listen to the colleges and the deans and the faculty in those colleges.”

Feldman, though, was quick to point out that faculty members did not necessarily need to propose new solutions to issues contained within the reports to actively participate.

“The point of this should be openness,” Feldman said. “[Faculty] need not presume that they need to act on the information they read in a definitive way, but knowing where the decision comes from is participation in its own way.”

Yet some faculty members have reservations about the value of making available reports that were originally intended to be confidential. The task forces were charged to think creatively, and many of the documents contain a wide range of suggestions that some worry may lead to unnecessary panic or concern.

“I think there was a lot of creative thinking in the task force reports and a number of the ideas were in the nature of brainstorming and in the end may not be taken very seriously,” said Prof. David Lipsky, dispute resolution and director of the Scheinman Institute. “So my reservation is that a lot of the ideas that are not going to go anywhere are going to receive a lot of attention.”

Other faculty members expressed concern that some may be discouraged from reading the reports since they are only available for viewing at Day Hall during business hours. Some say that this could detract from the goals of transparency.

“I think it is essential that we move forward in a transparent process and making the reports available to the public is essential if we want full disclosure and informed conversations on the re-imagining process,” Prof. Ronald Mize, latino studies and development sociology, said in an e-mail. “I hope the reports and future deliberations are more readily available than housing them in Day Hall.”

Tabacchi agreed with this assessment.

“There’s a lot to read,” Tabacchi said. “So how many faculty have the time to get over to Day Hall this time of year to read them?”

It may be too early to tell, however, how the release of the task force reports will affect the “Reimagining Cornell” decision-making process.

“It’s been less than a week. It’s a bit premature to know what the reaction is going to be among faculty to the reports,” dean of the University faculty William Fry, said. “I think that the faculty have not yet internalized many of the recommendations contained within the reports.”