Board Chairman Healey on January 24 rejected a request by representatives of the petition of 190 scientists to speak at today's meeting on the Salzman case, saying the case "has been remanded" to the department for review, and is thus "not formally before the Board . . . " But the Board has not responded to the petition; nor has it acted on Freda Salzman's reappointment.

      Before the meeting we will give Chairman Healey a list of speakers and request that the Salzman case be first on the agenda to give ample time for a full and adequate response from the Board of Trustees. If necessary, we will repeat this written request verbally from the floor early in the meeting, and ask all present to join in pressing the importance of having Freda's case the first agenda item.

      In brief, the reasons for making this demand are as follows: the Trustees have the statutory power to reappoint Freda Salzman; they have ignored petitions from inside and outside the University calling on them to do so, including the UMass/Boston Senate's adoption on April 16, 1971 of the unanimous Tenure and Grievance report; they have never responded to the issues raised in any of the petitions; they are misrepresenting the case to the public; they have tried to evade responsibility by the device of supposedly seeking a departmental recommendation, ignoring the fact that the department's recommendation of over 3 and 1/2 years has never been withdrawn; they are dictating to the department the unfair constraint that she must be considered as a new appointment under the supposedly new policy, thereby leaving her uncompensated for past injustices, and subject to new ones.

      We demand that the Trustees account to the people of Massachusetts for their failure to act, and we demand that the issues being raised be dealt with right now, at the beginning of the meeting.

1. After four years of a dual appointment with her husband in the Physics Department, Freda Salzman was severed from the University on the grounds that "University policy quite clearly prohibits the contemporaneous appointment, within the same department, of close relatives." What vote of the Board of Trustees mandated this action?

2. When initially appointed, why was the offer full-time with tenure to George, part-time without tenure to Freda, instead of vice versa?

3. In how many cases of dual appointments of couples within the same department did the husband get the part-time appointment and the wife the full-time one?

4. In rejecting the Tenure and Grievance Committee recommendation that Freda be reappointed "as soon as possible," Chancellor Broderick cited allegations that the Salzmans had been guilty of nepotic practices. The Salzmans claim that the allegations are slanderous and when the Chancellor denied them access to the allegations they repeatedly asked the President and Trustees to release them. Why have the Trustees supported the President and Chancellor in denying this most elementary principle of due process, the right of the accused to know the accusations against them?

5. At a meeting on October 21, 1971 at the Massachusetts Commission Against Discrimination, Chancellor Broderick alleged, for the first time, that Freda had created turmoil in the University. This was 3 years after Freda's non-reappointment notice, and 1 and 1/2 years after the Tenure and Grievance Committee asked the Chancellor to respond to her petition. Why is a new allegation being made at this time?

6. Why has the Board of Trustees not responded to issues raised in Faculty and Senate petitions?