A correction was added to this article Dec. 8.

Because of reporting errors, the Dec. 7 article “Organizations consider endorsing combinations” inaccurately quoted Kevin Kane, president of the Professional & Scientific Council, and Cathy Curtis, alumni officer for the College of Education. Neither person used the word “merger” to describe the combination of the Colleges of Education and Family and Consumer Sciences, contrary to what the article reported. The Daily regrets these errors.

Curtis wrote in an e-mail message Tuesday that her quotation in the article should have read, “I am in support of the concept because the combination does not reduce any programs that are currently available to students. Most of those who initially were opposed to the concept changed their minds after they had the opportunity to raise questions and found that the combination would not cut programs that affect students. . The main goals of the combination are to cut costs and build on the synergies that already exist between the two colleges.”

ISU organizations are still deciding whether to endorse the combination of the Colleges of Family and Consumer Sciences and Education in the 2005-2006 academic year.

The Professional and Scientific Council is one organization that has already endorsed the college combination.

“We decided to endorse the merger primarily because a committee was put together that gathered input across the campus, and the recommendation for the combination of the two colleges came from people who are well-informed in what is going on, and what would be good for the university and its students,” said Kevin Kane, president of the P&S Council.

However, some faculty and staff members still had concerns about the merger before deciding to endorse it for the council.

“The main concern that we have discussed in previous meetings has been that of the possibility that some faculty/staff positions will be eliminated,” Kane said.

He said some staff positions will be combined between the two colleges and the university still needs to figure out how these personnel will be handled.

Another campus organization, the Faculty Senate, will vote on the proposal to endorse the merger.

“We have taken the recommendations of the provost concerning the merger and will debate on the overall issue at our meeting,” said Sanjeev Agarwal, president of the Faculty Senate. “The Faculty Senate might bring up its own recommendations or concerns, such as, for example, the name of the newly-formed college.”

The Government of the Student Body is a university group that will not be significantly impacted by the combination of the two colleges, said William Rock, vice president of GSB.

“It causes a small complication for us because we have seats open for both of the colleges which will be elected in March, and come fall we will have to figure out what would happen to both of those positions,” Rock said.

The merger will save approximately $500,000 to $700,000 a year to go toward new faculty positions.

No majors will be eliminated in the consolidation, which will become effective July 1, 2005.

“We are in support of the concept, but we want to make sure that the merger does not reduce any programs that are currently available to students,” said Cathy Curtis, alumni officer for the College of Education. “Those who were opposed to the merger considered the alternatives and realized that it would mean cutting programs that affect students.”

Curtis said the main goal of the combination is to decrease costs.