Chair Sohmer called the session to order at 6:30 p.m. in room 630T at John Jay College of Criminal Justice. Present were Senators from the following campuses:

Present were Senators from the following campuses: Baruch: Bird, Hill, McCall, and Pollard; BMCC: Friedman, Price, Vozick, and Young; Bronx CC: Belilgne, Read, and Alternate Gonsher; Brooklyn: Bell, Jacobson, Landolphi, London, and Shapiro. CCNY: Connorton, Crain, Grossman, and Sohmer. CSI: S. Cooper, Foleno, and Levine. CUNY Law School: none; Graduate School: Baumrin and King; Hostos CC: Canate, and Alternates Jones and Pam; Hunter: Hampton, Sherrill, and Steinberg; John Jay: J. Davenport, Kaplowitz, and Alternate E. Davenport; Kingsborough CC: Galvin, O’Malley, Richter, and Alternates Barnhardt and Farrell; LaGuardia CC: Beaky, Gallagher, Mettler, and Reitano; Lehman: Bullaro, Feinerman, and Knobloch; Medgar Evers: Bennett and Harris-Hastick; NYC Technical: Cermele, Deraney, Walter, and Alternates Hounion and Richardson; Queens: Diamond, Frisz, Kulkarni, and Savage; Queensborough CC: Dahbany-Miraglia and Greenbaum; York: Coleman, A. Cooper, and Kirkpatrick. Governance Leaders present: Cooper (York), Errico (Hostos), Feinerman (Lehman), Kaplowitz (John Jay), Levine (CSI), Mettler (LaGuardia), O’Malley (Kingsborough), Perlstein (BMCC), and Taharally (Hunter). Faculty guests included Thane Doss, Arlene Geiger, and Elizabeth Norton, The Parliamentarian was absent. Executive Director Phipps and Administrative Assistant Pasela were present.

Approval of the Agenda: A resolution on presidential searches was added to the agenda. The agenda was then adopted as amended.

Approval of the Minutes of September 14, 1999: The Minutes were approved as distributed.

Reports: [recorded in Reports & Deliberations].

Chair (oral).

The Chair of the Special Commission of the New York Bar Association, Stanley Grossman (oral).

Faculty Members of the Board of Trustees Committees (written).

Greeting of New Trustee – Hon. Jeff Wiesenfeld [recorded in Reports & Deliberations].

New Business

A. Resolution on Remarks of Board Chair Badillo – The resolution was moved, seconded, and passed unanimously by voice vote without dissent.

RESOLUTION ON REMARKS OF TRUSTEE CHAIR BADILLO

WHEREAS, the City University of New York has as its historical foundation the mission "to educate the whole people" of the City, and

WHEREAS, the City University of New York is further charged by the State with "the provision of equal access and opportunity for students, faculty and staff from all ethnic and racial groups," and

WHEREAS, the City University of New York has assumed the role of welcoming and educating the immigrants who arrive in the city, and

WHEREAS, as chairman of the Board of Trustees, Herman Badillo is charged with the leadership of CUNY, his words and actions therefore having great impact not only upon CUNY but upon public higher education generally, and

WHEREAS, on September 22, 1999 at the Center for Educational Innovation, Trustee Badillo uttered derogatory and demeaning remarks characterizing the educational, physical and racial attributes of Mexicans and Dominicans, even attacking the reproductive behavior of recent immigrants to New York City, and

WHEREAS, these remarks contribute to negative stereotypes of immigrants, are offensive to all, and contradict the most basic democratic mission of CUNY, and

WHEREAS, we deem his subsequent apology insufficient and inadequate to the harm he has caused, now therefore be it

RESOLVED, that by his words he has violated the fundamental mission of the City University of New York, and be it further

RESOLVED, that the Senate concludes he is unfit to serve, votes no confidence, and asks for his resignation from the Board.

B. Resolution on Presidential Searches – The resolution, by overwhelming show of hands, was referred to the Executive Committee. It would be amended in consultation with the authors, transformed into a Senate resolution, and then transmitted to the Board and Chancellory.

UFS Community College Caucus’ Resolution on Presidential Searches

Whereas, the Board of Trustees has recently altered the procedures concerning presidential searches, thereby strengthening its own role while weakening the faculty’s role in the search process, and

Whereas, the revised guidelines include mechanisms for circumventing the deliberations of the search committees, and

Whereas, the revised guidelines were adopted with undue haste and minimal opportunity for faculty input, and

Whereas excluding faculty from meaningful participation in the search process diminishes staff confidence in the chosen president and compromises his/her effective leadership of the college, therefore be it

Resolved that the University Faculty Senate’s Community College Caucus petitions for the restoration of a meaningful role for faculty on presidential search committees, and be it further

Resolved that the presidential search process be reformulated as deliberative and democratic.

There being no further business, the meeting was adjourned at 8:45 p.m.

Respectfully submitted,

William Phipps

Subject to Senate Approval

a. Chair: A document headed Summary of Progress came from the Chancellor, which we distributed in the back. It confirmed what many of us feared, that the Mayor’s Commission has de facto produced the blueprint for the University. I would like to call attention to some of the points.

There will be, when the Board By-law alterations are approved this month, more power in the hands of the Chancellor – partially a reversion to pre-Paolucci days. The documents indicate that the presidents will be more fragile relative to the Chancellor: some virtue, some ill. New assessment instruments will come into existence in a controversial procedure. Admissions will be via interesting formulas, currently secret, unknown to all but the central administration and the presidents, but not to the high school counselors. Cluster hiring of faculty in numbers unknown, and in fields not necessarily well-defined. At the November meeting of the Board, articulation principles will be iterated and enhanced. A resolution which was passed by the committee over the objection of Professor McCall and myself last night is on the back table and will appear at the Board in November. We will try to get it altered sometime before then. But I don’t feel terribly sanguine.

Other comments in the Chancellor’s statement of "good things that are happening:" flagship environment, honors academy, management systems, By-Laws review, partnerships, university-wide fundraising. For any of you who have been on your own campuses trying to help in the development offices and things of that sort, the Chancellor’s view is that all money is ours, and will flow to 80^th Street in some manner or other. Just beware that that is in the offing.

Many of the things in the Schmidt Commission Report are ill-conceived and troubling, but we are more rapidly than slowly moving toward a creating of the University in that image. That is very troubling.

Please note the member’s item from Prof. Sank on the back table.

Professor Crain (Psychology, City College) – "The idea is troubling, and the process was also troubling. We had a public hearing on the Master Plan Amendment, and then a couple of days later, this idea that the Schmidt Report would be a blueprint for the University was added to the Master Plan Amendment. This was after the public hearing, and we never had an opportunity to address that issue at a public hearing -- yet another issue that the public, faculty, students, and community members, did not have a chance to address." / Chair Sohmer – They didn’t even have a chance to be ignored. / Professor Crain – "It would have undoubtedly been ignored. But we could have let people know what we thought about it." / Chair Sohmer – At the meeting several days ago, at which some By-law recommendations were made, there were some questions as to whether they were salutary. The Chairman of the Board repeated something, which he has repeated many times, "We create the By-Laws and we can waive them or change them." It doesn’t give you confidence in the legal structure.

Professor McCall (English, Baruch College) – "I just wanted to make a statement about the Master Plan Amendment. The Master Plan that exists is the one that has always been ours since 1995. The only Amendment is the one on remediation. No votes were ever taken on the Schmidt Report. But it is being substituted for the Master Plan. I think we do have a real legal issue here. I think we need to find the forum in which to raise this issue."

Professor London (Political Science, Brooklyn College) – "I am curious if you know what the status is of the settlement agreement that was signed by the Chancellory with the plaintiffs to the lawsuit that was instituted several years ago?" / Chair Sohmer – It exists. They are probably transgressing it daily. / Professor London – "Since Sandi was a signatory to that, does the University Faculty Senate have any status?" / Chair Sohmer – No, it was on an individual basis, not a Senatorial basis. It doesn’t mean that we are not interested. / Professor London – "It would seem that certainly the Senate has a very important interest in seeing that the settlement agreement is enforced and might perhaps devote whatever resources it has, or involve itself in a campaign, to see that that settlement agreement is enforced."

Chair Sohmer – I do believe that were it clear that they have not consulted the faculty in some fashion, that we would report back to the judge that issued the judgment that they are doing that. For instance, these esoteric formulas that they are presenting for admissions have been sent to the presidents, and the presidents have been instructed to consult with their faculty as to whether this is a good formula. I didn’t say it happened, just they have been instructed. At least on some campuses, the first four, the consultation is taking place, probably meaninglessly. But it is indeed taking place.

Professor Baumrin (Philosophy, Graduate Center) – "You sensitize an administration as to what it should do by involving the judge. You don’t like the thing is going, go to the judge. Let the judge say, you’re such a fussy lady. Let him say, "Moskowitz, let me see what you did." It costs $100 to $200 to go see the judge. The union is a signatory to this. It’s inexcusable that they don’t ask for court supervision." / Chair Sohmer – The Moskowitz to whom he is referring is the interim counsel to the Board.

Professor Levine (Engineering & Physics, College of Staten Island) – "The Summary states ‘indices will be established so as to distinguish among colleges according to level of selectivity. Indices of top tier colleges will reflect significantly increased admission standards.’ To the best of my knowledge, each campus has been presented with an unintelligible formula. No campus has been given the formula of the other campuses. There is no way to indicate the distinction among colleges. In what way does this constitute faculty consultation?" / Chair Sohmer – I presume the appropriate word is "bizarre."

Professor Crain – "The Student Affairs Committee met before tonight and we unanimously adopted a resolution which asks you and the Executive Committee of the Senate to tell the Chancellory and the Board of Trustees that the formulas that they are developing should be made public to the faculty so that the faculty can participate in admissions criteria." / Chair Sohmer – That’s already been done. It has borne no fruit, but it has already been done. We will do it again.

Professor London – "I think we need to have a much higher profile on the admissions criteria issue. Sending a memorandum or doing something in private, while you report that you’ve done it, doesn’t necessarily get communicated to the University or those outside. Perhaps Sandi can speak to Irwin Polishook, and perhaps you can also implore him in your dual capacity as a member of the Executive Council of the Union, as well as the Chair of the University Faculty Senate. Your influence should be listened to. I would suspect that perhaps you have a press conference, that you make this public because these admissions criteria are the next step that will seal the fate of the University. I think that along these lines, we have to at the very least put up a very strong public fight. I would hope that you and Sandi and others would make every effort to make this into a public issue." / Chair Sohmer – What is being done at this moment is masking action with mathematics, by creating an index in an esoteric way, which every statistician understands. Let me explain what I believe is being done, possibly without full candor. The Chancellor decided that the several criteria that are measurable and significant for admissions would be something like an SAT score, a college admission average, an English Regents score, the mathematics Regents score. He then gets a linear regression formula, which is gotten from the GPA from those full-time students from 1997, whose information is complete enough to make the computation on. They then emulate that for a future class. That’s what the numbers are. I believe that this mathematics involved is to mask what is going on. But that is putatively what is in progress.

Professor Gallagher (English, LaGuardia) – "Just one correction for the record. It is not true that community colleges don’t have honor’s program. That isn’t my question. It is somewhat peripheral to what we are talking about with admissions criteria here. And it is coming back again. I think it is time the faculty needs to find some device to protest the fact that anytime we show up at a meeting lately, we are giving tacit approval, according to 80^th Street, to any plan that they ram through. I think it is going to be the same thing again with the whole admissions criteria. The faculty will supposedly be consulted. It makes you terrified. You show up at a meeting, you disagree with people, and you’ve already signed on, it seems. I think we need to think of various strategies to protest this. If we walk out of a meeting, we are unheard, we are in total disagreement with the plan that comes out of that meeting, somehow we should find a venue to make that known." / Chair Sohmer – I will seriously cogitate, and I hope others would. There may be a device that could emanate from this. / Professor Gallagher – "I think just refusing to participate may be very bad press in many cases, too. I’m not throwing it out to you Bernie, I’m saying it to everyone." / Chair Sohmer – I understand. I think we should all think about what you said. It is not a trivial statement. It is conceivable that we can think of something witty to do, I hope so, in the next week or so.

Professor Levine – "I want to read the criteria that are listed in this document on the summary of the follow-up on the Report of the Mayor’s Task Force. It states that, "the index has four components – SAT scores, high school GPA, total number of high school academic units…" / Chair Sohmer – That’s not what’s being used. / Professor Levine – And GPA in high school English course work. The formula that I saw used exactly these four." / Chair Sohmer – O.K. The formula that I have seen did not, and I spoke to the guy making up the formulas. / Professor Levine – "Let me get to the point I’m trying to make. As I understand it, the problem was that when they did their regression they found that what we have been saying for years is true. That SAT scores don’t predict anything. We’ve been saying that for a long time. Family income predict SAT scores. One of the problems in terms of what we can do, the number of high school academic units, this is correlated with the number of academic units offered at the high schools. This is also correlated with family income. I claim that whatever formula is being used here will have a disparate impact on different groups within the City of New York. Can we bring this to the attention of our friends at the Bar Association, and can we get some of our people in sociology to perhaps obtain the statistics so that we can make a persuasive case, against the impact of this formula?" / Chair Sohmer – I think we can get a paper written in time for the Regents, before they consider the amendment. / Professor Levine – "At least this will be a proactive stance we can take rather than simply non-cooperation."

Professor Sherrill (Political Science, Hunter College) – "Now that we’ve had an interlude of hard nosed empiricism, I want to return to a theoretical issue for a second, which is the question of consultation. I think that we have to be clear about what consultation is not. It is not consultation to give us an opportunity to acquiesce. It’s not consultation for us to be in the room and hear a speech. Consultation is participating in the process of shaping a decision. It is having the opportunity to make suggestions, which may or may not be adopted. It is also maybe having the opportunity to reject. Since much of what the University claims is what our consultation is, it is purely symbolic. We have to be willing to engage in the process of dissent. I think that when reports are issued that say that faculty are consulted, we should be issuing minority reports. We should be issuing public dissent. It is the only way in which we can keep our side of the bargain and still be honorable. I think that is something we have to do regularly for a long time." / Chair Sohmer – We have not been totally ineffectual. In the admissions process which was delineated by the Chancellor, we got it to be altered so that on each campus, there will be a faculty admitting students who are off the books on the basis of criteria they set down. That is not a bad thing. Certainly it doesn’t cover all bases.

Professor Young (English, Borough of Manhattan Community College) – "Under the so-called long range reforms, number 23 says "Complete review and revision of CUNY Board of Trustee By-Laws as recommended in the Report of the Mayor’s Task Force on CUNY, to be completed by September 2000." That’s a lot closer than it might sound. I’m just wondering if you’d care to comment. This sounds to me like the most pivotal item in all of this in terms of what consultation we may in fact be asked to make in the future, or if any consultation will be asked of us; or any kind of faculty governance that we recognize as such, or any kind of faculty input that’s worth a dime. So I wonder if you’d care to comment about what you think or anybody thinks is coming up with that." / Chair Sohmer – You are absolutely right. The Schmidt folks mean administration when they talk about governance. As a matter of fact, we had that explicit discussion at some point, when I pointed out that they are using ‘governance’ in a way that no faculty member in his right mind would use it. It’s administrative structure. The By-Laws are very fragile because only portions of the By-Laws sit on State law. For the rest, nine votes of that Board of Trustees will decide what the By-Laws will be. All they have to be is not inconsonant with State law, and all of our structures, up to and including the election of chairs, is not in State law.

Professor S. Cooper – "About the revision of the By-Laws. The general philosophy is centralization, a single university, and transparency of programs and students from one institution to another. The idea that the presidents would be really independent individuals, presiding over institutions which belong to a confederation is an idea that Schmidt and most of the Report rejected. I’ve heard the Vice Chancellor for Academic Affairs on two occasions express shock that there has not been a kind of spinal constituent piece of statute legislation in this university. She argued that exists in a lot of other similar institutions. So one of the things that I think that would be the philosophical, overarching direction, to answer Jane Young’s question, would be this whole focus on centralization. How that lines up with tiering and an honors academy is sort of beyond me. I have no idea of how they are going to deal with their contradictions. But it is a top-down vision. The new Chancellor seems to think that that is the only way to get things moving. It is also in line with the philosophical position of the RAND Corporation, which sees this as the only way to justify the expenditure of public money. We’ve got a direction which, if I understand what is going on in this country, is exactly the opposite of what a lot of school systems are doing, and a lot of large corporations. I thought they were moving in the direction of breaking down decision-making into local groups and decentralizing."

Professor Crain – "The 8.6. provision doesn’t actually doesn’t say "consultation." It says that the faculty will be responsible for the formulation of criteria with respect to admissions, retention, and so on." / [unidentified speaker] – Subject to policies of the Board. / Professor Crain – "The words are, guidelines, if any, that are developed by the Board. That’s true. If the words mean anything, it says, "formulation of policies." It implies that there is some initiative that comes from us. In terms of their always being able to change them, I’m not so sure that they can always change this one, because it was part of a settlement agreement approved by the Court of Appeals, the highest court in New York State. We have some ground here, and we need to look into it. I think the SAT carries enormous weight in terms of who gets into the senior colleges and who doesn’t. It’s going to be the only decisive measure. I agree that now is the time to make a more high profile statement about the neglect and subversion of faculty authority. We should be seeing this document; we were told it was a secret by some people. This should be discussed and distributed to the faculty so that they can be part of the formulation; otherwise, what does it mean."

Professor Read (Business, Bronx Community College) – "I wonder if it isn’t time for us to stop talking about philosophy and reactions, and to start talking about tactics. To stop formulating lists of "whereas" and resolutions that people aren’t taking very seriously, and to start using some of the weapons that are used against us. For example, getting the union and this group together, assessing the faculty if necessary, hiring a public relations firm. We’ve got a terrific Report from the Bar Association that is filled with details, facts, and numbers. This should be thrown at these politicians every time they have a press conference. We should be getting placed in the media the way they are getting placed in the media. You need to spend some money and hire people to do the things for us that we don’t do well ourselves." / Chair Sohmer – I’m afraid that the next to items on the agenda are two "whereases." That doesn’t mean to diminish what you said. And I think you are probably right, that in the near future we absolutely should be doing this. Especially with the budget coming around, which it is going to.

Chair Sohmer – There is a Regents Special Committee scheduled at this moment to report out to the full Board of Regents its recommendation on the CUNY amendment to the Master Plan on November 4^th. There are indications that the plan and the date may be altered, but the full Board will vote on November 22nd, and that is not moveable, I gather.

b. Mr. Grossman (Chair of the Special Committee of the New York Bar Association) –

Chair Sohmer - The New York Bar Association has, over the years, created special study committees on important contemporary issues. This year, it set up a commission to consider the remedial open admission actions of the Board of Trustees of CUNY. The Chair of that Commission whose Report was distributed electronically, as well as hard copy at the back table, has a careful analysis of process and possible outcomes by a disinterested committee. It sets a model for future such studies. Mr. Grossman is a Senior Partner in Pomerantz Houdeck Block Grossman & Gross. He and they are a significant force in the field of securities litigation. He is a member of the Bar Committee on Professional and Judicial Ethics, and the Director of several eleemosynary groups.

Mr. Grossman (Chair of the Special Committee of the New York Bar Association) - Thank you, and good evening. The proposal to eliminate remedial course work at the senior colleges arose in what many believed to be a political theater. Unfortunately, political clashes in these situations create a lot more heat than they do light. It is for this reason that the Bar Association convened a special commission to examine and report on the issues relating to the elimination of remedial course work at the senior colleges. Now although the Report is of the Bar Association, you should know that included on our committee are some outstanding educators, Arthur Levine, the President of Teachers College, Columbia University; Alice Chandler, President for 13 years at SUNY New Paltz; Claire Fagan, former Interim President of the University of Pennsylvania; Lance Liebman, former Dean of Columbia University School of Law; and Bob Mundheim, former Dean of the University of Pennsylvania School of Law.

We have been fortunate to have as a Special Council to the Commission, who is with us this evening, Isabelle Katz Pinzler, who was a former Acting and Deputy Assistant Attorney General in the United States Department of Justice, Civil Rights Division, as well as Thurston Domina, who is our research associate. They both worked tirelessly and give an awful lot to this Report that you have.

One of the most controversial issues being discussed on this whole topic is the number of students who may be impacted by the proposal, if it is adopted. Our interviews with students, faculty, and presidents of some of the colleges, made it clear to us that there is a perception out there that not all levels of the socio-economic strata will equally feel the impact of this proposal if it is enacted. Whatever the numbers are, whether it is 152, as CUNY now says, 220, or some other number, a multiplier should be attached to that. Because the impact will not be felt only by a particular student, but by a student’s family, friends, and community members, who will feel disenfranchised by this whole thing.

Getting to the numbers, CUNY projects that only about 150 students will be impacted, and that is a number that the consultants, hired by the Regents, relied upon in making their recommendation. But the consultants’ report, if you’ve seen it, is filled with cautionary language, which recognizes that these projections may not be realized. We performed an analysis that shows that the students likely to be affected, if this proposal was adopted, could be closer to something over 4,000.

First, in our analysis of the SEEK students, CUNY projections totally ignore any impact on the SEEK students, presumably because the proposal supposedly exempts them. What this means is that the SEEK students may be admitted to the senior colleges, even if they require remedial course work. But that course work may not be offered at the senior colleges. Those students will instead take core curricula programs at the senior colleges, but they will have no remediation there. Where will they get the proper support that they have had in the past is not clear to us. I don’t know if it is clear to any of you out there tonight. Will it be tossed out into the college river to sink or swim? SEEK, as you know, is a legislatively-mandated program. Denying students the remedial courses they need may very well subvert the legislative intent of the program. It may effectively read it out of existence.

What we used for our analysis were the actual numbers for the Fall 1998. Those are the most reliable numbers out there publicly that are available to work with. With respect to the SEEK students, in 1998, we understand that there are some 1,500 students who required remediation. What will happen to them if the same number applies in the future is totally unknown to us. We have seen no analysis of that by CUNY or anyone else. Again, using the Fall 1998 data, we looked at the students who were admitted to the senior colleges, but required remediation. That number was over 2,300. That is after the summer remediation courses were completed. We are told that if the proposal is adopted, a large number of those students will be conditionally accepted at the senior colleges, but enrolled at a community college, under the so-called Prelude to Success Programs. Only time will tell what the number of students is who will be admitted to what is supposedly a selective program. In any event, those students will not be enrolled at a senior college. They will be taking courses offered by the community colleges. They will be taught by community college faculty, most of whom will be adjuncts, rather than full-time faculty members.

Although there is a promise that students who are entering into that program will have hope for the future, those people will be denied admission to a senior college that today they would be able to enter, having satisfied the admission requirements, but nonetheless requiring some remediation. With respect to those students and the Prelude to Success Programs, there is a hope that it will be successful and students will pass through that program. There have been in the past, as you well know, problems in articulation between the community colleges and the senior colleges. There are promises by CUNY; we met with Chancellor Goldstein on this. There are promises that you may have heard, that the articulation problems will evaporate. Here again, only time will tell.

We are also told that this Prelude to Success Program is modeled after a program implemented at the Florida public university system. I think that you should know, and this is reflected in our Report, that the program in Florida was implemented slowly over a period of 15 years, after the legislation was enacted. The program additionally differs substantially from the Prelude to Success Program that is put forth here. However, this program is supposedly modeled after the Florida program. In Florida, students requiring remediation who are otherwise accepted to the senior colleges, actually are enrolled at the senior colleges. The remedial courses are given by the community colleges, but all the core curriculum courses are delivered by the senior university. This is substantially different from the model proposed here, which as stated to the public, is modeled after the Florida program.

The Commission is in favor of creative programs, programs that may enhance academic excellence. But usually experiments are performed on a portion of a population, not the entire population itself, as we have here. We also do not see in the CUNY projections any analysis as to the potential disparate impact that the proposal would have on minority and low income students. According to CUNY’s Office of Institutional Research and Analysis, 85% of remedial students at the Bachelor’s level are racial and ethnic minorities. Moreover, the family income for those students is considerably lower than for those students who do not require remediation. Statistical appendices, which are attached to the amendment, but are not referenced amendment itself, predict that there will be a sizeable decline in minority enrollment at the senior college level over the next five years, while the enrollment of white students will remain relatively constant.

The senior colleges, which will be most impacted by all of this, will be City College, Lehman, and York. First-time freshmen at these schools have been considerably more likely to fail the College Skills Assessment Test than their peers at Baruch, Brooklyn, Queens, and Hunter. These three schools also have a higher proportion of students of color. So the impact is obvious. There are possible implications of Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, which prohibits discrimination on the basis of race, color, or national origin, by any program receiving federal assistance. One section of our brief discusses the possibility that a violation of the Act could occur if there is a disparate impact, regardless of whether or not it is intended.

Another thing which concerns the Commission is the timing of the entire program. There seems to be an undue rush to get it done with before all of the pieces are actually in place. Programs are still being designed, some are not fully funded, some have never been tried. Much of the expectations of CUNY, with respect to their projections, is the hope that the New York City Public Schools will offer the quality of instruction that enables its students to pass the five Regent Exams. If that would have happened, perhaps the proposal to eliminate remediation would be moot, but we are not there yet. Only time will tell whether or not that will be a reality.

The Regents’ consultants share our concerns with implementing these changes, without first appreciating their full impact. But nonetheless, they recommend approval with a wait-and- see approach. We cannot agree with them on that. If the impact is greater than the projections upon which they rely, the plan cannot be undone. The egg will not be unscrambled. We submit, that you first receive reliable, factual information with respect to the success of the various programs being planned, you examine the impact, and then you determine whether or not you adopt a proposal, in what form, in what shape, and with what timing.

Finally, I’d like to note, we believe the plan is just too rigid. There is no flexibility allowed on individual campuses, which have different missions, and serve different segments of the student population. It does not allow, for instance, the flexibility to deal with a student who needs remediation only in algebra, but has passed out very well on the FSAT’s in reading and writing. And as you know, scholarly research shows students who need remediation only in that area, but not the others, are very likely to succeed at a four-year college. There is no flexibility allowed, not to the individual colleges, not even to the Chancellor himself. This is hard and fast, it is a one shoe fits all approach. That is not an approach we believe higher education should take to an issue as important as this.

Further, with respect to flexibility, we believe that you should give flexibility to the individual campuses. They have done different work in the remedial area over the years. Baruch may wish to take one approach, City College and Lehman, another. City College and Lehman have provided remediation for students in their areas for over 30 years now. Let us not be so quick to shut the doors on the senior colleges, to close the doors to those students who have the drive and willingness to move up on the socio-economic ladder, but have been short changed somewhere along the way. You have our Report, and we hope it deals with the issues as you see them. If there are any questions you want us to address, we will be happy to answer them.

Professor Savage (Sociology, Queens College) – "If you people haven’t read this Report yet, download it right away. It is on the Web. It is a terrific Report. It is very well done. I urge you to compare it in particular to the Report of the Consultants for the Regents, which is at the UFS Website. It is true that the Bar Association Report did have the advantage of coming afterwards, and could go ahead and take advantage of seeing what the other people have said first. But this is a very carefully, very well-done Report. There is a comment in there that you hinted at, but didn’t quite say explicitly. It was a warning to the Regents to consider that they might find themselves in the situation of approving an ending to remediation at four-year colleges in the CUNY system, an urban and diverse undergraduate population, while at the same time approving the continuation of remediation at all of the much more largely non-diverse populations in the SUNY system. I thought that was an interesting and very effective point. The best perhaps is yet to come. There is an announcement in this Report that there will be a Part II. You telegraphed your punches just a little bit by saying it would deal with questions of governance and massive underfunding. My question to you is, is there anything you would like to expand on that hint about Part II might be about?" / Mr. Grossman – We have a full commission that is working on this. They will review it, and I think it would be inappropriate for me to comment on it at this time.

Professor Crain – "I want add my congratulations to you for the most thoughtful and insightful Report that we’ve seen in a long time. It is an outstanding job, and thoroughly researched and presents the facts admirably well. I don’t know what is to become of it. There is a small number of students that I can’t seem to get anybody to pay attention to when I speak. In the latest flow chart handed out October 15^th by CUNY, besides the 150 or 210, whatever that number is that they parade, there are 392 students in what is called "Year Round Immersion Programs." Those 392 students are not in college, they are not in a senior college, they are not in a community college, they are not in college. This is an unprecedented move by CUNY, not to admit bachelor’s entrants into any college. They are on the street. They can take classes when they have time. They can tour the libraries. But they are not in college. That sets a horrible precedent, if you are going to reject students from college altogether. I don’t know what we can do with that. I just wanted to make that point. I don’t think that it has been publicized enough who the members of your commission are. In the New York Times, it mentioned you and Isabel. I think it is our responsibility to publicize it." / Mr. Grossman – Bill, you are right. I am disappointed that they did not put that in. There are too many people that think that this is some Bar Group, a bunch of lawyers meddling in something that they shouldn’t be meddling in. When the New York Times did a piece back in June, when the Commission was first formed, they did identify members. But for whatever reason, they chose not to this time. I heard today from someone, that with respect to year-round immersion, they might offer students the opportunity for a $10 registration fee to monitor some courses.

Professor S. Cooper – "I really want to thank you and all of these people for the work you did. You met after hours, after a day’s worth of work. I know because Cecelia McCall and I met with you one evening. It was very clear that this was on top of everybody’s heavy schedules. We are very grateful to you for this work. I am particularly intrigued by the possibility that the federal government might get interested. Is there some way that you could expand on that?" / Mr. Grossman – I don’t know if they will. First of all, I can’t stand here and take all of this credit. Isabel, did you want to comment on that? / Isabel Pinzler  – There has been a complaint filed with the Office of Civil Rights, so the matter may go to court until Title VI. They are investigating. I can tell you from my personal experience in Washington, D.C., it’s a rather long process.

Professor Bell (Educational Services, Brooklyn College) – "I want to thank you, too, particularly those people who actually went and sat in on classes, met students, really went to see what students are saying -- the students who are really the ones who are going to be impacted on this, much more than we are. I really respect that. I want to tell people that’s what happened. I think it’s important. Now that you’ve done this Report, and I assume that you’ve distributed it widely, what do you think the next step is? Is there a next step, what happens?" / Mr. Grossman – First of all, let me just comment on what you said about visiting the campuses. I don’t know how you can really make these decisions without going out there and meeting the students to see who is going to be impacted. I spoke to some of these Regents, and I asked them whether they have you been out to Brooklyn? Have you seen what this urban New York City environment really is, which City University is supposed to be serving? And they said, "No." It is hard to make these important decisions in a comfortable office. As for the next step, the way we understand it, there is a report issued by Commissioner Mills, making a recommendation to the Regents, that has been embargoed at the moment. It should become public pretty soon. The Regents will meet to discuss it. I think that it is the 15^th or 16^th, that the Regents are suppose to act on it. In the meantime, I understand that some Regents have actually been moved by our Report. And I don’t mean moved emotionally, although that may be true as well. But they have been moved from their positions in our direction. How many, I can’t tell you. At the very least, we’ve had the impact in that regard. I think that there is a real concern out there for some of those who want to get this over with, that the Regents could possibly vote it down. Or the Regents might not approve it with unanimity, which some people at CUNY would like to see. When I testified last before the Regents, I think it was about ten days ago, I was asked by the Chair of the sub-committee, Saul Cohen, whether the Regents could approve part of this or do they have to approve all or nothing. Other lawyers may disagree with this, but my response was that they have to approve it up or down, yes or no. But notwithstanding that, he responded to me by saying, does that mean that we could try to negotiate changes, so that when we vote for a "yes" it is a "yes" on a plan that’s different from this. Obviously you could do that. I think there are discussions that might very well be going on right now. I think one of the most critical things will be what the Chairman of the Trustees has to say about it. I think he’s come out with some pretty strong views, and regardless of what some of the other people negotiating might think, a lot depends upon his view on this. So if the negotiations aren’t successful, that may be going on, I think it is an up or down probably. / Professor Bell – "As I’ve been asking lots of people in the past few weeks, can you suggest what we should be doing now as faculty?" / Mr. Grossman – Yes, I think this is a political thing. Regents are appointed by political people. You must know people out there, whether it’s your Congressman, Assemblyperson, State senator, Council people, or business people. Some of these Regents are out there in the business world. I think you should lobby.

Greeting of New Trustee – Hon. Jeff Wiesenfeld

Chair Sohmer – Jeff Wiesenfeld is one of our new Board members, appointed by the Governor in the summer of 1999, born in the Bronx, raised in Queens, went to my alma mater Bronx High School of Science, and Queens College. He served as an assistant to Congressman Thomas Manton and Queens Borough President Claire Shulman. He worked in the Koch administration, and then on the senior staff for Senator D’Amato. In 1995, he became Executive Assistant to Governor Pataki in the metropolitan area. He and his wife are both the children of survivors.

Trustee Wiesenfeld – I want to thank you for choosing this evening [referring to rainy weather]. It was designed to engender a low turnout which makes me much more comfortable.

The only thing that I would say to all of you very respectfully: people try to categorize other people, especially in my case, since I was the Governor’s appointee. I am not someone to be typed very easily, and neither are faculty.

I believe in CUNY very much. I was the first member of my family to have any education beyond six years. In Europe, we had different kinds of ghettos than we have here in America. In America, you can be underprivileged, but with drive and ambition you can get out of the ghetto. The ghettos of Europe had walls and barbed wire; they led you to a box car which took you to a concentration camp. So those members of my family who survived, had but four or six years of formal education. I don’t say that to impress you, but it is an important fiber of my being. We were a very poor family. Those of you who know how survivors of that era adjusted to the United States when they came here through Ellis Island in the late 1940’s, some of them exhibited superior survival skills such as Elie Wiesel, and some who went into business. Others had enduring psychological and other ill effects that made their lives difficult. Such was the case with my parents. If it wasn’t for Bronx Science and the City University, I wouldn’t have had any opportunity at all. It has given me 21 years in government. I don’t know what the future holds for me. But certainly, from my perspective, I’ve done better than one could have expected to have done, in a childhood where one was fed these memories that were very difficult to understand.

There is another group within the faculty, as you know, who are called the Association of Scholars. One would expect that I would very much agree with them all the time, my point of departure being what it is. But in the spirit of not being typecast, let me say that recently they sent to me a newsletter where they complained about the Prelude to Success Program. They claim that it is a diminution of the effort of the Board of Trustees to move remediation predominately to the community colleges. To the contrary, I recall, when I needed to get into Bronx Science -- because the Bronx that I was growing up in the late 1960’s and early 1970’s is not the Bronx that is in its current renaissance -- I was zoned either for Morris or Roosevelt. That meant for me, I was a marked man. I took the test for Bronx Science and I failed by 3 points. It is what we call in the vernacular a "high fail." They had a summer school program. It was a tough summer because my family was used to renting bungalows in Rockaway Beach. That was my paradise (it wasn’t always the Irish Riviera, it was everyone’s Riviera). I missed that summer, I went, and that got me the admission to Bronx Science.

That reminds me of the Prelude to Success Program. It is not a large percentage of students that will get that extra push in, but we should have that margin. I have experienced it, and I believe others should have a chance as well. In that spirit, I want to say to all of you, I believe in the City University. I visited 12 of the schools. I knew a lot of them to begin with. Each of these campuses has its own surprises, things that you didn’t expect to find. Hostos, the things that we’ve heard over the years, it’s been maligned, but there are many great things going on at Hostos College. The health program alone prepares students for some of the highest paying jobs in their section of the City into which they will go to work. We have a lot to be proud of. I hope that after my seven years are up, it can be said that I made a small contribution and not a cynical one. Because I am very sincere in my attitudes towards the City University.

Professor Crain – "You voted for the remediation exit exam. In your position I would have abstained. There was a thorough investigation of the data that indicates there is no need for that exam. You didn’t participate in any of the discussions, you didn’t hear the testimony, unless you can cite the figures and indicate that you read the research papers related to this. The graduation rates, the GPAs all indicate that faculty certifying that students are ready to leave remediation is a highly effective, good predictor of success. That certification is valid. There was no need for this test. Why not abstain until you know the data, rather than adopt this policy that came down from the Mayor and was pushed forth without any meaningful discussion, no rationale for that exit exam. So why not abstain for a while and think things out for yourself?" / Trustee Wiesenfeld – I’ll tell you where I might have abstained. On the remediation issue, I have read some of the research data. Let me say that there could be a good debate on how it’s measured, and what kind of remediation testing there is, but there has to be some kind of measurement. If you put someone in remediation, you want to know that something was achieved. It is like anything else in life, you’re making an investment, you want to know what the person came out with. Where I would have had difficulty, and perhaps I’m happy that I wasn’t on the Board a half year earlier, was in the debate over the six months being permitted for one of the three category areas. I would have had great difficulty voting against that. Talking inside politics, without revealing the fact that Mr. Sohmer often knows much more than he lets on, I think if Edith Everett and Trustee Murphy had accepted the six months then, it might not have gone as far as it did. It’s a difficult situation. Now the Board, having decided what it has, I now do support that program. There is no sense in trying to revise history. I do have an open mind to these things, but I do believe you have to measure success. /

Professor Levine – "At many universities, the board of trustees members are the advocates of the university to the political level and to the public at large. We as the faculty would hope that you would be willing to accept that role in bringing the message to the Governor that the chronic underfunding of CUNY has had a detrimental effect. Do you feel that you can bring that message?" / Trustee Wiesenfeld – I expect to be an advocate for the program as a whole, and specifically the highlights that were articulated by Chancellor Goldstein today for the Honors Academy, the 180 new faculty. I will advocate for that program. In addition, the first Board meeting that occurred right after my confirmation was June 29^th, which meant that my predecessor was still on the Board for 48 hours. It became known to me that there were federal TAFNF (Temporary Aid for Needy Families) funds, these are people who are difficult to employ, which were granted to CUNY in the past year, where the communication was poor with the administering agency, in the case of our locality, the Human Services Administration of the City of New York. I wanted to make available through Labor Commissioner Dillon -- we had $4.5 million which we could have put in. The work was done between Jim Dillon, the Deputy Labor Commissioner and Commissioner McGowan, and Dean Mogulescu. So that $4.5 million is available as well. Wherever I can be, I will be such an advocate, whether it is with the Governor’s Deputy Secretary for Education, Jeff Lovell, Bradford Race, or whatever it takes to the extent to which I believe the concept being proposed is a correct one.

Professor S. Cooper – "I’m happy to hear that you don’t come with a lot of ideological baggage, because the Herald had different messages. I understood that there was a speech that you delivered in which I was particularly singled out, as an example of this Leftist, Marxist cabal that runs the Senate." / Trustee Wiesenfeld – I don’t ever remember mentioning your name before. I’ve mentioned a lot of people in my day, but I don’t remember mentioning one Sandi Cooper. / Professor Cooper – That the leadership of the Senate was in the hands of such a group was frequently reported by your Chair and others." / Trustee Wiesenfeld – But I was never quoted as saying any such thing. I’ve had political enemies, but no members of the Faculty Senate are among them, including the ones who criticized me even before I was sworn in. / Professor Cooper – "The question I have is this. I have been observing trustees now, since I came into this system in 1967. Frankly, in all of that time, I have never seen a Board that is as politicized as this one. Have you a definition of what it means to be a Trustee, appointed by a Governor or Mayor and then expected to defend the interests of an institution? We have had trustees in the last three and four years who have openly said, I cannot vote this way until I call Albany or City Hall. They have said it; it is in the record because they didn’t know the microphones were on when they were speaking. They have also said it privately. Others who have admitted privately that they couldn’t possibly have voted otherwise because frankly their mortgage payments depended on next month’s check. We have never in the history of this University been in a situation where the people who are presumably defending our interests are so financially and otherwise liable for their futures on two political leaders who have made their disdain for this institution so publicly known, that it is without question, a fact. Students come up to me regularly and say, what am I going to do with this degree, because nobody has any respect for it --because trustees are saying that into the record. I am trying to get you to think about the issue of being a trustee under such a politicized environment. Given the four or five years of history we’ve had with this at this point, how do we turn this around and stop offending the work that some of us have spent a lifetime doing, and that these students have certainly put every bit of their energy into when they get a degree? I don’t know that there is an answer." / Trustee Wiesenfeld – I can only speak for myself. I certainly agree with the Governor’s general goals for City University, but I am not told how to vote. I also don’t recall the Governor speaking with the extreme disdain that you categorize as comments regarding City University. You may be taking the open views of others and just applying them universally; it’s not so.

Professor Greenbaum (History, Queensborough Community College) – "While it doesn’t really affect the community colleges, I noticed that you spoke about the honors academy. We currently have honors programs in several of the senior colleges. We have a CUNY bachelor’s program, which is a very selective program. How do you foresee the honors academy as being different and not replacing these programs?" / Trustee Wiesenfeld – I don’t have an answer for that yet. / Professor Greenbaum – "Well, think about it, because you are going to have to vote on it." / Trustee Wiesenfeld – The reason I don’t have an answer is because I don’t know the full formulation that is being suggested by the Chancellor. When I know that I can answer that question.

Professor Grossman (Elementary Education, City College) – "I’d like to refer to the issue of the tiers in the college system, and I urge you not to support that. I walked into this building tonight and realized that 70 years ago my father was a senior here in high school. He left from here to go to City College. Because he had an education, first in his family to do so, his children went on to become Ph.D.’s. He never was a wealthy man, but he made sure we went through public education. The students who are going to the City University now are going to have that same impact on their families and their children. If we have tiers, if we say, well, this is a tier 3 college, and therefore you are only going to go this far, then we are limiting people. I think that everyone needs to have the same opportunity my father had, and you had when you went to Queens College. That is, that any senior college they enter will offer them the same opportunities that they are able to seize, and they are not limited because they are at a tier 1, tier 2, or tier 3 college." / Trustee Wiesenfeld – Remember what I said. I believe in CUNY. I am always available, I return phone calls, I am not some guy on a high horse. I am a regular guy in terms of my point of departure mentally. While I am in between the generation of Bernie Sohmer and the average student, I still feel closer to the students. That is not to say anything negative of Bernie. He is one of the most brilliant people around, but I don’t want to give him the kiss of death by complimenting him further.

New Business

A. Resolution on Remarks of Board Chair Badillo

Chair Sohmer - The Executive Committee of the Faculty Senate has written a resolution which it wants to present to this body on the remarks of Trustee Badillo. [resolution read]

Professor Grossman – "Speaking for myself, I do support this resolution, I think it is unacceptable for anyone in the position that Mr. Badillo holds to express this view. It is totally inappropriate for a Trustee to so denigrate the purposes of the University. I promised my colleague Diane Sank that I would speak for her. She was unable to come today, because it is election day. She was concerned because this might hold down some of our attendance. She is very active in elections in her State. She hopes that we will not hold meetings on election day in the future. Her view was that, rather than express objections to individuals, we take a more positive view, we find some way to sit down and meet with, directly, the Trustees, the presidents of the University, in order to hold discussions on where the University would go. It would be wonderful if we could do that, but meanwhile I think we need to say what we think about the ideas expressed. Perhaps we can work to better communication though between faculty, presidents, and trustees in the future."

Chair Sohmer – The resolution is passed unanimously without dissent.

Chair Sohmer – [The Resolution is read.] Any comments or discussion?

[unidentified speaker] – "I’m not sure about the operational definition of ‘meaningful roles.’ I think we should be asking for restoration for faculty membership on presidential search committees to the percent of the members that we had before." / Chair Sohmer – Well, there are other problems. That’s only part of it. A "meaningful role" is a mask for many things. / [unidentified speaker] – "I wonder if we should be more specific, or if we should be objecting to the removal of certain things. I’m sorry for not having thought of this sooner. In the context of this evening’s discussion of consultation, I think we’ve got to be more specific, or else they are going to say "we’ve got it."

[unidentified speaker] – "I think the phrase "deliberative and democratic" is also very vague." / Chair Sohmer – There is no urgency about this particular resolution. I sense that we are not going to rewrite a resolution on the floor, and that we would just be better off altering it and coming back with it. An alteration is a motion to adopt the "spirit" of the resolution now and delegate exact language to the Executive Committee.

Professor O’Malley (English Department, Kingsborough Community College) – "I just want to say, for those of us who are undergoing searches on our campus, it is a bit urgent at the three community colleges that are undergoing searches. We now have seven trustees on the committee, but thank goodness you got it so they only have six votes, and three faculty. We do have it that a candidate can be put back into the search, even though the search committee said, "We don’t want this candidate." So there is a bit of urgency, and I move that it be sent to the Executive Committee. Approve it in spirit, and it comes back in the December Plenary."

Chair Sohmer – So there is this referral resolution, is there any debate about referral?

it comes back from the Executive Committee, it should be a little stronger. I think that we are getting weaker and weaker. We do resolutions over, but I don’t think we are respected. Things are happening around the University. I think we should take a better stand. When we talk about ‘petition’ it is too weak." / Chair Sohmer – I think that the Executive Committee is aware of the sense of the body that this should be both a stronger and a more particularized resolution. Is that what you are saying? / Professor Canate – "Yes, but also, I want to make sure that we understand that there is a sense of urgency at my campus. I do think that we should be moving a little more quickly. Because things are happening that we don’t want, but they are happening. They are behind these things."

Chair Sohmer – There is a motion to refer. Is there anyone who would like to make a statement about the motion to refer? Positive or negative.

[unidentified speaker] – "Can we amend the motion to refer, since there is such an urgency, that we pass it in spirit, and the Executive Committee not bring it back in December, except for informational purposes." / Chair Sohmer – The difficulty is that the people who presented it are not in the Executive Committee, so certainly they should minimally be consulted about the text. There is this amendment to refer it with a sense of urgency, and that it be transmitted in the very near future with the consultation with the folks who presented the resolution.

Chair Sohmer – The resolution before you at the moment is to refer it to the Executive Committee and transmit it instantly from the Executive Committees re-writing. That was a voice against that. Are there any other comments on sending it to the Executive Committee?

Professor Pam (English, Hostos Community College) – "I’m new to the University Faculty Senate. Is there nothing stronger that we can do besides sending a resolution? This whole thing will be over. It is ridiculous. We have a new president who might very well been chosen in a process. But recently students yelled in her face, "You were just sent here by Badillo to close this college." She is now seeing that being chosen without due consultation makes her weaker. They are going to appoint everyone they want. Is there nothing we can do besides that?" / Chair Sohmer – I await the wisdom of the body. This is already an amendment to their policy on presidential searches, not the By-Laws, but the policy. The referral amended that it be transmitted without coming back to this body. Anyone making statements about that?

Professor Kaplowitz – "I’d like to support Martha Bell’s motion for sending it to the Executive Committee. There is a sense of urgency, but quite frankly, as Bernie pointed out, the Board already passed the guidelines. The time for us to speak would have been at the public hearing about this item. If we are going to speak, we might as well speak now, since the committees are in formation. I gather that the faculty are being elected." / Chair Sohmer – The committees exist already. / Professor Kaplowitz – "On the one hand, what’s the urgency. On the other hand, one of the complaints about us as faculty, that we hear over and over, is that we are so slow in responding that there is no point to consult with us. This Board and this Chancellory, for good or ill, are very eager to reform CUNY, in their sense of the word "reform." They are using as an excuse our very deliberative slow process, in their minds. We should respond as quickly as we can. If we can’t speak on an issue that’s immediate, that the faculty members spoke to very eloquently at the Board meeting, as a full body, it is going to reflect poorly on us."

Chair Sohmer – The policy statement on presidential searches for the last 10-15 years has included a statement which says that the Trustee members of the committee may advance whomsoever they please independently, and nobody will be advanced were it not for three trustee members advancing that name. That’s what this came from. That’s what this is a modification of.

Chair Sohmer – We have on the floor this resolution to refer with instant action out of the Executive Committee. Can we please dispose of that. All of those in favor of calling that question? A referral to the Executive Committee for making this resolution better and stronger, and then transmitting it without coming back to the body. The Executive Committee would consult with the folks who drafted it. That is the resolution at this moment. All of those in favor of calling the question, please say "Aye." The question is called. All those in favor of this motion, please raise one hand. All those against? It is overwhelmingly done.