The Three Hundred and Eleventh Plenary Session

of The University Faculty Senate

of The City University of New York

April 5, 2005

The meeting was called to order by UFS Chair O’Malley at 6:40 p.m. in Room 9206/7 at the Graduate School and University Center. 66 voting members were present:

Baruch: Present –Hill, Myers, and Pollard. Absent – Goldstein, Freedman, Giannikos, Majete, and Smith. BMCC: Present – Agwu, Belknap, Friedman, Martin, Price, and White. Bronx CC: Present – none. Absent – Carney, McManus, and Skinner. Brooklyn: Present – Antoniello, Bell, Jacobson, Morawski, Shapiro, Tobey, and Viscusi. Absent –Bloomfield, Cunningham, Romer, and Wills. CCNY: Present – Crain, and Sank. Absent – Benenson, Broderick, and Buffenstein. Vacancies – 5. CSI: Present – Cooper, Farkouh, Klibaner, Levine, Petratos, and Yousef. CUNY Law School: Present – McArdle. Absent – Andrews. Vacancy – 1. Graduate School: Present – Baumrin, Nolan, and Alternate Long. Absent – Khuri, Lerner, Rachlin, and Tobin. Hostos CC: Present – August, Roe, and Singh. Vacancies - 1. Hunter: Present-- Doyle, Kaye, and Matthews. Absent –Finder, Friedman, Guzzetta, Krishnamachari, Sherrill, and Wimberly. Vacancies – 1. John Jay: Present – Brugnola, Kaplowitz, and Kubic. Absent – Kucharski, Mandery, and Wylie-Marques. Kingsborough CC: Present – Barnhart, Farrell, O’Malley, Ruoff. Absent – Galvin. LaGuardia CC: Present – Beaky, Lerman, Mettler, Rushing, and Alternate Green-Anderson. Absent – Davidson. Lehman: Present –Wilder, and Alternate Kolb. Absent – Aronowitz, Hosay, Jervis, Mineka, and Philipp. Medgar Evers: Present – Barker, Donohue, and Hastick. NYCCT: Present –Dreyer, Horelick, Hounion, Richardson and Walter. Absent – Cermele. Queens: Present – Bird, Casco, Erickson, and Moore. Absent – Brody, Habib, Savage, Sukhu, and Tse. Vacancies – 1. Queensborough CC: Present – Barbanel, Hest, Pecorino and Alternate Ansani. Absent –Weiss. Vacancies – 1. York: Present – Lewis and Wolosin.. Vacancies - 2.

Governance Leaders present: Baumrin (GSUC), Cooper (CSI), Dreyer (NYC Tech), Friedheim (BMCC), Kaplowitz (John Jay), Leonhard (CCNY), Levine (CSI), Mettler (LaGuardia), Pecorino (QCC), and Tobey (Brooklyn). Parliamentarian Andrea McArdle, Executive Director Phipps, Administrative Assistant Pasela, and Secretary Blanchard were also present. 

I. Approval of the Agenda - The agenda was adopted.

II. Approval of the Minutes of March 2005: The minutes were adopted with corrections given to the Executive Director.

III. Reports: (Recorded in Reports & Deliberations)

A. Chair.

B. Chancellor Goldstein.

      C. Professor Glenn Lewis on the new Journalism School.       

      D. Representatives to Board Committees. (written)

IV. Nominations for 5 Members-at-Large of the Executive Committee: Professor Sally Mettler, Chair of the Elections Committee, requested nominations without comment. The following Senators were nominated: Thomas Bird (Queens), Sandi Cooper (CSI), Stefan Baumrin (Lehman), Anne Freidman (BMCC), Manfred Philipp (Lehman), Philip Pecorrino (QCC) and Eda Harris-Hastick (Medgar Evers). Senator Pecorrino declined nomination.

Professor Mettler reminded the Plenary that nominations remain open through the May 10^th balloting. Self-nominations in the form of a notification letter to the Elections Committee at the Senate Office may be placed any time through April 29. At the plenary on May 10, nominations can be made from the floor with accompanying statements. The election fact sheet, sent in your packet, could be referred to for questions about the election procedure.

V. Old Business: There was no old business.

VI. New Business: The Executive Committee offered for adoption a "Statement on Academic Freedom." Seven Senators spoke to the motion. It was passed as amended by 56 votes with 1 opposed and 3 abstentions. Full text of the discussion in the Reports & Deliberations section.

Statement on Recent Violations of Academic Freedom & Due Process

The University Faculty Senate of the City University of New York, committed to the First Amendment, in accordance with the AAUP definition of academic freedom, and to the belief that people are entitled to the State presumption of innocence, expresses its concern over local violations of personal and academic freedom that have resulted from political pressure in the current climate of fear.

We deplore the denial of due process for adjuncts in two recent cases, which in effect denies them academic freedom:

We deplore the decision by the Central Administration of CUNY to remove Mohammed Yousry in April 2002 from his post as an adjunct in Political Science at York College. Our disagreement with the Central Administration's decision in no way trivializes the federal charges against him, but addresses the Chancellery's refusal to initiate formal proceedings and to accord Mr. Yousry due process and the presumption of innocence until proven guilty and all legal processes are exhausted.

We deplore the exclusion of Susan Rosenberg from any further teaching at John Jay College of Criminal Justice as a result of a decision in December 2004 by President Jeremy Travis in response to complaints by a police fraternal organization and without appropriate faculty consultation. President Travis offered no academic grounds for the exclusion, and his decision compromises the long-held academic tradition of faculty self-governance in selecting who shall teach and what shall be taught.

Similarly, we deplore the actions of School Chancellor Joel Klein in removing Columbia University Professor Rashid Khalidi on February 15, 2005, from continuing to participate in faculty development workshops on the Middle East for high school teachers following political attacks on his person and his scholarship in the NY press, and we commend Columbia President Lee Bollinger for his support of Professor Khalidi's academic freedom.

We draw the attention of trustees and administrators to the observation by Professor Morris Raphael Cohen in 1940, following the dismissal of Bertrand Russell from City College under pressure from political and religious groups: "The citizens of New York are facing a grave and momentous crisis. Shall the education of our youth remain in the hands of competent and properly trained educators or shall the appointment and removal of professors be controlled by popular clamor of the ignorant?"

It is inexcusable that 65 years later we have to ask the same question.

There being no further business, the meeting was adjourned at 8:45 P.M.

Respectfully submitted,

William Phipps, Executive Director

REPORTS AND DELIBERATIONS

OF THE 311th PLENARY SESSION

OF THE UNIVERSITY FACULTY SENATE

OF THE CITY UNIVERSITY OF NEW YORK

April 5, 2005

(note: This report is transcribed in order of presentation. Refer to the agenda or Minute for contents.)

III. Reports:

A. Chair O’Malley – Let me cover a few things for the Chair’s Report. Feel free if you have questions to come to the mic.

Faculty Experience Survey, here we go; it will be mailed Friday, or maybe Monday, right Stasia? / Stasia Pasela – It is Friday or Monday depending on where you are in the central mail delivery. / Chair – And Stasia has sent a message to the liaisons. Look for the survey in your mailroom. It will be sent the same way as we send the Senate Digest. However, you will return it in an envelope that has postage and that you seal so there’s privacy. Please notify the faculty through your faculty listservs. I will start nudging you almost daily. April 22 is the return date but return surveys will of course be accepted until the end of the term. It is very important that we have a good turnout. Results will be tabulated and analyzed this summer. Through Tolga’s good work we have Brooklyn College adjuncts and CLTs being included in this pilot. We have not been able to include CLTs and adjuncts on other campuses, but in two years when we conduct this survey again, it’s important that we expand and include all adjuncts. It’s just difficult for us to get labels and also to get enough money to run the survey, but we’re happy that there is a pilot survey of adjuncts and CLTs. We do have a little money this summer to hire a few graduate students who will tabulate the results and then in the fall we will report to you our results. I think it’s going to be very interesting.

Lobby day - it was a great success. I want to thank Kathleen Barker, Eda Harris Hastick, Nkechi Agwu, Theresa McManus, Judith Barbanel, Martha Bell, and Robert Kelly. We saw approximately 20 legislators or their aids, and we had particularly good discussions with Steve Williams, the Governor’s person in higher education, and Senator Owen Johnson’s higher education aid. I must say we’re getting better at lobbying, and I think it is important. The timing was exquisite because both the Senate and the Assembly had passed their higher education budget bills, and they were just starting to do the reconciliation, so we got our message in just at the right time. I hope next year more of you will come. It didn’t snow, which was good, and we had a great time talking in the car, eating and laughing and telling stories. I think it’s useful.

The Chancellor will say more about the budget, but as you know the Legislature has passed the 2005-2006 budget. It remains to be seen what the Governor will do with it. / Professor Martha Bell – He’s required by law to do it by April 12. / Chair – The problem of course is there is a worrisome $26.3 million hole in the senior college operating budget; There is no money to hire new faculty. It’s very important that we ask the Chancellor questions about it. Raising tuition is not an option because that is not allowed by the legislature’s budget, so we don’t have to fight that fight this spring. TAP money has been restored, as has SEEK and CD money. There is an increase per FTE, I think it’s $115, in the community colleges, so their budget is all right. Any questions so far?

Conference – We don’t have a very good turnout so far, so…April 22, 9:30 to 3 o’clock at the Graduate School, Recapturing the Public in Public Higher Education; a very, very important topic. The speaker I’m excited to hear is Jennifer Washburn, who wrote University Incorporated, the Corporate Corruption of Higher Education. Renate Bridenthal is going to be the respondent for Washburn’s talk. Also, Ulrich Teichler from Germany is speaking on a comparative look at the public-private issue in Germany. Larry Hanley, our very own editor of Academe for another month or two, is also speaking. David Dill, Richard Ohmann, Richard Richardson: it’s a good line-up. The flier is on our website. Do come and encourage your faculty to attend. I can’t think of anything more important for us to understand and figure out then what we’re going to do about the withdrawal of public funding from public higher education and the slow privatization and corporatization of public higher education driven primarily because of need for money.

This is what the faculty survey looks like, if anyone who wants to take a look. We have shortened it some. And Stasia designed it, so it looks a little bit more stylish.

Yousry case – I think I should report what’s going on. You know that Committee A of the AAUP will vote, in June, on whether or not to censure CUNY based on the report on Mohamed Yousry, the adjunct who was dismissed without due process from York College. I received a letter from Jordan Kurland, who’s Associate Secretary of AAUP, that indicated that CUNY and the AAUP are talking and trying to work out. After the vote and recommendation of Committee A the body at the AAUP convention will vote whether or not City University should be censured for its lack of due process in removing adjunct Mohamed Yousry from the classroom. The AAUP is saying CUNY’s action was a violation of academic freedom.

Finally, the Regents’ Master Plan hearing was held today, and it will be also held on Friday. This morning Michael Barnhart of the Academic Policy Committee and Lenore Beaky, Bill Crain, and I testified on the CUNY Master Plan, along with Vice Chancellor Botman and Higher Education Conference Board Chair Carl McCall, in front of Regents Philips, Chapey, Tisch, Brademus, Commissioner Mills, Deputy Commissioner Duncan Poitier, and Assistant Commissioner Frey. What was fun was that they were interested in what we had to say. They stayed awake, they listened, they asked us very good questions. I thought we did quite a good job. And I know this afternoon and Friday – Sandi, you’re testifying; did you testify today? Good, I’d love to see what you…And Morris Hounion on Friday, Catherine Richardson, Martha Bell is on Friday because she got bumped today; Dina, are you testifying? Also Manfred Philipp submitted testimony. I gave some of his testimony today. Anyone else testifying? Susan Price, this afternoon. How did it go? / Professor Susan Price – It was interesting. / Chair – I actually think we might get something on shared governance in the Master Plan mainly because Carl McCall gave such a spectacular speech on the importance of shared governance and how it protects the University from corporatization. And you know Carl McCall when he gets wound up is terrific. When I spoke after him, I emphasized the need for shared governance in the Master Plan. Any questions? Phil.

Professor Phil Pecorino (Queensborough Community College) – Sometime down the road when we’re extending the faculty survey perhaps we should reach out and attempt to survey our recently departed faculty members. I’ve been in several meetings now where people have brought up the issue. / Chair O’Malley – What do you mean by departed? / Professor Pecorino – Departed through self-election, those who were most recently hired and now they’re gone, our attrition rate for the newly hired. We could reach out to them. There are a variety of reasons why they leave. The information I think would be both interesting and possibly inflammable. / Chair – So faculty who have left CUNY, not left governance but left CUNY, and did not die. / Professor Pecorino – Particularly if they left within three years of having been hired here. / Chair – I would very much like to do that. Dean Savage has started to do this. He did a report on this at Queens College; he’s talking about updating it. I think it’s essential that we take a look at why faculty leave this University. We spend so much time hiring them and then they go elsewhere. I suspect I know some of the reasons. Include it on your survey response. It’s called course load, isn’t it, and then it’s also called salary.

Professor Stefan Baumrin (Philosophy, / Lehman and The Graduate School)– A little bird suggested that perhaps you might say what you testified relative to the Regents rather than just that you testified. / Chair O’Malley – I could put my testimony on the listserv. I started out talking about liberal arts and sciences and their importance and how in the Master Plan it’s not emphasized enough. And then I said that we need a full complement of faculty and I talked about the numbers of full-time faculty teaching sections. I gave the figures from last year, and then I got figures from VC Ernesto Malave yesterday. I think his figures are a little high. He has for senior colleges about 50% of the sections taught by full-time faculty and at the community colleges about 46-7%. But he is counting substitutes and acting and visiting that make his figures a little higher. I then talked some about diversity and the Graduate School diversity and new hires. If you take a look at the new hires our diversity figures are quite good. I also talked about the Graduate School educating more minority or people of color PhDs because it seems to me we could do that, we should be doing that. Then, of course, I had to say if you look at the distinguished professors there are not many women and few Blacks, Hispanics, or Asians; it’s pathetic. And they don’t even tell you if there are Black women, they don’t break it down that way. I suspect there are very few.

Manfred Philipp wanted me to talk about the possibility of a pharmacy school. The Biology/Chemistry Discipline Council is eager to start talking about a pharmacy school. If you look at the statewide Master Plan, the Regents Plan, there is a great need for pharmacists. So I talked about the possibility of CUNY starting a pharmacy school. I said the University has been busy with the new School of Journalism and with its School of Professional Studies – I’m kind of eager to know what happened at the Academic Policy meeting on SPS – so they’ve been busy with other things, but it should be time to start talking about a school of pharmacy. I think that’s pretty much what I said. They asked some good questions I thought, and questions that I will send them answers to, such as take a look at the budget, what percentage comes from tuition, what percentage comes from the State, from the City, how has that changed, what about if you put in the Capital Budget, and how much of your budget comes from fundraising and grants? That’s a hard question to answer right off, but I will get that information. They also asked me, "You stress liberal arts and sciences so much, but what do you want us to do if we could do anything?" And I talked a little bit about the general education project that Judith Summerfield has started and how too few people know about it. There’s about two people on each campus, but it hasn’t percolated, it has not gone very far as of yet. And I talked about the possibility of getting a large grant during the summer to have an institute on liberal arts and sciences. That might be fun to do. That’s pretty much what I said.

Unidentified – About the tuition issue, I was told today that the Chancellery is thinking about imposing a tuition increase for graduate students that does not require Board action and legislative action as a way of filling up the hole that you spoke about, and I wondered if you had heard about that. / Chair O’Malley – No, I haven’t. At the hearing I talked about the importance of tuition remission for graduate students. I talked about the money that SUNY gets for tuition remission for graduate students and how CUNY does not and how this is particularly bad for out-of-state and foreign students and how it’s hurting our graduate programs. I think they heard. / Unidentified – It’s very serious. / Chair – What about the Law School, are you hearing about tuition increases? / Professor McArdle – I don’t know specific numbers but that seemed to be the sense that he’s going to do something.

Vice Chair Kaplowitz – Also differential tuition for different graduate programs. / Chair O’Malley – Yes. / Unidentified 2 – I don’t think the Legislature passed that. / Chair –Don’t we have some graduate programs that cost more? Hunter School of Social Work raised its tuition; it came through the Board. At Baruch I believe your Public Policy MBA costs more. / Vice Chair Kaplowitz – My understanding is that tuition can be differential only when the degrees are different, so an MBA can be charged more as long as every MBA at CUNY is charged more. One graduate degree can’t be raised unless they all are; a Master’s of Science can’t be raised unless all of them are. The Governor’s proposal to have differential tuition would have wiped out that requirement, which is in state education law. / Chair – How about the MBA at Baruch? Isn’t that higher? There have been Master’s of Business programs passed by the BOT at Brooklyn, Staten Island. / Unidentified – These are not MBAs. They’re Master’s, not MBAs. / Chair – I see. Right. So they’ll all have the same tuition. Any other questions?

Professor Jane Matthews (Hunter College) – One of the things they’re considering using our technology fee for is salaries of 15 tech people. Now is that a precedent? / Unidentified – Brooklyn did that last year and it’s being questioned because the money is supposed to go back to the students

Professor Phil Pecorino (Queensborough Community College) – I’m on the University’s IT Student Committee and several times Vice Chancellor Dobrin and the CIO Brian Cohen has spoken to a review of the student technology fee appliance. One of the things they told them they place a high priority on is a review of the appliance; it’s meant to go to OTPS, not personnel at all, and they get really upset if they see a significant percentage being directed to personnel. This is not students who are working as aids, helping other students; this would be a lien at the college that the money was sent to support either in whole or part thereof. They do not like to see that at all, and they said for the most part in their review of the campuses, most had spent the overwhelming majority of the fee on equipment. At the few campuses that did not, somebody was going to be spoken to. / Chair O’Malley – That’s Brooklyn. / Professor Pecorino – I think that was one of the campuses. There are reasons why a portion of a person’s salary maybe could be funded with the tech fee money. Suppose the college has a web net and part of the web is information for students. In such a case nobody should use the money with that kind of an excuse -- that the webmaster is basically somebody that should be in a regular college line -- and it’s incidental that a portion of the web is directed to students in terms of instructional support. / Chair – Next month’s plenary Brian Cohen, chief IT person, will be coming and we can ask him questions on tech fees and on blackboard. Also Allan Dobrin is coming and David Fields to talk about security, which we need to talk about. / / Chair – Thank you. Any other questions or should we move to the discussion of the Journalism School. The new Dean, Steve Shepard, was going to come, but he’s in Washington; he’ll probably come in the fall. He was very flattered to be asked. Glenn, why don’t you talk about the new Journalism School and then take questions.

C. Professor Glenn Lewis: First of all, I don’t know how much everybody is really up on this, so I just want to catch you up on some of the basics. The school is going to open in fall of 2006. The original group of students that will be coming in at that time will be 50 students. Then they’re going to increase the enrollment each year by about 35 working up to 2010 where the maximum will be 150. Originally it was set at 200 and from talking to the Dean at our last meeting, which was last Friday, he indicated to me that that was cut back to 150, which would make us one of the bigger journalism schools in the country. The understanding is that the students there will be paying the typical graduate school fee, which I think now is about $5,400 a year, but if you compare that to Columbia and NYU their students pay between $40-50,000 a year. The length of the program at the School of Journalism has been set at three semesters plus a summer. The committee understanding was to ensure that we do the highest quality, most rigorous program possible without overly penalizing the students that come. Getting to that, this has been a very frequently asked question and I figure some people were not clear on this, what kind of students are we looking for, what’s going to be the level of the students, what’s going to be the commitment that the students have to make. One thing that we decided, and this is something that’s pretty prevalent from around the country, is that this is a very rigorous, very demanding curriculum that we’re putting together. I think some of us on the committee are pretty surprised at just how rigorous it’s become. It seems at this point we might have to cut it back a little bit not to make it overwhelming. We will not accept students that are not full-time. Looking down the road, maybe a year or two, the Dean indicated that he might revisit that, but this is very typical again of the more demanding, higher level journalism programs around the country. They demand a full-time commitment, and that commitment in this program really amounts to at least five days a week. To give you an idea of what’s involved here, we’re already planning special seminars for January, and one of the big selling points of our program, is that we’re hoping that we’ll be able to give every single student in the program a full-time paid internship over the summer. No other school in the country that does that, so I think that’s a very important thing to try to do.

There are three categories of faculty that are going to be teaching at the School of Journalism. There’s going to be a small group of five full-time faculty. Then just as the situation of the Graduate School, the way Stephan described it to me, there’s going to be a group of consortial faculty, which would be hopefully people like myself and people who teach journalism at CUNY schools and senior colleges and who are heading up programs and do this on a regular basis for a long period of time. I’m assuming that the people on the committee would be the initial core that they’ll draw from and then other people as well. There’s also going to be a certain amount of adjunct faculty that would be drawn from major media outlets from around the city. I have to say that, from what Steve Shepard indicated, the requests to teach at the School of Journalism have been overwhelming and from incredibly high quality people. There’s going to be three major tracks of the program: one in print journalism, which includes magazine and newspaper journalism, broadcast journalism, and new media. Most of the graduate schools of journalism around the country have been reorganizing and reshuffling their curriculum madly trying to come up to speed with the demand for new media, which is really changing journalism dramatically and will even more so in the future, and a lot of them literally are ripping programs apart trying to make this work. One of the advantages that we have is that we’re doing it now from scratch, so we’re building this all in at the beginning. As a matter of fact our last curriculum committee meeting was Friday. We had two top consultants there from the new media world, one of them the President of Advanced Media, which runs the online sort of operation for New House and Conde Nast; he was there and another person who is the former President of MSNBC.com. These people seem to be very anxious to have any part in this that they can. Most of the coursework has been completed already. The faculty on the committee are writing syllabi for this. We’re all assigned to write depending on what our specialties are. We’ve been meeting about twice a month all throughout the semester and we’ve approved about two thirds of the curriculum. We’re hoping to get everything ready to submit to the board probably in June I think was the indication for that.

Let me give you a rundown of the curriculum the way we projected it. I think, again, we ran it by people at Columbia and other places like that and everybody thinks that it’s pretty demanding. The main course for the first and second semester is going to be a 6 credit RW course, Reporting and Writing, that is going to be required for all print and new media people -- incredibly rigorous course that involves intense reporting from neighborhood beats all round the city. There’s going to be an ethics and morals course the first semester. There’s going to be a course in the fundamentals of research tools, and a course on the fundamentals of new media in the first semester as well. The broadcast people, instead of taking the fundamentals of new media the first semester, will take an intense workshop in production but then they’ll have to take the new media course during a five-day week seminar in January to catch up. The second semester is built around again another 6 credit, more advanced writing and reporting course, which includes beat reporting and more advanced forms of writing. There are going to be three media-track courses for each one of the three media tracks -- that’s an advanced level course in that particular medium. For the print people, those three courses will include an advanced feature writing course, and an investigative journalism course.

Unidentified – Was there any thought given yet to using the University’s TV station? / Professor Lewis – That’s a great question. My understanding right now is that we’re going to be splitting our time and space between primarily the school in the new facility on 41^st Street. My understanding is that originally we were supposed to have two floors of the building; I think now it’s down to a floor and a half and we’re still negotiating; maybe a floor and a quarter. It’s very expensive obviously to build a totally different studio. Again, I spoke to Steve Shepard about this on Friday. His understanding is that the television people would be using CUNY TV for that. As a matter of fact Bob Isaacson from CUNY TV is a regular member of our Curriculum Committee now and is at all the meetings, and so he’s in on this right from the beginning. We’re hoping that we’ll have some state of the art television editing facilities at the new location, but, again, as you said, those are two very different things. One of the things that I’m not privy to is how much use we’re going to be getting out of The Graduate Center. Again, that’s really something that’s going on on a level that I’m not privy to right now, so I don’t know what the final decisions are about that.

Professor Karen Kaplowitz (English, John Jay College) – There are three other committees, as you probably know, and one is Budget and Administration, which I’m on, and two other faculty, and the Vice President for Administration at The Graduate Center is on that committee, and so there’s a lot of cooperation and they all work together. / Professor Lewis – So it’s seen in a positive way. / Unidentified – Oh, absolutely. / Professor Lewis – That’s great.

Chair O’Malley – Questions.

Professor Alfred Levine (Engineering Science and Physics, College of Staten Island) – "This is a wonderful school, but I have a very mundane question about funding. You mentioned that there are going to be five full-time faculty lines. The consortium model for the PhD programs is that a certain number of the lines allocated to The Graduate Center are passed through to the colleges to compensate the campuses for the work done by the faculty in the consortial arrangement. I’m going to ask a very blunt question: How many consortial lines are going to be added for the School of Journalism? / Professor Lewis – That’s a really good question. Judging from the course load here, most of the classes that we’re projecting will have 15 to 20 students in a class. When you’re talking about feature writing, writing and reporting, you really can’t load up these classes. If we’re beginning the first semester with 50 students and there’s going to be five courses that are going to be taught the first semester, then there’s going to have to be probably three sections of each one of those. Do the math as far as how much full-time faculty can handle. / Professor Levine – That isn’t quite my question. My question is, is it coming out of the current allocation for doctoral programs or will there be an additional allocation of lines? / Professor Lewis – My understanding is that there’s going to be an additional allocation of lines that will be passed through to the colleges, but again, that’s something that Steve Shepard’s going to handle, not me, that’s for sure. / Professor Kaplowitz – I do know that there’s a subcommittee that Ned Benton is serving on that’s dealing with the consortial model, and maybe at the Budget Advisory Committee meeting on Friday we should raise this because Matt Sapienza, the Budget Director, is on the committee."

Professor Stefan Baumrin (Philosophy, The Graduate School and University Center) – "This is rough numbers. They have 225 consortial lines representing approximately $20 million, which are allocated back to the colleges for the use of your faculty teaching in PhD Graduate Center programs. There are approximately 120 full-time graduate school lines that are funded separately for another $12 or so million, $14 million. Assuming no further allocation were made, the five full-time lines would come out of the Graduate School’s 120, and the consortial lines would come out of everybody else’s allocations. So the issue of the separate funding is critical. There are two separate funding routes: one is the full-time lines; I assume that they’re prepared to do that; and the second is the consortial lines, and they may not be, given the budget shortfall, prepared yet to do that. I’m just letting this out so that you understand what the question was and what the possible consequences are."

Professor Larry Rushing (LaGuardia Community College) – "Starting a new school is a very exciting thing. However, as you know, places like Columbia University’s Journalism School are rethinking their curriculum, and one of the reasons they’re doing so is trying to answer the question why a Master’s Degree in Journalism? The entryway for the overwhelming majority of people in journalism in this country is without a Master’s Degree; most of them do not have Master’s Degrees; they come out of undergraduate journalism programs and they get internships, and internships is one of the main ways of getting into professional journalism. So one of the questions I’m wondering is what is the reason for this school, what is its focus and what is its philosophy, and how is it different from the other professional schools here in New York City, NYU, Columbia or Syracuse University upstate? That’s number one. The other question is who are the students going to be? Are you recruiting students from CUNY? Is that what it’s going to be? Our students will have an opportunity to get into journalism through this school or is this going to be a Columbia type of institution and NYU where we’re going to try to get students from around the country and have a very elite institution? / Professor Lewis – Fair question. Let me deal with the last one first. We talked about this at the meetings. Again, nothing’s in stone. What we’re getting on the committee is the impressions that are given to us by the Dean. Steve Shepard is a graduate of City College, he’s from the City University. He seems strongly committed to make sure that it’s a fair and strong representation of students from CUNY. What that exact percentage is I don’t know; I don’t think that anyone is going to commit to a quota. At different times he’s mentioned numbers in passing to me that have been fairly substantial, 30-40%, something like that, which you have to understand for a program like this is extremely large and ambitious. One of the things that’s been going on in other graduate programs at the University has been that there’s been almost a total lack of CUNY students that have been accepted, and that’s been a knock against some of the programs in the past. That’s not going to be the case here. I know that the Dean earlier on in the process he was very curious to ask me and the other consortium people who are on this Curriculum Committee the quality of students in our journalism programs, the level of their interest, what have they done, how strongly do we recommend them, how many of our students did we think would be good enough to make the program, how many could he expect to draw from our colleges from the program? Those are not the kind of questions you’re going to ask if you’re looking to go the other direction.

As far as the value of the program, there’s three things that are going on in journalism right now that really make this program essential: Number one is media in five years from now will look like nothing we recognize. The buzzword now is convergence, and convergence basically means that you’re going to have print, broadcast, new media, all converging together and sluicing through one outlet. And so traditional journalism the way most people know it and the way people broke into it over the years is pretty much going to be phased out. There’s going to be newspapers, there’s going to be magazines, but the bulk of reporting and media in the future is going to be very different, and it’s not that far a future, we’re talking about a fairly immediate future. We’re lucky in a way by forming this program now we’re going to be in the forefront of training people for that kind of situation. I’m putting together a curriculum right now on feature writing, which is one of the more esoteric subjects in this program, yet every one of my students in the other courses that they’ll be taking, are going to have to do reporting in all the other mediums and are going to have to be able to take a story from print and be able to make it work on line, with streaming video, with everything else that’s involved; they’re also going to get the technical background so when they come out they’re prepared for the best opportunities, not the opportunities that are left for them. That’s one thing. And also the demands on reporting are so much greater because the avenues to get information are so much greater, so you really have to change your approach to reporting and writing, what’s normal. The other thing is the American Association of Newspaper Editors quite a few years ago and then again more recently held surveys about not only who’s coming into the newsroom but who’s making it to management in the newsroom, and this is something that I think I might have reported on I think two or three years ago but it’s still true today. There are a greater number of minorities that are making it into the newsroom in general, whether it’s print or television or whatever, but there are lower levels of minorities that are making it into management, and a school like this could make a huge impact on that and that’s one of the advantages of graduate schools of journalism. The other thing also is it changes the dynamics of how fast you can move along and move up. Again, the program that we’re putting together here is going to be so rigorous and so demanding and there are internships involved, so I think what we’re foreseeing is not having people go through our program and then vying for an entry-level position but people coming out of our program and being ready to enter a fast-track, which they’ve probably already been on, and make it to management not in 7 or 8 years but 3 or 4 years after the program."

Professor Sandi Cooper (History, College of Staten Island) – "I hope that Admissions is going to look for more than students who are in undergraduate journalism. Besides that track, which is not very large, there are an awful lot of social sciences. My question has two parts, both small: Have you given any thought to how you’re going to publicize this amongst our existing faculty who might become the collaborative faculty? And secondly, just out of curiosity, this is based on the careers of two young people I know, they complained that when they got out of the Columbia School of Journalism they were totally unfit to work in newsrooms because they’d never been trained in polling and survey techniques. / Professor Lewis – It’s built into our program already. Again, we have the advantage of seeing all the mistakes that all the other journalism programs have made. I was on a committee that did the planning for this before hand and one of the things that we did for at least two years was collect all the data for all the major programs around the country to look at the failings in their systems. There’s also going to be special subject sequences that each will require three courses on an advanced level; we’re going to expand this as we go along, as the school grows, but initially there’s going to be three special subject areas: one of them is in business and economics, which will have three major courses, one of them covering Wall Street, one covering the way companies do business, and another one on sort of the business economics approach; there’s going to be the concentration in urban reporting, which is going to be covering City Hall, the justice system, things like that; and the third one is going to be health medicine, so is going to be a very strong science component obviously there as well. Down the line we’re hoping to add one for culture and the arts and there have been quite a few other areas that have been mentioned. Actually, international politics is probably another thing that we see down the line."

Chair O’Malley – Thank you so much. Just two more additional things. Karen, do you want to say anything about the budget or the Journalism School? The Governance plan for the School of Journalism did go through CAPRA yesterday. We managed to get student representatives on it, and also the Executive Committee will have consortial faculty on it as well as faculty on central lines. We’ve been working on getting a good governance plan for the Journalism School.

The Chancellor is here.

B. Chancellor Goldstein – We were celebrating the 50^th anniversary of Jonas Salk inventing the vaccine that probably saved a lot our lives in this room, so, one of the three sons of Jonas Salk was there and a bunch of students who were recipients of the Salk Scholarship, so I apologize but I needed to be there.

I’ll be very brief. We are in a very dynamic situation in Albany right now. We really don’t know what the result is going to be with the Governor imposing himself somewhat aggressively into the discussions around what the Senate and the Assembly have recommended as enhancements to the Governor’s proposal, which was advanced I think the third week in January. A couple of things that we are looking at very carefully: One is the Capital program is about $222 million that the State Legislature has recommended over and beyond what the Governor has proposed, and that’s going to be a very critical element for us. In addition to that is the program that I talked to you about, a matching program, that is in some flux as well; that’s some place between $250 and $300 million, and depending upon the day the split of that $300 million changes and the calculation on the matching component of the agreement also changes as well. So we’re looking at that very carefully and obviously I phone several times a day to leadership in both the Senate and the Assembly and specifically with the Governor who I’ve been directly in touch with as well about some of our concerns. This is not a good budget. It is something that I’ve tried to explain several times to this body as well. We continue to face a real structural deficit that, unless this is changed in some way, will present some problems for us as we open the books on a new fiscal year for July 1, 2005. It’s not going to be severe to the extent that we will have to take draconian measures, like layoffs and things of that nature, and I assured you of that several months ago, but it will present some very serious problems for the manner in which our Presidents are going to be able to manage the affairs of the campuses. First and foremost, this year we imposed a 2% encumbrance on our spending, or another way of saying it a 2% reserve, which essentially did not allow the Presidents to spend any of that money, so they really only had about 98% of the dollars that were essentially appropriated by the State Legislature. On top of that, if we have a structural deficit that is climbing to about $27 million, and I think by July if there aren’t any changes here that deficit will continue to rise because of the nature of how those numbers are put together, it’s going to require that we put together some kind of plan that allows us to address this. I do not, will not, permit us to start the year in that particular situation because it’s going to require us to make adjustments that I just don’t think are appropriate. So I will be asking Ernesto Malave and Allan Dobrin to start a process, if indeed we do not prevail in getting some of the operating money back into our budget. We were somewhat emboldened by conversations that we had a few weeks ago with high levels, really I mean the highest level of government here in the state, that in both CUNY and SUNY that particular problem would be addressed, but as of today it has not been addressed and obviously it is caught up in all of the trading that always takes place as the budget finally is put together. I will know more about whether the Governor will start vetoing some of the critical recommendations that have been brought forth by the Senate and the Assembly within the next few days, because as you know the Governor has ten days to exert that veto authority after, in this case, when the budget was finally adopted by the State Legislature. And even if there aren’t vetoes we are still not out of harm’s way because, at the end of the day, even if the money is appropriated, the Governor has the power, and we’ve seen this Governor and other Governors behave in a manner that restricts spending, and if you restrict spending it’s the same as if that money is not in your budget, at least for that particular fiscal year. So we are facing some choppy waters here that we’re going to have deal with, and we have some really serious issues with our Capital program as well; we will have the highest Capital appropriation in the history of this University even without the $222 million that the Legislature has recommended, and that is just not nearly enough to deal with issues throughout this University that have just not been dealt with for several decades, so we’re playing a lot of catch up. I don’t think there’s going to be, and, again, I don’t want to make a prediction here because predictions oftentimes have very little utility at the end when you see results, but I think at this particular point the TAP proposals that the Governor had recommended probably will be dealt with in a manner that is in the best keeping of our students. I think the community college base aid is probably going to have strong support, I think SEEK and College Discovery will be in a different place than what the Governor has been recommending, but it is the structural deficit, it is the Capital program, that really is taking a lot of our attention. We asked that if there was tuition then we would support differential tuition, and I think that’s something that we really have to have here. I’m not talking about it on the undergraduate level; I’m talking exclusively about the graduate level. When I look at our graduate programs at this University and I look at the competitors -- and when I talk about competitors I’m talking about private institutions that in my mind, an academic judgment here, do not hold a candle to the quality of the faculty that we have on our campuses -- and I look at our pricing structure, it’s absolutely crazy. And if we have to develop a plan we’re going to have to take a look at something like this, and that’s why I think differential tuition, at least on the graduate level, gives us some tools to put together a plan, if indeed we have to invoke such a plan. The Governor was supportive of this, the Senate was supportive of this, the Assembly had some issues with it, so it’s still an evolving problem. The notion of indexing, which I have explained to this body – it’s a bad word because it evokes all sorts of fears that people have in part because of the way that the notion of indexing was rolled out. But there is greater momentum in the state to get some kind of predictability whereby the invocation of very small tuition increases that would be restricted only to enhancing the academic life of the institution makes some sense, and we’re going to need to talk about that because it is getting more and more momentum and it may even happen this year as part of the negotiating process. The Governor is very strongly supportive of this, the Senate is supportive of this, the Assembly has taken a pass on it but, again, these are all negotiations, so we are still very much in a fluid environment.

Lots of other things are happening, and I don’t know if Susan or others here have talked about many of the movements that we’re making in different ways here at the University. You close at 8 o’clock? Is that when the curtain comes down? / Chair – No, we can stay a little longer.

Professor Martha Bell (Educational Services, Brooklyn College) – "I’m a great fan of the new supportCUNY.com website that Vice Chancellor Hershenson has informed us about; we’ve been using it a great deal, especially the SEEK programs, urging our students to use it. A question I have that my students asked and my faculty is why aren’t we linked to the Governor? We’re only writing the Legislature, not the Governor. Is there a reason for that strategy or should we be doing that? / Chancellor Goldstein – Remember how the process evolved. The Governor has come out with a budget, and now it’s the Legislature that has, so when the development of this website was done it was largely to address the Legislature in making enhancements to what the Governor’s recommendations are going to be. But that website is going to be greatly expanded because supportCUNY.com is a lot more than just trying to educate people in public life who are legislators or members of the Executive Branch; it’s really philanthropic as well; so it is really in its early stages, of development and we’ll start expanding to these other wings as well. / Professor Bell – I hope that we get the Governor on there because I’ve been encouraging the students when the Governor put out his budget to ask him to rethink the budget. / Chancellor – The Governor know, I will assure all of you here, exactly what it is that we want, and he’s heard it over and over again so there’s no noise in the system. / Professor Bell – So there’s no advantage in writing him? / Chancellor – Well, I think it’s fine. Part of the problem in the world in which we live is that everybody is inundated with messages, and after a while you become somewhat tired of it, and it’s not clear to me what kind of utility it has after a certain particular point, but I don’t think it does any harm; the question is what is its utility."

Professor Nkechi Agwu (Borough of Manhattan Community College) – "Good evening. Given the trend that we see when we get to budget deficits every year, I would like to you to tell us or to address us with respect to what strategic plans does CUNY have to try and raise more money from the private sector to make up for the current deficits that we have. / Chancellor Goldstein – Let me make one thing clear. We will never be able to raise enough money from private sources to deal with great deficiencies that occur in state and local government. That is just a given. The numbers are just too big. The real problem for us, and I’ve said it to this body over and over again, is that there has not been investment in the City University of New York for decades. That is a fact. Where the investment has been is first and foremost in financial aid, second I would say in more recent years on the Capital side of our budget. The worst situation that really affects our ability to hire full-time faculty, to equip our laboratories with the kind of instrumentation that we need to provide periodicals and academic support that occur outside of the classroom -- those kinds of things are all things that require an Operating Budget to be greatly enhanced. Even though we have an ambitious goal for raising money, and we have a $1.2 billion campaign. I think I announced to you that we’ve exceeded a half a billion dollars in raising money over the last four years because we were in a quiet phase. We’ve been working on this capital campaign for about four and a half years in a quiet way, without much fanfare, but when we announced we were at about $480 million and we are now at about $510 or $520 we will make the $1.2 billion in the timeframe that we’ve announced, but it’s not nearly enough to deal with the deficiencies in the state. I think first and foremost we must be more successful in getting money from the State of New York. That to me is the big battle that has to occur. The philanthropy is critically important but it’s more on the margins than it is to the core of what we do at the University. / Professor Agwu – So in that case I’ll ask a follow-up question. What can we as a Senate do to help? / Chancellor – I think that what I am going to do is to start giving ideas that I have been thinking about for some time about how to finance the University in terms of our mandatory costs, how we are going to finance our Master Plan, the obligations of the various parties in that financing scheme; and the various parties are state government, local government, philanthropy, tuition, efficiencies, off-balance sheet revenue that comes into the University. We have to put together a financial plan that will enable us to do the things that we just have not been able to do. We’re hiring people, we’re feeding our families, but we’re not doing what we are capable of doing as a University because we just have not had the investment. And it’s getting worse, not better, and it’s not restricted to New York State. It is a problem that we see throughout public higher education. I’m going to be talking about this and I’m starting to roll this out. Bill Bowen, who is the President of the Mellon Foundation, has just come out with a book, and I’ve been asked to be one of three people to talk about the financing of public higher education. We have to start understanding that there are more players here that have to be participating in order for us to move forward. And I think if we can get agreement as a community here we could go a long way in not only convincing the Governor and the Legislature to give us the comfort level of covering mandatory costs, like collective bargaining increases, sustaining increases in salaries that occur. We have increments every year, whether we have a contract or not; those increments are costing us per faculty line about 1.4% a year. So those are real costs that unless we get those covered we get ourselves in a deeper and deeper financial bind. So we’re going to have to start thinking in different ways and I’m going to start rolling this out."

Professor Thomas Kubic (Science, John Jay College) –" I know the Chancellery’s position on their mission to increase the science funding for the University and returning the University to its previous first-rate standard in the country. At John Jay we have the highest respected and the oldest graduate and undergraduate programs in forensic science in the country, and likely, if we eliminate forensic medicine, in the world. Currently we accept between 20-23 graduate students out of an applicant pool of about 120-150 yearly. We accept 1 to 3 PhD students out of a pool of about 7 to 9, which has been increasing yearly. Four or five years ago the amount of freshmen that declared themselves as forensic science majors was up to about 65. Currently, for the last two years it’s been nearly 200, but this year’s enrollment of freshman biology and chemistry is 220. I would like to ask you why hasn’t the size of the department of John Jay in forensic science, particularly with all the media attention about all the departments of forensic science, how come we weren’t at all considered in the big program for advancement of science in the University? / Chancellor Goldstein – I think you certainly will. First and foremost our major investment, and I’ve actually used the phrase the Decade of Science, and I’ve used it with the executive officers in the PhD program in sciences, and we’re very serious about that. The big investment is going to be in infrastructure, and John Jay College of Criminal Justice is going to get an extraordinary campus. And if you look at the program associated with that extraordinary facility, which is designed and will be executed very soon, there’s going to be an awful lot of laboratories that are associated with that academic plan for the building. So I would imagine that John Jay College is going to do very well, relative to a lot of other campuses in laboratory space and modern instrumentation, and I would imagine that they were designed largely by the faculty that should design it to get to where we’re going to be. / Professor Kubic – Chancellor, in all honesty, I was involved in some of the laboratory discussion and the faculty were very limited on the design of those laboratories. At the current enrolment one must not forget that even if it stayed the same for the next 10 years laboratory spaces are about 40% less than what we would require. We’ve been recently informed that along with that budget, and I know it’s a big budget and I know the plan is beautiful, there is no funding for new instrumentation and we will move what we have, which on the average is 7 to 15 years old, over to the new building. / Chancellor – I’m not sure that that will happen. That’s probably a lens on where you are now. Remember, the way that capital appropriations are now made they’re yearly; each particular capital is a five-year rolling average of new plans that come in. So I would imagine that next year when we go in for the next year of the Capital program, we’re going to see more and more dollars. So don’t think about what John Jay is going to look like in 6 years based upon the appropriation that is made today, because from now until that particular time there are going to be 5 additional years of capital money that are going to be coming in. Part of the way in which we negotiated this roving kind of appropriation is to deal exactly with that. So I think that if John Jay is going to be as successful as I think it will be, the money indeed should flow and decisions are going to have to be made -- that’s why we have Presidents. Presidents need to be able to make those kinds of decisions, and what may be good today may not be appropriate in 4 years from now. It’s not something that is fixed in time, and that’s one of the reasons that when we designed this new research facility at City College the term that I have used is to make sure that that design is an adaptable and nimble design that can make changes as needs occur, and I think any good new construction really should be designed with that in mind. So I wouldn’t think of it as fixed in time; it’s going to be changing as that campus evolves.

Chair – That’s it. Thank you so much.

VI. New Business:

Chair O’Malley – It’s getting late. However, on the agenda we do have a statement on academic freedom. Let me just say a little bit about it since this was sent to you. This was initially written by Sandi Cooper, and then it went to the Academic Freedom Committee. It was rewritten there, went to the Executive Committee, was rewritten there, and passed, but we want to know the sense of the body. Tonight it went back to the Academic Freedom Committee, and we changed it a little bit. I’m going to give you the two changes, and then ask Bobbi Pollard, who’s Chair of the Academic Freedom Committee, to come up. We can talk about the statement tonight and see if we agree. We changed the title, added to the title "and Due Process" and then after the second line, "committed to the First Amendment," we added "in accordance with the AAUP definition of Academic Freedom," crossing out "to the principles." I’ll give those changes to Bill.

Bobbi, why don’t you come forward and then we’ll get some sense of what you want to do with this tonight. It has been passed by the Executive Committee, but the Executive Committee wanted to hear what the body thinks about this.

Professor Bobbi Pollard (Baruch College, Chair of the Academic Freedom Committee) – I want to thank Sandi Cooper for initiating this statement in the current climate of fear. I think it’s very important that all of us be vigilant in this climate of actually preserving what we have, what we’re supposed to have at least -- academic freedom. So I think this statement is important and we, as Susan said before, worked on it very diligently. Last meeting in the snow and that rain we had people work on it and we went back to the Executive Committee; there were some changes made and today we just made two changes. So I think it’s very important that you support this but we just wanted to hear what you think about it and I want to put it out to the floor for a brief discussion, or if you want to move the statement. / Chair – I think that we affirm it.

Professor Michael Barnhart (History, Philosophy and Political Science, Kingsborough Community College) – "I’m a little concerned about the discussion in the Mohamed Yousry case. It’s not clear from the way this is worded why that’s an academic freedom issue. It may be a due process issue; it’s not clear that it’s an academic freedom issue. I think it may confuse issues a great deal. Even the AAUP, I think, in their review of this matter was somewhat equivocal on whether it was an academic freedom issue or a due process issue. It reads in the resolution here as though it’s a due process issue more than an academic freedom issue, so I would think that we ought to at least entertain the idea of either dropping the Mohamed Yousry mention or clarifying why it’s there. / Professor Pollard – I’ll let Lenore speak to that.

I am on Committee T. The only committee that has retained its initials in the AAUP is famous Committee A. But I followed the case and if you read the report of Committee A and then if you were at our conference where Mathew Finkin, who’s on the investigative committee, he explained that the fact of due process is an academic freedom issue; what he said there succinctly was: if you are being denied your right to teach, if you had no student to teach. He also pointed out that the other issues that CUNY was censured for in the past were also process issues, not directly academic freedom. For example, the one that a lot of us might remember, the financial exigency issue in 1976, people were fired without due process, and that became an academic freedom issue and resulted in the censure of the University in 1977. So in that way he explained and Committee A explained due process becomes a violation of academic freedom, and they aren’t separated in that way. / Professor Barnhart – I never quite understood that decision exactly because it seems to me then that any time somebody is removed from their position for anything it’s then an academic freedom issue, which dilutes the whole meaning of supporting academic freedom.

Professor Stefan Baumrin (Philosophy, The Graduate School and University Center) – What Professor Barnhart is pointing out is that the AAUP’s position doesn’t settle the matter, and I think that clarification is better than continuing a debate in public that is not a settled matter, so I recommend the following I’m moving an amendment: that the title be "Proposed Statement on Academic Freedom and Due Process." / Professor Pollard – That’s good, OK. Thank you.

Professor Sandi Cooper (History, College of Staten Island) – I wrote up a draft, which has been much amended, at the request of the Executive Committee. I didn’t initiate this -- I’d like that understood -- although I’m happy to have done it. I don’t much care about the language, the adjectival changes and the dependent clauses and where the commas go. What bothers me is the possibility of silence by the University Faculty Senate as a body on what seems to me an increasingly dangerous climate in this country, and there doesn’t seem to be anything on the horizon that suggests it’s going to get much better. The situation so far in CUNY campuses has not risen to the level of the disaster that’s hit Columbia University and one or two other places of which I know a good deal, but given our history I wouldn’t be a bit surprised if we do have something similar to that at this point. I frankly, personally, and this is probably the wrong thing to say in this group, have a Palestinian colleague who is terrified to open her mouth and a daughter who’s a professor of Middle East studies who walks on eggshells, and if I had to teach like that I would have quit.

Professor Karen Kaplowitz (English, The John Jay College of Criminal Justice) – I would like to ask that there be a clarification of the fourth paragraph, the one about Susan Rosenberg teaching at John Jay. The first sentence ends, "in response to complaints from a police organization and without faculty consultation." There was faculty consultation but not appropriate faculty consultation. None of the elected faculty, governance leaders, were consulted, and no one in the department was consulted. Individual faculty may have been consulted, but it’s not accurate to say "without faculty consultation;" there were faculty consulted, but not the appropriate faculty. / Professor Pollard – So we should add the word appropriate? / Professor Kaplowitz – That would be fine. And I’m not sure "police organization" is the right term; it’s a fraternal organization; the Emerald Society is a police fraternal organization.

Professor Bill Crain (Psychology, City College) – I want to thank Sandi for beginning this and I think it’s forcefully written and this is the time we need a strong statement of this sort. What they got fired for was hanging around the wrong people and I thank her for taking a stand. My only regret is we can’t keep listing examples, but I think we might as well take a strong statement on this one and I’m very grateful for her boldness in writing this. / Chair – You want to move it? / Professor Crain – Moved we accept. / Chair – Second, to adopt the statement. All in favor of affirming with the changes. Those against. Abstentions. One abstention. Then it is affirmed. Thank you.

Kathryn Richardson is not here. I’m supposed to say "Research is Essential to the Life of the University" and if you don’t sign up for these things, PSC CUNY grants are jeopardized. That’s number one. Number two, can we put stuff out on the listserv in terms of disability? Would that be OK? I’d love it, Michael, if you put out on the listserv what happened to the Academic Policy meeting in terms of SOPS, School of Professional Studies. Just a few little tidbits would be lovely.