May 16, 2000

Chair Sohmer called the session to order at 6:30 p.m. in rooms 9206/9207 of the Graduate School and University Center of the City University of New York. Present were Senators from the following campuses:

Baruch: Hill, Majete, McCall, and Pollard; and Alternate Freedman; BMCC: Friedman, Herz, Neis, Price, Vozick, and Alternate Martin; Bronx CC: Fuld, Gonsher, Read, and Tanaka-Kuwashima; Brooklyn: Bell, Harrison, Jacobson, Kahan, London, Shapiro, and Tobey; CCNY: Connorton, Crain, Pearson, Sank, and Sohmer; CSI: S. Cooper, Foleno, Levine, and Yousef; CUNY Law School: Andrews; Graduate School: Baumrin, King, and Philipp; Hostos CC: Vasillov, and Alternate Jones; Hunter: Doss, Kurzman, Sherrill, Steinberg, and Wallach; John Jay: Bohigian, Davenport, Kaplowitz, and Rodriquez; Kingsborough CC: Farrell, Galvin, Goodkin, O’Malley, Richter, and Alternate Lin; LaGuardia CC: Beaky, Gallagher, Mettler, and Reitano; Lehman: Feinerman, and Jervis; Medgar Evers: Harris-Hastick, and Alternates Leocal and Rodriguez; NYC Technical: Cermele, Hounion, Walter, and Alternate Richardson; Queens: Diamond, Frisz, Hemmes, Kulkarni, Marshall, and Savage; Queensborough CC: Barbanel, Dahbany-Miraglia, Greenbaum, Specht, and Alternate Mullin; York: Coleman, A. Cooper, and Kirkpatrick. Governance Leaders present: Cooper (York), Feinerman (Lehman), Hemmes (Queens), Kaplowitz (John Jay), Levine (CSI), Mettler (LaGuardia), O’Malley (Kingsborough), Perlstein (BMCC), Specht (Queensborough), and Tobey (Brooklyn). Excused were Umolu (Medgar Evers) and Deraney (NYCTC). Executive Director Phipps and Administrative Assistant Pasela were present. Professor John Davis (Bronx), chair of the UFS Faculty Advisory Council to the Research Foundation, was also present.

I. Approval of the Agenda: The agenda was adopted as proposed.

II. Approval of the Minutes of April 18, 2000: The Minutes were approved as distributed.

III. Reports: [recorded in Reports & Deliberations].

a.Chair (oral and written).

b.Representatives to Board Committees (written).

c.Faculty Advisory Committee to the Research Foundation, Professor John Davis, Chair (oral).

IV. Nominations & Election of Officers and Members-at-Large of the Executive Committee [recorded in Reports & Deliberations].

V. New Business [recorded in Reports & Deliberations].

    a.Approval of Higher Education Conference – The following resolution was adopted by hand vote with a few opposed:

RESOLUTION OF THE UFS TO JOIN

THE PUBLIC HIGHER EDUCATION CONFERENCE BOARD

Be It Resolved, that the UFS accepts the attached Articles of Agreement for the recently developed New York State Public Higher Education Conference Board, and

Be It Further Resolved, that the UFS will receive a report as to its annual contribution to the Treasury of the Board as soon as it is agreed upon, which annual contribution will be subject to UFS approval, and

Be It Finally Resolved, that the UFS delegate to the Conference Board shall be the Chair of the UFS.

(Articles of Agreement are attached to these minutes.)

    b. Resolution on the Master Plan – The following resolution was unanimously adopted in principle and sent to the Executive Committee for final reworking in line with discussion and amendments recorded in Reports and Deliberations:

RESOLUTION ON THE MASTER PLAN

Whereas, the CUNY Board of Trustees plans to adopt the 2000-2004 Master Plan and send it to the NY State Board of Regents before the faculty have had an adequate opportunity to evaluate the document; and

Whereas, this document proposes significant changes with respect to curriculum matters and admissions testing; and

Whereas, The CUNY Board of Trustees Bylaws, section 8.6, give faculty governance bodies on the local campuses significant authority with respect to curriculum and admissions; and

Whereas, the settlement agreement in the case of Polishook et al. v. CUNY et al., approved by the New York State Court of Appeals, reaffirmed the controlling influence of faculty in these matters;

Now therefore be it resolved, The University Faculty Senate shall include in its statement to the Regents that in its opinion the Board of Trustees has violated it own Bylaws, which were part of a November, l997, settlement agreement approved by the New York State Court of Appeals.

There being no further business, the meeting was adjourned at 8:40 p.m.

Respectfully submitted,

Bill Phipps

REPORTS & DELIBERATIONS

OF THE TWO HUNDRED AND SEVENTIETH PLENARY SESSION

OF THE UNIVERSITY FACULTY SENATE

OF THE CITY UNIVERSITY OF NEW YORK

May 16, 2000

a. Chair: This is my last report to you for this academic year. It has been an interesting period since our last meeting. One of our members has attracted the interest of the Office of Civil Rights and the possible inequitable outcome of the actions of the Board of Trustees. The Chair of the Board has written, telling them they have no jurisdiction. Sundry lawyers believe otherwise.

The Chancellery has produced for the Board a four-year Master Plan for the University, abiding by State Education Law, which several of us have referred to as "faculty frei." Either in consultation or by reference, the letters to the presidents have stated that, "they should consult with the faculty in the future statements." Largely, this has not occurred. Even after that, documents submitted by the presidents have been edited beyond recognition in their trip to the final Plan. The major consultation was via the three-minute statements the few faculty made yesterday at the public hearing, with less than a week’s availability of a hundred page document.

There was a wonderful choreography at yesterday’s public hearing with a few persons who understood how a University’s authority should be distributed, largely among the faculty, and a slew of administrators unctuous in praise, and a number of faculty praising a complex and insidious document, because they have a piece of the pie. Among its many deficiencies, it accepts the un-discussed Schmidt Report as the current version of the gospel. Incorporated in the document are many sleepers -- an assertion that all curricula should include American History (I assume a form of triumphalism). And from the table, and it felt orchestrated, a strong suggestion that there be a core. And you may imagine which core they are talking about.

There was a recent issue of the in-house CUNY Matters, which did an encomium on the CUNY Association of Scholars, their first such, in which bypassing faculty governance is encouraged.

There are currently two presidential searches: City College, Hunter, as well as a University Dean for Research, and a Vice Chancellor for Students Affairs.

To end on a happy note, the head of security, Mr. Elique, has resigned. He has moved to the Southwest. We have promises that the military nature of our security force will be de-emphasized.

Professor Kaplowitz (English, John Jay College) – "With reference to the resignation of the head of security for CUNY, I learned this afternoon that a search committee is already in the process of interviewing candidates. Perhaps we should ask for a representative from this body to be on that search committee." / Chair Sohmer – The administration, if not the Board of Trustees, pays lip service to consultation. Therefore, we frequently will get members on search committees that would be of interest to us, once we learn about them!

b. Representatives to Board Committees (written).

c. Faculty Advisory Committee to the Research Foundation

Professor Davis (Chair of the Faculty Advisory Council to the Research Foundation) – Each of you should have, from the back table, a page that says at the top, "Annual Report to the UFS." For those of you who are unaware of the membership of the Council, I have listed the current members; also, those members who sit on the RF Board of Directors. Those four members are Eugene Chudnovsky from Lehman, Herman Cummins from City, myself from Bronx Community College, and Phil Zeigler from Hunter College. Several of our terms are expiring this year, in particular, Andy Acrivos, from City, who is retiring, and Bob Bittman from Queens. So what I have is a list of what we have done.

Some of you may know a little about the Ninfa Segarra issue. The FAC responded to the press release of the Segarra appointment with a letter to the Chancellor explaining that, in my interpretation, this was in violation of the RF by-laws. The Chancellor didn’t accept that. We met and discussed it. He explained that she was just going to be a program director, and that she would not have any RF responsibilities. We had some additional exchange. I shared the information with the individuals on the FAC. We thought the issue had subsided, and that she was really going to be appointed as a program director. The RF by-laws state that, "vice presidential appointments have to be approved by the Board," and that any budget assigned to that vice president has to be approved by the Board as well.

I sit on the Board and also on the Executive Committee of the Board, and none of that had ever come to us. I took it for granted that the actual appointment of Ninfa Segarra was going to involve her as a program director. Each month there are Alerts published by the RF. In April, the leading article said that Ninfa Segarra was going to be appointed as an RF vice president. We were very upset about the title. I did respond to that item in the RF Alert, as well as to the Chancellor, and also to Nina Peyser, the new Executive Director at the RF.

I got a response from Nina that [Segarra] is not here, is not on the Executive staff, is not on the payroll, she just has this title, and it is non-functional. The Chancellor referred my memo to the legal counsel, Bonnie McGrath. Basically the memo says, this is a functional title that people at RF can be given any title. And I said, well, on my next grant proposal, I’m going to be the Chancellor. That’s a functional title, it is not a pay scale title of any type, and it doesn’t involve any kind of official appointment.

The letter is really legalese, and vague in my estimation. I’ve discussed this with Bonnie. It is just a matter of interpretation. That is, what is a functional title? And what really should be used? The RF insists, and the Chancellor has accepted this, that we can use on our grants any functional titles. Apparently, there have been lots of Vice Presidents. Bonnie indicates in the letter that there have been a lot of people given the title of "vice president" just for grant purposes. That’s where it is at right now. It has never come before the Board, and it is not on the RF Board agenda tomorrow morning. It has not come up in any budget discussions. However, from what I understand, she may not be given space at RF. Whether she gets space at the RF is another issue.

Professor Cooper (History, College of Staten Island) – "Did I just hear you say that the title of vice president has been given before for functional purposes? I have had something to do with that Advisory Committee for maybe fifteen years. Stephan Baumrin has been involved longer than I’ve been. In twenty some years, we have never heard of this before. This is a first. I just want the historic record to be clear. This is an invention." / Professor Davis – I think it probably has been done in the past. I think that Bonnie can give examples. The problem was they had a press release and chose the wrong term. They said "RF Vice President." Alfred [Levine] and I have had conversations about this. Alfred said that if they only called her "Vice Chancellor" none of this would have happened. They could have done all of this by calling her "Vice Chancellor" and paying for her salary out of the award from the Board of Education, I believe. I’m not totally sure of the source. But they chose to call her an "RF Vice President," which I challenged.

Professor London (Political Science, Brooklyn College) – "Who actually appointed her?" / Professor Davis – The press release said that the Chancellor had appointed her./ Professor London – "And she is not being paid by the Research Foundation?" / Professor Davis – She is not. We had our budget meetings last week, and there is no line there. / Professor London – "In this functional title, does she have any policy or executive authority within the Research Foundation?" / Professor Davis – They told me "no," hat she is not involved in any decision-making or policy-making decisions. / Professor London – "And what exactly is her role?" / Professor Davis – She is a program director of Inter-Campus Collaborations. Her effort is basically to develop a stronger linkage between CUNY and the New York City public school system. / Professor London – "And this is a program operated under the auspices of the Research Foundation?" / Professor Davis – For all grants, the money is supposed to be managed by RF. The actual campus that receives the award will be involved in the administration and direction of that grant. /

[Unidentified Speaker] – "I have two questions, one is, what is the source of the money that is paying her? It is an RF account. Is this coming from the City of New York? It is a grant, I would assume." / Professor Davis – My concern is one of two things. Is she being paid by the direct costs of the grant, or the indirect costs? The Chancellor and Nina have both told me that it is coming out of the direct costs of the grant. If it was coming out of the indirect costs, then we should be concerned, because we manage the indirect costs. The FAC has some word on what happens to the budgeting of those indirect costs. I’ve been assured by Chancellor Goldstein and Nina Peyser, that it is coming out of direct costs. / [Unidentified Speaker] – "But where is the grant coming from?" / Professor Davis – My understanding is that it comes from the Board of Education. / [Unidentified Speaker] – "We should be able to find that out right?" / Professor Davis – Yes. /

[2^nd Unidentified Speaker] – "That question was posed of him. We had a plenary. He said it was "none of your business." / [Unidentified Speaker] – "But he also said she was not a Vice President." / Professor Davis – It is very hard for me to grasp, but I think we know that there is a strong political agenda behind all of it. We are not part of that agenda. We do feel that our RF may be manipulated in this situation.

Professor Baumrin (Philosophy, The Graduate Center) – "Do you meet only twice a year?" / Professor Davis – The Board of Directors meets twice a year. [FAC meets four times per year.] We meet during the first week of December to review the financial plan. If there have been any personnel policy changes that have been recommended, or fringe benefit changes, we act on those. Then we meet during the first week of May usually to adopt the budget for the next fiscal year; and again to go through fringe benefit changes and personnel policy changes. / Professor Baumrin – "I think that the number of meetings has gone down significantly." / Professor Davis – I’ve been involved for eight years. For the last five years I have been Chair, it has always been those two. There were additional meetings held behind the scenes when Ann Reynolds was here. There were meetings that were held and decisions made without the Board meeting. Then they created an Executive Committee to officially carry out those actions. There are probably two additional Executive Committee meetings a year, but there is nothing major that has come to them. / Professor Baumrin – "Are you on the Executive Committee?" / Professor Davis – Yes, I am. / Professor Baumrin – "There is a Personnel Committee and the Budget Committee. We have members on those committees, equal to the number of administrators, right?" / Professor Davis – Yes. We also have a Fringe Benefit Committee as well, with representation.

Professor O’Malley (English, Kingsborough Community College) – "Collaborative programs have always come out of the Office of Academic Affairs, run by Continuing Education. This has been large bits of money from the schools. I’m just curious as to what is going on. When she was appointed, I saw that John Mogulescu, who is the Dean of Continuing Education, and runs the Collaborative Programs, was amazed because nobody had said anything to him about this." / Professor Davis – I can’t help you on this one, Susan. We all have that very same feeling. My guess is that, in reality, she is going to end up reporting to Louise Mirrer, but I don’t really know. I think that Alfred’s comment, that she should have been given an assistant vice chancellor title, is appropriate, because then she could be an assistant working with Louise. That is where she should be. /

Professor Cooper (History, College of Staten Island) – "The appointment with this invented title is obviously a way to prevent her from becoming a president of a community college, which the gentleman at City Hall had desired for her. This was some kind of half-baked compromise solution. I just don’t think that we should hold John Davis up on a cross, for being the messenger bringing the bad news. I think if you go back two meetings in the Faculty Senate, we asked the Chancellor about this. If you recall, the Chancellor got slightly apoplectic when he was pinned down. I think that John Davis has done an amazing job at walking a tight rope on this, and he really deserves our thanks." /

Professor Davis – Thanks. The Chancellor has yet to run one full Board meeting with a full agenda. It is going to be tomorrow morning. So it will be interesting to see what happens. We also have a new Executive Director at RF. It will be interesting to see the change in dynamics. There have also been some changes on the Board. One of the more vocal individuals, Allen Sessoms, as you know, is no longer there. I’m not sure if the Chancellor has tightened the reigns, or if there will be a free exchange. I can tell you that the FAC members speak up for the faculty. I can tell you that we will never win a vote, because there are four of us and 13 of them. We may get the graduate students. We have presidents that speak in support of us, but vote against us. That’s what has happened at least with Ann Reynolds and with Christoph Kimmich. That is just the way the political system works. We speak our mind, we are in the minutes, we vote against things if we feel they are inappropriate, and we support things if we feel they are appropriate. There is almost no way that we will ever win a vote on an issue that we are trying to push through on our own. Several of you have been on FAC. There have been a number of us, and the system hasn’t changed very much.

Chair Sohmer – Could we have a motion to receive this report in thanks? All those in favor? Against? It is received.

IV. Nominations & Election of Officers and Members-at-Large of the Executive Committee

Maria Rodriguez, Chair, Election Committee – Welcome, new Senators. We had, at the last Plenary, one nomination for Chair, and that was Senator Sohmer. Are there any other nominations for Chair? There has been a move to close nominations. Second? All in favor? I think technically we have to vote. So if you would just please fill out the ballot. He is elected [with 68 votes, 1 abstention, 3 invalid ballots, and 1 vote for Tobey].

For Vice Chair, Cecelia McCall was nominated. Are there any other nominations for Vice Chair? Move to close nominations? Second. All in favor? Opposed? Once again, fill out the ballot. She is elected [with 69 votes, 1 abstention, 3 invalid ballots, and 1 vote for Bell].

At the last Plenary, Senator O’Malley was nominated as Secretary. Are there any other nominations? Move to close nominations. Second. All in favor? Opposed? Please fill out the blue ballot. She is elected [with 62 votes, 2 abstentions, and 3 invalid ballots, and 1 vote for Shapiro].

At the last Plenary Karen Kaplowitz was nominated as Treasurer. Are there any other nominations? Move to close nominations? Second. All in favor? Opposed? Please fill out the green ballot. She is elected [with 73 votes, and 1 vote for Harrison].

There are thus far eight nominations for members at large: Senator Stefan Baumrin – Graduate Center, Senator Lenore Beaky, Senator Martha Bell, Senator Sandi Cooper, Senator Anne Friedman, Senator Fred Greenbaum, Senator Michael Kahan, and Senator Manfred Philipp. Are there any other nominations? / Chair Sohmer – There was a self-nomination distributed at the call to the meeting.

Professor Crain (Psychology, City College) – "I would like to nominate Mike Vozick. Could I say a couple of words?" / Professor Rodriguez – He will speak on his own behalf

There is a move to close nominations. Second, all in favor? All opposed?

People will have two minutes to make presentations about themselves and introduce themselves to the group. Following the presentations, we will vote, and then we will give you the results. It is wonderful that there are so many terrific people who are here and willing to serve as part of the Senate. Having said that, you can vote for fewer than five, but you can’t vote for more than five candidates. We will tally the ballots and give you the results.

Professor Baumrin (Philosophy, The Graduate Center) – "I seek to serve on the Executive Committee of our Faculty Senate because I think it is the most influential faculty committee in the University, representing the interests of the entire faculty and playing a significant role in the life and operations of the central administration and Board of Trustees. I was a member of the Executive Committee for the years 1976-1984, 1987-1991, 1992-1993, and 1998-1999.

I am a strong, vocal, and committed advocate for faculty rights. I’ve served in that way in my one year on the Executive Committee. I have been an active member and I also write for the UFS newsletter. Someone pointed out that it takes a while to learn what you need to know on the Executive Committee and therefore I would like a chance, having learned a great deal during my first year, to take that knowledge and build on it. So I am asking to be re-elected. Possibly, in spite of all the Meshugass that has been going on in CUNY, or maybe because of it, I actually like being on the Executive Committee. I enjoy going to meetings and serving. I hope that you will re-elect me."

Professor Rodriguez – I am once again going to call the names of the Senators to help refresh the presentations. Senator Baumrin, Senator Beaky, Senator Bell, Senator Cooper, Senator Friedman, Senator Greenbaum, Senator Kahan, Senator Philipp, and Senator Vozick. You may vote for no more than five. As soon as you have your ballots, we will be collecting them and tallying the vote.

We have a count. I will write the results: Senators Beaky (41), Bell (39), Cooper (47), Friedman (40), and Baumrin and Kahan (36). Prof. Baumrin has conceded to Prof. Kahan. Other tallies: Greenbaum (29), Vozick (13), Philipp (26).

V. New Business

a.Resolution of Higher Education Conference

Chair Sohmer – Cecelia McCall and I have been meeting with some State-wide organizations of public higher education in the State of New York. We formulated with the University Faculty Senate of the State University of New York, the union of the State University, the union of the City University, and the various other organizations in the State for public higher education. We formulated an organization which will come into existence as soon as the various bodies vote to join. Therefore, it is being presented to you tonight. [The resolution is read.]

Let me describe the organizations listed. The City University of New York Faculty Senate, the Faculty Council of Community Colleges (this is the Council of Community College of the State University of New York since the Faculty Senate of the State University of New York, does not include the community college in the State), The National Education Association (one of the State-wide unions, including many of the community colleges), The New York State United Teachers Professional Staff Congress (the City University union), The State University of New York Faculty Senate, and the UUP (the State University union for the senior colleges). Those are the signatories. The tentative agreement is that largely the unions would be the funding agencies, since the public agencies are not legally permitted to do something that looks like lobbying. Questions or statements?

Professor Kaplowitz (English, John Jay College) – "First of all, Bernie, I want to thank you for being a leader in putting this together. I support this, and I think it is very important. Could you explain what Article 7 means? Does it mean that 2/3 of the eight of you can amend, or a majority vote of 2/3 of the membership of the organizations?" / Chair Sohmer – As we discussed it, it would be 2/3 of the confirming organizations. / Professor Kaplowitz – "So a majority of 2/3 of these. It doesn’t quite say that. But now it is on the record."

Professor Sherrill (Political Science, Hunter College) – "I just wanted to ask if we could clarify or expand for the record exactly what the situation is regarding our ability to make financial contributions to this new organization." / Chair Sohmer – It is not at all clear. Since lobbying will be one function of the organization, the likelihood is that we cannot use any public funds for that matter. On the other hand, UFS funds are not tax levy, but Research Foundation monies, and therefore there is a possibility that we could use some. Legally the likelihood is no. / Professor Sherrill – "Perhaps either now or in the near future, we should pass additional language which would indicate that financial contributions are subject to legal capability. I am worried about what will happen down the road." / Chair Sohmer – We will put that in the record.

Professor Frisz (Student Personnel, Queens College) – "I have a couple of clarification questions. On Article 4, the Officers, can you explain the rationale for the Chair’s being a non-voting member, who may not come from the designated voting membership." / Chair Sohmer – The assumption of the convening group was that the Chair of the organization would be somebody not of the organizations, but somebody who would be donating his or her time, and a distinguished figure in the field of public higher education. For instance, a retired Chancellor, if there be any. So that the voice heard from this organization would not be redundant with the voices heard of each of the individual organizations. You can dismiss an organization by saying, "it is the same thing as the University Faculty Senate." But if it is a distinguished person of stature, who is the head of the organization, and working for it on a pro bono basis, it was felt that that would be salutary. / Professor Frisz – "I have to concur with Professor Sherrill. I am a little concerned about the financial impact only because they are talking about expenses and dues. If we can’t contribute, where does that leave us?" / Chair Sohmer – It was understood by all of the people there, that at least some of the public organizations would contribute zero and that the amount of dues would have no influence on the weight of the vote. Each organization would have one vote, independent of dues. / Professor Frisz – "Do you see any disadvantages to our being a part of this that we might need to consider?" /

Chair Sohmer - I haven’t thought of any. I just want to tell you the ideology of this. The SUNY Trustees have done many things in curricula, which most faculty will be very unhappy about: the fact that the Trustees did it, and then what they did. That was the reason for the first convening of this organization. We figured that what happens up in Albany will happen on 80^th Street, or vice versa.

Professor Cooper (History, College of Staten Island) – "I would commend to everybody to think about this organization as a way in which senates (governance bodies) and unions are aligned together in an effort to articulate a position on public higher education in the State of New York. That has not occurred before. We have not had a single faculty voice, speaking up for public higher education. I think that this is possibly one of the most important future outcomes of this group."

Professor Sank (Anthropology, City College) – "When was this Conference Board formed?" / Chair Sohmer – We are now in the process. / Professor Sank – "Basically, I worry about combining in one organization academic groups like CUNY Faculty Senate, SUNY Faculty Senate, and the unions. Somehow I think their objectives are different. I think that there is a certain amount of conflict of interest in having them on the same type of board. It just doesn’t seem appropriate." / Chair Sohmer – If you read the last paragraph of 5, everybody is clearly worried about that kind of thing. The last paragraph of 5 worries exactly about that. No position will be taken unless it is unanimous. It’s clear that the senates have certain expectations and attitudes, and that unions have certain expectations and attitudes. The organization will only represent those opinions, where we are in concurrence, not where we are in dispute. / Professor Sank – "I would still oppose joining this if it includes unions. To me, our union has always been concerned about very basic material things, salaries, workload, etc. When we ask them to come in about questions of academic freedom, they seem to be reluctant. They are a homogenous type of organization." / Chair Sohmer – They are us. / Professor Sank – "They are us. But there is something about us being the enemy. The fact that they are us does not necessarily mean they are good."

[Unidentified Speaker] – "I would urge that this body not donate any funds directly to this organization. I am upset about this annual assessment. On the other hand, speaking as an individual member of this group, I would certainly be interested in writing a check for the support of this organization. This is in the same way that I donate to political candidates of my choosing, and other organizations that represent my opinions. But I think it would be very dangerous if there were any assessment paid out." / Chair Sohmer – I believe, and as we said at the time, we would be the zero.

[Unidentified Speaker] – "I want to say how important this is. One of the things that I’ve done in the past number of years is be involved in something called Opportunity Programs United. It includes SUNY, the privates, and CUNY. We have been a very strong lobbying force. For the past four years, especially this year, we have gotten more money out of the Legislature, and have been extremely successful as a united front. I think we did ourselves great harm before that, in lobbying against one another. Our allocations and our budgets cut into one another. Over the past four years that we have been doing this, our budgets have increased remarkably. I think a larger version of that is a very good thing."

Chair Sohmer – The question has been called. All those in favor of calling the question? Against? We really should have a recorded vote. So all those in favor of our joining into this organization, please raise your hand. All those voting "no" raise one hand. I think we can report this as an approval.

b.Resolution on the Master Plan

Chair Sohmer - There is a Resolution on the Master Plan, which was submitted by Bill Crain. He will most eloquently read it.

Professor Crain (Psychology, City College) – "I will just read it with a couple of little corrections that I have put in. Whereas, the CUNY Board of Trustees plans to adopt the 2000-2004 Master Plan and send it to the New York State Board of Regents before campus faculty governance bodies have had an adequate opportunity to evaluate the document, and; Whereas the document proposes significant changes with respect to curricula matters, admissions, and testing testing, and; Whereas the CUNY Board of Trustee by-laws, Section 8.6, give faculty governance bodies on the local campuses significant authority with respect to curriculum and admissions, and; Whereas the settlement agreement in the case of Polishook et. al. vs. CUNY, approved by the New York State Court of Appeals, reaffirms the authority of faculty in these matters; Now, therefore, be it resolved, that the University Faculty Senate shall include in its statement to the Regents, that the Board of Trustees has violated its own by-laws, which were part of a November 1997 settlement agreement approved by the New York State Court of Appeals."

Chair Sohmer – The burden of the Resolution is before you. Let me add, in addition to this, the past Executive Committee and the future Executive Committee plan to write a shadow Master Plan to correct the deficiencies and errors of the one being transmitted by the Board of Trustees. Various people have asked the Board to delay action. That is not likely to occur. They will on the 22^nd say "sure" with a vote of 14 to 1.

Professor Crain – "The by-laws say very clearly that the local governance bodies on each campus have a senate, and they are responsible for formulating policies with respect to admissions, curriculum, and other matters. This is done within the guideline established by the Board. It is a combination. But we have significant authority in this regard. We have not exercised this authority. We have not been given an opportunity to exercise this authority with the Master Plan, nor with a whole host of changes that have come down with respect to testing, admissions, and so on. I think the Regents will listen to the document before you. They have sat at one of the hearings. The Master Plan does not have any significant and meaningful input from the faculty on the campuses."

Professor Kahan (Political Science, Brooklyn College) – "I think it is very clear that we have to support this. I think we have to understand that this is the battle line that we are going to be fighting across, at least for the next year, probably longer. This is exactly the kind of thing that this Board of Trustees is trying to do through the back door, the side door, and through the skylight -- any way, but honestly and forthrightly, to remove the faculty from decision-making in this University. I think this is where our interests are most clearly defined. This is where we have to dig in. I think we are going to have a lot more resolutions on these matters in the next year. I hope they are going to get stronger, more strident, and more forceful as the year goes by."

Professor Frisz (Student Personnel, Queens College) – "I have a question on historical information. In the past, when the Master Plan was approved, what was the process? Were the faculty included? Did they go to Senate bodies? If they did in the past, we should perhaps say something in the Resolution that this has happened historically. I don’t know the answer to that." / Chair Sohmer – To the best of my knowledge, previous Master Plans were sort of written in-house at the Board of Trustees and sent off to Albany. They weren’t substantial enough to be a matter of indifference. This one attacks the prerogatives of the faculty in every way it can. This Master Plan is different in that sense. I believe the previous Master Plans were sort of economic constructions without substance. / Professor Frisz – "But the faculty in the past were never given the option…" / Chair Sohmer – To the best of my knowledge, which only goes back forty years, I think the answer is "no."

[Unidentified Speaker] – "That is not exactly correct. We got Master Plans just before they were sent. If you could keep yourself awake to read through it, you then said, "let’s not worry about this." So the Executive Committee got the Master Plan a week before or so, but as you said, it was insubstantial. They weren’t taking it seriously, and I don’t think anybody in Albany was taking it seriously."

Professor Sank (Anthropology, City College) – "I support this Resolution completely. I question, should we not think of devising an alternative Master Plan." / Chair Sohmer – The Executive Committee has every intention of doing that. The Executive Committee will be sending it off to the Board of Regents individually, and the various appropriate legislative folks. / Professor Sank – "Will you have any procedural input from the various campuses and faculty?" / Chair Sohmer – Yes. One of the things that we absolutely need is knowledge from the campuses of what was contributed to the putative Master Plan that never appeared. / Professor Sank – "Is there a deadline for doing this? Is it May 22^nd?" / Chair Sohmer – The Board is voting on it on May 22^nd. That is irrelevant to anything we do. The closing date for receipt is June 1^st. But that is also irrelevant because they will fiddle with it in Albany for weeks. So we have plenty of time. / Professor Sank – "I would like to mention a friendly amendment. This is a good resolution, but somehow, shouldn’t there be a ‘therefore, we urge the Regents to reject this document,’ or we should indicate that we are going to present an alternative document. Somewhere I think it should say that we urge the Regents to reject this document. I think the Resolution is incomplete."

[Unidentified Speaker] – "Therefore, the University Faculty Senate directs the Executive Committee to submit an alternate Master Plan. The smartest thing you can do as a body, is to direct the Executive Committee to submit an alternate plan to the Regents. If it arrives on their desk on June 1^st, it will create some confusion." /

Chair Sohmer – Hold on. This is an amendment. Is there a second to this? / [Unidentified Speaker] – "Let’s be serious; nobody can write another Master Plan in two weeks." / Chair Sohmer – It doesn’t have to be June 1^st. The amendment is that the Executive Committee be instructed to write an alternative Master Plan.

Professor Greenbaum (History, Queensborough Community College) – "I have a simple question. It says, the Board of Trustees has violated its own by-laws which are part of a 1997 settlement agreement. Were the by-laws part of the settlement agreement?" / Chair Sohmer – The settlement agreement explicitly reminded the Board of Trustees about Article 8.6 on the authority of faculty on various issues. / Professor Greenbaum – "I know that; I just want to know if the phrasing of this is accurate." / Chair Sohmer – That was part of the settlement agreement, "explicitly." / Professor Greenbaum – "I thought that it possibly could read that the Board of Trustees had violated its own by-laws and a November 1997 settlement agreement. I wasn’t sure whether the by-laws were part of the agreement. They violated both their by-laws, and the agreement that they would obey their by-laws." / Chair Sohmer – That’s right. It’s both their by-laws and their agreement.

Professor Cooper (History, College of Staten Island) – "The Master Plan has traditionally, as Bernie said, been a boiler plate document, with some exceptions. One of them was 1995 amendments, which included 37 points, and a variety of other really drastic changes. It was forwarded to the Regents with only a vote of the Board of Trustees. But that Board of Trustees vote followed 13-14 hours of testimony that went on until 1:00 am. There was a University-wide debate over those issues, if you recall. The faculty participation in designing this was supposed to have taken place on campuses. I don’t know whether that happened or not. I really can’t even speak for my own campus. But what we need in order to send something up to the Regents is copies of every single campus-based document that went to 80^th Street. I have heard clearly from several campus officials that what they sent up, and what is incorporated in the document, are two absolutely different kettles of fish. Almost nothing that was sent up describing the five-year future of the campus is incorporated. It is fairly clear that even if faculty had or didn’t have much to say about designing the campus-based plan, the central one has none of it. The central one has also none of what the colleges want. Even if we don’t do another Master Plan, the very statement to the Regents that the 80^th Street document is an artificial concoction that ignores the input of 19 campuses strikes me as a serious enough indictment." /

Chair Sohmer – We’ve asked the Faculty Governance Leaders last Friday to send up as far as they can the documents emanating from the campuses. At least one campus president has explicitly stated that there were seven items in his statement sent to the Chancellery. Of those seven, one appeared, none of them being the ones he included. I think that was the model for almost all of the campuses. It is an indictment, and it is a serious indictment, and we will demonstrate it.

Professor Cooper (English, York College) – "This is a question for Bill. In the third "whereas", you inserted the word "significant." The word "significant" weakens that. I wondered if that was your intent. Or is it because of some quoted language elsewhere? Any adverb except "total" would weaken the local campus authority." / Professor Crain – "The by-laws read that the faculty have authority for formulating policy with respect to a series of matters, including admissions, curriculum, graduation requirements, and so forth, within guidelines, if any, established by the Board. That’s why I changed it to "significant." We don’t have "total" authority really. We have responsibility to formulate policy within broad guidelines. This is probably going to the Executive Committee for polishing."

Professor London (Political Science, Brooklyn College) – "I want to support this Resolution. For informational purposes, I want to let the body know that the PSC leadership, along with the leadership of the Senate, and other interested individuals, are meeting with lawyers tomorrow. We will be exploring all the technical issues concerned here in preparation for implementing such a Resolution. In preliminary discussions, I want people to understand that we have to make a factual claim that consultation has been denied or not followed. I think what Bernie said earlier is real important. The Faculty Governance Leaders have to establish what the record was on each campus in terms of consultation. We are going to have to be gathering this information. It is really important for everybody to cooperate in the implementation of this Resolution."

Professor O’Malley (English, Kingsborough Community College] – "I support a Resolution. I think that we should pass it in spirit and have the Executive Committee clean it up. There is one part that I’m concerned about. As a member of the Executive Committee, I don’t want to do a shadow document. What I want to do is some kind of study guide, or guidelines for the Regents in reading this report. We will point out inaccuracies, violations, and contradictions. What I want is for the Regents to say that this is an in adequate plan, and to send it back, and have a proper Master Plan done. We cannot prepare a shadow document by the middle of June. I think that the document won’t be paid that much attention. I would like a document showing all of the glaring things sent to the Regents, to try and get this thing not passed."

[Unidentified Speaker] – "This is somewhat in response to Steve’s mention about legal action. Is there such a precedent on the part of the UFS? Since this is a court decision, the Board of Trustees may well simply ignore a Resolution that we pass. Is there, in the view of anyone in this room, room for other kinds of action against the Board if they violate a court decision?"

Chair Sohmer – We would go back to the court where the agreement was signed. This is essentially asking for an Article 78, or a temporary restraining order.

Professor Frisz (Student Personnel, Queens College) – "I support the motion in principle. What I’d like to move is that we pass it in spirit, and refer it back to the Executive Committee to clean up. And to also maybe make the Resolved statement a little bit stronger in terms of taking out things like, "in its opinion." The University Faculty Senate shall include in its statement to the Regents that "in its opinion." To me, that weakens it. We should have an action statement of some kind in here. I think that will make it a stronger document. I think we could sit here for hours playing with every word. Most people know that I hate writing motions on the floor of the Senate. I don’t think we get what we really need. I think that if we can pass this in spirit, and ask the Executive Committee to strengthen it, clean it up, and send it forward, I think we’d have a good document. That is my motion, if I can get a second."

Chair Sohmer – Is there a second? There are two motions. One that it be sent to the Executive Committee for burnishing and that Executive Committee also strengthen the Resolved, with instruction as to what the Executive Committee should do.

[Unidentified Speaker] – "My prior motion was to approve it in spirit. That is a separate motion. That is a separate act. Until we do that, the other motions are irrelevant."

Chair Sohmer – All those in favor of approving this in principle and spirit? All those against? It passed, so the Executive Committee has been instructed. Now the second motion, which is the enhancement and strengthening of the Resolved. All those in favor? Against? The motion is unanimously passed.

[for attachment please request by email at wepbh@cunyvm.cuny.edu]