THE THREE HUNDREDTH PLENARY SESSION

OF THE UNIVERSITY FACULTY SENATE

OF THE CITY UNIVERSITY OF NEW YORK 

December 16, 2003 

The meeting was called to order by UFS Chair O’Malley at 6:30 p.m. in Room 9204/5 at the Graduate School and University Center.  61 voting members were present: 

Baruch: Present – Hill. Absent – Freedman, Giannikos, Majete, Myers, Onochie, Pollard and Wiley. BMCC: Present – Aymer, Friedman, Martin, Price, and White. Absent -- none. Bronx CC: Present – Fergenson. Absent - Lopez-Marron, McManus and Skinner. Brooklyn: Present –Bell, Cunningham, Jacobson, London, Shapiro, and Tobey. Absent – Antoniello, Haggerty, Romer, and Sardy. CCNY: Present –  Crain and Sohmer.  Absent – Benenson, Broderick, Buffenstein, Connorton, and Sank. Vacancies – 2.  CSI: Present – Cooper, Foleno, Klibaner, and Levine. Absent –Petratos, and Yousef.  CUNY Law School: Present – McArdle. Absent – Andrews.  Vacancy – 1. Graduate School: Present – Baumrin. Absent – Katz-Rothman, Khuri, Kulkarni, Nair and Ofuatey-Kodjoe.  Hostos CC: Present – August, Roe, and Singh. Absent - none.  Hunter: Present – Finder, Krishnamachari, Matthews, and Alternate Rodriguez. Absent – Finder, Friedman, Sherrill, and Wimberly. Vacancies – 2.  John Jay: Present – Kaplowitz and Napoli. Absent – Holder, Kadir, Mandery, and Wylie-Marques. Kingsborough CC: Present – Barnhart, Farrell, Galvin, Goodkin, O’Malley, and Alternate Fridman. Absent–none. LaGuardia CC: Present – Beaky, Gallagher, Lerman, and Mettler. Absent - none. Vacant -- 1.  Lehman: Present – Philipp and Wilder. Absent – Heching, Hosay, Jervis, and Mineka. Medgar Evers: Present – Barker and Donohue. Absent -- Harris-Hastick and Patwary. NYCCT: Present – Cermele, Dreyer, Hounion, and Alternate Gavis. Absent -- Horelick, Richardson, and Walter.  Queens: Present – Bird, Brody, Erickson, Moore, and Savage. Absent – Habib, and Sukhu. Vacancies – 3.  Queensborough CC: Present –Barbanel, Dahbany-Miraglia, Pecorino, and Alternates Ansani and Tully. Absent –Weiss.  Vacancies – 1.  York: Present – Berg, Cooley, Frank, Lewis, and Moss.  Absent – Frank.  

Chancellor Goldstein, Executive Vice Chancellor Mirrer, and Trustees DiMartino and Abraham attended.   

Governance Leaders present: Baumrin (GSUC), Cooper (CSI), Dreyer (NYCCT),  Fridman (KCC), Kaplowitz (John Jay), Levine (CSI), Mettler (LaGuardia), Savage (Queens), Sohmer (CCNY), and Tobey (Brooklyn).  Executive Director Phipps, Administrative Assistant Pasela, and Secretary Blanchard were present.  

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

II.   Approval of the Minute of November 2003: The Minutes were adopted as proposed. 

III.  Reports: (Recorded in Reports & Deliberations) 

A.  Chair.

B.     The Chancellor.

C.     Representatives to Board Committees.  (written)

D.     New Trustee Rita DiMartino

E.      New Student Trustee Agnes Abraham 

IV.   Discussion of Proposed Academic Integrity Policy: (Recorded in Reports & Deliberations) 

V.    New Business - The following member’s item was referred to the Executive Committee: 

A. Resolution on ACT Writing Test and the Master Plan 

Whereas, the University Faculty Senate has repeatedly raised concerns about the ACT skills tests, including the absence of data on their validity and reliability and the lack of faculty consultation in their development (see resolutions of April & Sept. 2000 and Sept. 2002); and 

Whereas, the University Faculty Senate has opposed the use of any single standardized test cutoff score as a make-or-break factor in student admission (resolution of Nov., 2003); and

Whereas, recent CUNY data on the ACT Writing Test, provided to the U.S. Department of Education's Office for Civil Rights, suggests that students with passing scores of 7 may perform no better in CUNY courses than students with failing scores of 6; and 

Whereas, the CUNY central administration has asked for University Faculty Senate input with respect to the new Master Plan; now therefore be it 

Resolved, that the University Faculty Senate requests that the CUNY central administration, in its development of the new Master Plan, seriously discuss with the Senate the elimination of the ACT Writing Test as a barrier to admission and progress and consider more appropriate alternatives. 

Proponent: Bill Crain   

There being no further business, the meeting was adjourned at 8:40 P.M.  

Respectfully submitted,  

William Phipps

Executive Director 

THE THREE HUNDREDTH PLENARY SESSION

OF THE UNIVERSITY FACULTY SENATE

OF THE CITY UNIVERSITY OF NEW YORK 

December 16, 2003 

Chair - It’s my great pleasure to have the Chancellor here tonight. We pulled him away from his own 80^th Street party. 

Chancellor - First of all, let me wish all of you and your families and those loved ones a wonderful holiday season and I hope, as I look at myself, good health really is the thing that is always front and center, so I wish all of you good health and a prosperous new year filled with contentment. 

I’m going to be very brief because I know that you enjoy the questions more than hearing from me, but let me just say that we are on what can be called a full court press, working with the Governor’s people at the very highest levels and with the leadership in both the Assembly and the Senate to try to influence early on the way in which the operating budgets in particular, and less so on the capital side, are presented for consideration by the Legislature. I think when I met with you last I had indicated that traditionally this University sits back and waits for the Governor to present his recommendations to the Legislature and then when we hear what those recommendations are we get very involved, and I think that part of what we traditionally have done we do reasonably well and it is a true collaboration. The PSC has been very active, this body has been very active, and certainly I am, my staff, the Board and the students. The students are extremely helpful in trying to convince the Legislature at a relatively late stage in the process of the very real needs that we have at this University. We’ve taken a very different approach this year, very early working collaboratively with SUNY in ways that we haven’t worked with SUNY before and working with the Governor directly and Shelly Silver and Joe Bruno to try to lay out at the very earliest stages what the history has been of funding for this University and how we might propose ideas through the Division of the Budget to absorb and embrace so that we might be able to get the kind of consideration that we need in order to move this University forward. Some of these are rather private discussions, and I never would reveal private discussions, but I will tell you that this week I’ll be meeting with Ken LaValle, obviously we’ve met with Ron Canestrari, I’m in contact with Shelley Silver on a regular basis and certainly with the Governor’s people. We have been quietly but methodically working with them and, again, when I say the highest levels I mean the very highest levels in the Governor’s orbit, including the Governor himself, to suggest creative, innovative, fresh ways of shaping the recommendations. And I’m somewhat emboldened by some of these discussions and I hope that at the end of the day, while I am not deeply optimistic about a major turnaround for this University, I am fairly convinced that the things that we have opined about and that we have discussed with people will lead to buffering against what may turn out to be a difficult budget year. Just remember we have a few things that are in play. Some of these are old and some are new. The first is the deficit for the State of New York, including the City of New York, is real. I would say that it’s starting to move in the right direction because we’re starting to see activity, especially in the financial services industry which is such an important industry in the city in particular, starting to hire, profits are starting to shape in a way that I think will ultimately rebound to the kind of revenue that we need to see in the state and I think that’s a very positive thing. But there is still the deficit that’s a moving target and hopefully it is moving in the right way. The second thing is the Governor has stated early on and has reiterated very clearly in a very public way about ten days ago that he will not impose new taxes on the State of New York. We haven’t heard that as directly from the Governor as we have in the last two weeks. And third, the results of the court action on the Campaign for Fiscal Equity are real. This is going to require that the State of New York rethink the way in which it funds lower ed and you can be assured that there is going to be a very robust revenue stream that’s going to be going to K through 12. That is going to have a chilling effect on our ability to get in there, not only CUNY but also SUNY and other operating agencies in the State of New York, to get resources. Those three things are really the major impediments that I see right now in being as successful as we hope to be. But in the meetings that we have had, again, I am very encouraged by the reaction that we’ve gotten from people. People have said, “we haven’t thought about these, we like this,” and as of yesterday we even got a green light that one of the things that we proposed will indeed happen and that will be a positive thing for our operating budget. But we’ll see and we’ll know when the Governor proposes his budget on January 7. I’ll be in Albany at that time and we’ll go to work. And I hope the men and chairwomen, as we have in the past, work very closely in a coordinated way with this body because you’ve been splendidly active as the PSC has been very active and I think if we all work in a similar way to get the kinds of resources we have a pretty good shot at doing a little better this year than we have in the past. I think the other thing that we have going for us is good will. I don’t want to mention a name but somebody extraordinarily high up in the orbit has said, “If there is any institution in New York State that deserves this year consideration it is CUNY,” something I have not heard before and I think it’s just a tribute to the work that we’re trying to accomplish here of stabilizing the University, of our academic values of investing in faculty. Benno Schmidt today gave a speech at the Harvard Club and just indicated that last year we hired over 600 faculty. We’re going to hire an awful lot of faculty this coming academic year as well. People see investments that are being made in the University in ways that make sense and I think the notion that our enrollment has grown, that our racial and ethnic balance is robust, as we had hoped it would be, that the University is indeed responding to many constituencies for assistance. Just through the Central Office alone the amount of contract work that we are now bringing in under the auspices of Executive Vice Chancellor Mirrer, John Mogulescu, is deeply impressive. In the tens of millions of dollars we are providing services for various operating entities in the City and State of New York and people are looking at CUNY as a real partner. So I think that good will is going to help us. 

On the capital budget I’m hopeful as well. I have indicated in meetings with PSC, with faculty groups, certainly with the Board, that I was not excited about a special session. In fact I just didn’t think it was a good strategy for us to have a special session that might have resulted in the Legislature embracing what the Governor had proposed last year for our capital program but was never enacted by the Legislature. I think it is much better for us to stand back, let the Governor hopefully embrace what the Board had taken as my recommendation in terms of the much more expensive capital program, which we need desperately. The one area in the capital program that I continue to still be concerned about, we have a lot more work to do on this, is the community college side. I’ll just refresh your memory that from 1998 through 2003 we had about $64 million that was recommended by the State but virtually no match by the City Government. And when you walk among our community college campuses and see the conditions that our students and our faculty live in, it’s sad, it’s something that I’m deeply concerned about and we really must get something going with our community colleges and we are working very hard in ways that we hope will result in a better budget. 

What we look for, as I told you before, is some communality with SUNY. It’s very hard in this state, the way the state has evolved politically and the way it develops budgets for Higher Education, not to have a partner. And we’ve really never had partners. SUNY has gone its way and we’ve gone our way and the independent sector goes another way. What we have seen over and over again when higher education is financed, it is really in three areas. For CUNY and SUNY it’s an operating budget and it’s a capital budget that it’s proposed and then for all of the sectors together there is a proposition on financial aid, which is largely TAP. And then we work very hard to get our needs embraced and at the end of the day financial aid more so than not has been protected and the problems that occur are on the operating side to CUNY and SUNY. That play has been rebroadcast over and over again and it’s wrong; it has to stop. So we need a partner and I think SUNY for really the first time will be a partner for some things. There are certain things that SUNY does that I’m totally opposed to, but on some things I think we need a partner. We have gotten another partner all of a sudden that I don’t want to dance with. That is the independent sector that is doing very good work in trying to convince every legislator that has an independent college in their district, and they all do, of the need for a capital program for them. I just think it’s a very bad precedent and once that door is opened it’s never going to be closed. And folks, I’ll tell you, it’s a zero sum game. This is not a problem with open boundaries, this is a problem that has very constrained boundaries and we all fit in that. And when someone says there will be new money, there is no such thing as new money, money is money, and if that money goes there it is money that we’re not going to have available to us. So the terrain has shifted a bit and we just have to be able to shift along with it. I’m going to stop at this point and I’ll take any questions that any of you have. 

Professor Crain (Psychology, City College) – It sounds like a much better strategy but I’m worried about one of the things SUNY has done, which is that it began a tuition indexing. I’m worried that that’s one of the creative ideas being discussed. Tuition indexing would be quite gradual increments in tuition for our students and it will just go gradually up and up and who knows where it will end. Even if it’s pegged for funding for CUNY it’s still on the backs of our students. I strongly oppose tuition indexing. I think it’s a really bad idea. I know you’ve been discussing it. Is that part of the plan? / Chancellor - Bob King and I have discussed tuition indexing and I’ll be very straight with you, I was the one that approached him on the idea. So let’s just take a look at what does it mean? For me what the SUNY Board did several weeks ago is not tuition indexing. That basically is saying let’s decide on how much we need, let’s let the State off the hook and let’s sock it to the students. That to me is not tuition indexing. Tuition indexing is having an ability to convince Legislators and the Governor this is what our costs are going up by, this is what we can demonstrate our costs going up by, and usually it’s a basket of economic indicators, whether it’s a Higher Education Index, a Consumer Price Index, or whatever it is. That’s stage one. Everybody has to agree that yes, these are your costs going up. How are we going to finance that? The second stage of indexing is a discussion. It could be that the State agrees to pay the entire freight and it could be that there would be some sharing of what that is. And it seems to me that when I saw what happened last year when the Governor and the SUNY Board proposed an enormous increase, that was not good policy from my standpoint. It really hurt, I think we all would agree, our students. Organizations spend money and their costs go up. We have to find a way to balance costs and expenditures. My preference, the State should provide the funding. Period. That’s my preference, that’s what we fight for. The very last thing any of us want to do is to impose a tuition increase. But if we have to impose a tuition increase, and that’s the way the world is working today, let’s do it in a way that is sensitive and protective of students. And it seems to me to have a big spike, like we had last year, was not a good thing to do and we have to find a different way. Whether it is some kind of indexing we’ll see. I’m not really sure that the idea is even going to be embraced at all because a lot of people are opposed to the notion, not so much about the student piece but obligating the State. Tuition indexing has had some success in some places in the United States and it’s had some abysmal failures elsewhere because the states agree to begin with and then they walk away. So we just have to have a discussion and where it’s going to lead I’m not really sure. But what SUNY did I told Bob King that CUNY is just not going to do anything like that at all if I have anything to do with it. 

Professor Beaky (English, LaGuardia Community College) – I was interested that you mentioned that the racial and ethnic balance in CUNY is robust, although actually I’m not quite sure that one could ever say that a balance is robust. / Chancellor - Probably it was incorrect English but so be it. / Professor Beaky – And in fact now that I’m on Jay Hershenson’s mailing list I get the Post editorials and so on, so I know that you evidently know what the racial and ethnic balance of the CUNY enrollment is and I guess the New York Post does but I don’t think we’ve seen the figures. Are those figures going to be released? The Post editorial is about two months old now, I think. / Chancellor - I don’t know which Post editorial you’re referring to but yes, our data is available for anybody to see. The problem that we had is that that component of data is probably the most difficult to get because it’s time consuming. Students have to self state what their race is and things of that nature and that’s why it takes longer. But we have the data and we provide the data in any way that you want. / Professor Beaky - It’s my understanding that we’ve asked for that. I don’t know if it’s on its way. There’s no enrollment data for this term at all. It’s sort of surprising. I’m sure it exists but we haven’t yet gotten it. / Chancellor - When you say enrollment data you mean for the fall? / Professor Beaky - Yes. / Chancellor - Oh yes, we have it. The enrollment data has been published. It’s on our website I think. We will get you whatever you want. We’ve had it since probably early November. / Professor Beaky - And the ethnic and racial balance? I can send you a copy of what I have. The Post was able to say that as a result of the various measures that CUNY has taken the racial and ethnic balance has not changed. So they definitely saw something. / Chancellor - I think what you’re referring to is that I always brief the Board and there are always reporters there. I don’t think they were given anything before anybody in the University was given anything, so we certainly don’t provide data to the press before we provide data for our constituencies here. We’ll give you whatever data. / Professor Beaky - Thank you for what you can give us.  

Professor Farrell (Behavioral Science & Human Services, Kingsborough Community College) - I have a question that’s related to both financial aid and CPI. It’s unclear to us whether the CPI requirements or that policy is still in effect. Seemingly Kingsborough is about the only one still operating with these CPI requirements. It has become more of a problem lately because the students are required to make up these high school courses. It doesn’t often fall within their majors and they are not being given financial aid for this. They are being required to pay for these courses sometimes up to $700. The other thing is they have language requirements if they haven’t taken a language in high school but if they’re bilingual they’re still being forced to take yet a third language and then being made to pay for this if it doesn’t fall in their major. So we’re looking for a clarification on this policy, particularly as we’ve noted our standards have gone up. You said this many a time and we’ve done very well on this. And the high schools have the Regents now required, so their standards have gone up. So the question is if this is still in effect if our standards are up. / Chancellor - When you said CPI I thought you were referring to the Consumer Price Index and I said to Louise, “What is the CPI?” Ah, the College Preparatory Initiative. I can assure you you are asking absolutely the wrong person because I don’t have a clue but I’m sure Louise Mirrer does and she will answer it for you. / Executive Vice Chancellor Mirrer - The CPI requirements were overtaken by the Regents requirements and essentially most of the students who come to us have taken Regents examinations or are in the process of taking them, so we don’t even talk about CPI and if there is an issue at Kingsborough I’d be happy to meet with whoever is appropriate to discuss it with them. / Professor Farrell - Great, thank you very much. We appreciate it.  

Professor Philipp (Chemistry, Lehman College) – I have two questions if I may, one quite disparate. The first one is last month you announced a campaign for CUNY. / Chancellor - No, I did not. I said that we intend at some point to discuss it and I’ll whisper in your ear before the actual announcement. / Professor Philipp - I’ll have to check that wording. / Chancellor – No, I did not announce a campaign. / Professor Philipp - So I was going to ask about the progress but I guess my question is too early. Then I’ll segue into my next question, a transfer of grades between colleges and the automatic transfer to appear on the second college’s GPA index in terms of e-permit. There was a memo that was distributed to Provosts that reached me as a department Chair that indicated that transfer of a grade from one college to the other via e-permit would be automatic, and yet the college Senates usually determine whether a given course is equivalent and GPA transfers haven’t really happened before, so could you discuss this new policy and how it jives with independent colleges. / Chancellor - Manfred Philipp is a smart guy. He’s asking me the question but he’s really looking at Louise saying he really doesn’t have a clue what the answer is. / Professor Philipp - You’re absolutely right. / Executive Vice Chancellor Mirrer - First of all there was no policy, so there is no policy change, but a faculty member is the only person who can give a student permission to take a course on permit at another institution and just in the interest of regularizing the process of enabling students to take courses all over the University should a faculty member agree to it. Their grades ought to be counted as they would any place, in any university anywhere. / Professor Sohmer - I think that’s certainly a variance with the existing. There is a tradition which is at least is seventy years old because I remember I encountered it in 1930. The tradition at City College has been and has not even been questioned, let alone altered, that the only grades that count in the GPA are the local grades. It doesn’t make any difference where the student did the work and what the grade was. The only exception we have ever made is for students who are taking our study abroad program and the grades from that are transferred, but for a fiat to occur from elsewhere, wherever the elsewhere is, seems most odd. / Chancellor - Tradition is wonderful. Seventy years that you would remember, the 1930’s. I haven’t read the policy but my quick response is students in this University live a very difficult life. One of the things that I got a wake up call from was when I started teaching this semester and I saw what our students go through. I have not been in a classroom teaching calculus in 30 years, so I’m showing my age as well, but listening to them, talking to them after class, you realize what they go through, different, I would submit, from what all of us went through. I think we ought to be very student sensitive. If a faculty member at City College says to a student, “I looked at this course at Lehman College, as far as I’m concerned it’s an equivalent course, it’s going to make life easier for you because you live at Lehman, you’re working, you can’t get to the city,” why shouldn’t we do this and why shouldn’t we give credit and the GPA. It seems to me it would be disgraceful to do otherwise, tradition or not. Once the faculty member opines and says this course is the same as our course we should make it easy for the student to do that and to get credit for it and to show on its transcript. It seems to me to be a very basic principle. To do otherwise I think is a great affront to the hard work that our students show every single day. / Professor Philipp - This is not a question. I fully agree with you and I’ve advocated the very same thing in other places. The question was only related to the transfer of the letter grade however. Everything else in terms of automated transfer credit that is in accordance with what the college Senates have determined, very much in favor, because as you say students do have a rough time, but the grade is something new. / Chancellor - From my personal point of view I think it all should be sent over on the GPA. Someone gets and A it ought to show that they’ve gotten an A and it should be counted as an A. That’s my own view. We could debate this but you asked for my view and that’s how I feel. / Professor Philipp - The students will prefer it if it’s an A.They won’t prefer it if it’s a D. / Chancellor - Well, if they get a D it ought to be transferred as a D. 

Professor Gallagher (English, LaGuardia Community College) - You may remember I asked the last question at the last Senate meeting and I wanted to ask a follow-up question but you had to leave. We were talking about the new policy whereby 80^th Street is going to review all community college hires and I was a little confused about exactly how this is going to work. On the one hand you said several times this is to put community colleges on notice that they weren’t doing a good enough job in hiring a diverse faculty and then you further said that this is not going to be done with four-year colleges, although you didn’t say that the implication seems to be that they are doing a good job in that respect. On the other hand you said this is going to be done solely for informational purposes at 80^th Street. So the obvious question is, is 80^th street going to approve and reject community college hires from now on or is it just for informational purposes? / Chancellor - Since I now remember the question I remember exactly what I said, so let me repeat it for those that were not here. 80^th Street, the Chancellor, the Executive Vice Chancellor, anybody in the central administration will not approve or disapprove of a faculty hire. That is the province of the local campus and that’s the locus of responsibility and that’s where I think it should be. What I said was this is an off budget investment, this is not part of the general hiring when people either are retiring or they’re leaving for another job and then their line reverts back to the department or division and so forth. This is a special investment to improve the ratio of faculty full-time versus part-time in the classroom. This is, I think, a once in a lifetime investment in full-time faculty at the community colleges and I wanted to ensure, and it was at my directive, I wanted to make sure that people were taking this seriously. I didn’t say that the community colleges were doing a lousy job in helping to diversify faculty, that’s your editorial spin on it, and that the senior colleges are doing a good job; I said across the University we are not doing as well as I would like to see in diversifying the faculty. We’d like to get that point across. We also would like our Presidents, who ultimately are responsible for what’s going to happen through their Provosts and Deans and faculty and Chairs and so forth, to do the kind of outreach work that is necessary if you are serious about building a full-time faculty. What I did say was that building a full-time faculty and recruiting is tough work. It’s very easy to throw up an advertisement and wait for people to come and sit through these resumes and say, “OK, these are the people that we want.” That to me is not the way you recruit faculty and that’s why we imbedded into this investment program dollars for people to travel to conferences, to meet with people, either on their home campuses or whatever it is that they want to do to take the effort seriously. We’re not reviewing the applicant. What we’re reviewing is really the process to say, “We’re making this investment; we want you to take this seriously.” And that’s the issue and nothing more than that. / Professor Gallagher - Just one point of clarification. This is going to cease after the community college investment program? / Chancellor - This is a program that will sunset after we finish this process, yes. We don’t get involved. Why should we? I should not get involved with what’s happening at LaGuardia or at City College and whom they are hiring? The people who are making those decisions are largely at the department level. You’re the ones that are making the assessment of the quality and the kind of skills that you need, the kind of areas that you need to fill. I’m so far away from that it would be ridiculous for me even to impose myself, but what I can say is since we are making this investment let’s try to do the best job that we can. It’s easy to take the low road, let’s take the high road. / Professor Gallagher - Thank you, that clarifies it.   

Professor Cooper (History, College of Staten Island) – My question also is with regard to the e-permit system. I read that document. I’m sort of surprised that the Senate got a document. I don’t know how many people got it, about which we didn’t have any heads up. It would have been a little bit less disconcerting to know this was coming. The devil is always in the details. In addition to the business of changing the policy on the GPA without really very much faculty consultation, which may strike you as a cavil on our part that we have no right to, I’m a little troubled about the whole process because we have very little control now at the senior colleges over the whole process of what students have when they come to us and yet we’re held responsible for the quality of the Baccalaureate. When I get a student who comes in and wants to take a permit class it’s really impossible for me to look at the syllabus and check out who’s teaching it. And they want to do it because it’s obviously easier the way it was for me a hundred and fifty years ago when I went to City and had to take classes at night all over the city. I have to tell you in those days, in the good old days, in the 50’s, I had some really crummy courses at other parts of CUNY and some at City. So, as a faculty member we cannot even get into a computer system in any way to take a look and see what we’re approving. I don’t understand from reading those pages, and that’s because I’m a dim wit with regard to technology, how I am going to stop a student from registering for something. It isn’t at all clear that the faculty’s role on this is anything more than a rubber stamp. I have no doubt that we’re going to lose on this one as well but I would like to remind you that something like three or four years ago the University signed off with a couple of us on a legal agreement that the faculty would be involved from the get-go in the creation of academic policies, particularly policies that change existing policies, and we haven’t been in on this one and some others. He’s right about City College. They sent me to Europe as an Undergraduate and I did not get those credits from abroad transferred as grades in the 50’s. They were just transferred as credit, and that was the way it was. I don’t know what they’re doing now but that was the system. Now that’s the flagship or at least the oldest institution. I don’t know what the other ones do, but it seems to me that given the fact that the Board, your predecessors, signed off on this document, that at least we can give lip service to it. And items like this are precisely the sort of issue that directed us into court to begin with. / Chancellor - I have to feign ignorance here in that I haven’t read the policy and perhaps I should have. I just go back to the same principle, Sandi. We’re an integrated university. When you look at our senior colleges half of those classes, half of the people that are graduating, are starting at community colleges. We truly are an integrated place and not to accept what happens from another faculty member at another institution I just think is wrong. It’s wrong for the student. The student is the one that ultimately suffers here. And you say it’s a rubber stamp; it shouldn’t be a rubber stamp. If you say this is an equivalence then there is work that you got…how do you know? You read the syllabus and you get a sense of what’s going on there. / Professor Cooper - We don’t get it; there is no access to it. / Chancellor - Then maybe we ought to provide that kind of …I think it’s a great affront. Just think about the logic of what some of you are saying here. You’re saying that if I send a person from City to Queens in a sense, pardon the expression, it may be treyf. / Unidentified - I thought it went without saying that it’s a treyf. /    

Professor Baumrin (Philosophy, The Graduate School and University Center) – Friday the Executive Committee of our Senate met with the Executive Committee of the State University of New York’s Senate at FIT for a very long and fruitful meeting. One of the things that struck me over the course of the meeting was the extent to which the SUNY faculty was convinced that Chancellor King was an emissary of the Governor and the Governor’s representative to the University. And I thought that you might want to say a few words about my belief, though perhaps not everyone’s belief, that you’re an emissary of ours. / Chancellor - It goes without saying. I am of the faculty, for the faculty, and sometimes I have to fight with the faculty. Last question. 

Professor Philipp (Chemistry, Lehman College) – As a department Chair I’m going to amplify on something that Sandi said. I cannot see student records at another college and there’s no reason that I can think of why I should not be able to see those records to see what the grades are and what courses they’ve taken, to see what students have done at a different CUNY college. Nor is it very easy to see a syllabus of a course at another CUNY college. In fact it’s easier to see syllabi at some non-CUNY colleges because I have to drill through their website and find the syllabus. With CUNY colleges often that’s completely impossible. So when we talk about an integrated university it seems to me that we should build the foundation before we build the parapets and the steeples. The foundation is information transfer to the people who are advising the students and that does not in actuality exist. There is none of that right now. / Chancellor - I’m sympathetic to that. To me, signing off on a permit is not just a perfunctory exercise. You really ought to know what it is that you’re approving and we’ll have to work on doing that. I really have to go. Thank you very much. 

Chair - I’m going to proceed with the agenda that we haven’t approved because the new Trustee Rita DiMartino is here, and I asked her to come at 7:15, so we’re right on time. Let me tell you about Rita DiMartino. She was appointed by Mayor Bloomberg in July 2003. Formerly she was a consultant and Vice President of Congressional Relations for AT&T. She assisted in AT&T’s relations with the U.S. Administration, Congress and State Governments. She’s also a spokesperson for the Hispanic Community and a nationally recognized expert on Hispanic Affairs. President Ronald Regan appointed Miss DiMartino in 1982 as Ambassador to the Unicef Executive Board where she served as head of the U.S. delegation. Her achievements as Ambassador included increasing UNICEF’s financial support and increasing financial assistance in areas of child health, education, nutrition, water supply, and sanitation. President George Bush appointed Miss DiMartino in 1992 to the USO World Board of Governors. President George W. Bush appointed Miss DiMartino in October 2002 to the Fulbright Foreign Scholarship Board. Currently she is a member of the Council on Foreign Relations. She is Chair of the Board of Bronx Lebanon Hospital, Vice Chair of the Hispanic Council on International Relations; she is in the Congressional Hispanic Caucus, the National Association of Latino Elected and Appointed Officials, the Cuban American National Council and the Ana G. Mendez University System. Trustee DiMartino was born and raised in Brooklyn and received her BA from the College of Staten Island and an MBA from CW Post Long Island University. Quite an accomplished resume! Trustee DiMartino. 

Trustee DiMartino - Thank you Trustee and Faculty Senate Chair Susan O’Malley for the invitation to say a few words this evening. I am especially pleased to be here with you because I very much appreciate the important role the faculty played in my undergraduate education at the College of Staten Island. When I visit the College of Staten Island today it is to see facilities and services that far exceed what was available when I went to college. Your colleagues, some who may still be teaching in the CUNY system, provided me with a first-class, first-rate educational experience. I commend you for your involvement in university governance. 

When Mayor Michael Bloomberg asked me to serve as a Trustee, I saw this position as a way to give back to the institution that helped me develop a foundation for my career in the corporate sector and in public service. When I was confirmed last spring I had occasion to speak with many legislators in Albany about how they perceived CUNY. There was universal appreciation for and understanding of the great work that is being done by our University to educate the people of our city. Especially in difficult fiscal times, it is important to have such good will because you can build on that support with greater success. I have begun visiting campuses, including the College of Staten Island, New York City College of Technology, Kingsborough Community College, and I am trying to visit as many colleges as possible in order to talk with administrators, faculty and students about their goals and needs. I will listen carefully, especially during, but not limited to, my first year on the Board. It is certainly clear to me that the CUNY system needs more financial resources. I have indicated to both the Chairman and Chancellor my availability to help with private fundraising, to assist the University’s overall fundraising activity. I know that this is an important priority and I look forward to drawing on my experience in the corporate sector to be of help. In the same spirit I am in touch with federal officials to encourage their assistance to the nation’s leading public university. I am pleased to be a member of two search committees, the search for President of John Jay College and Kingsborough Community College. I am eager to hear from staff, faculty, students, and of course alumni as we seek the very best possible candidates for those vitally important leadership positions. Finally, I am very much interested in CUNY’s partnership programs with the New York City’s Public Schools system. One of the greatest indicators of the importance of university work is the preparation for future teachers. I intend to look for ways to be helpful and supportive in linking the work of CUNY to the education of children in the city. Again, thank you for inviting me here and I look forward to seeing you on your campuses. 

Professor Friedman (Developmental Skills, Borough of Manhattan Community College) – Welcome, Trustee DiMartino. I’m sure we’re all thrilled to hear our Trustees talk about a commitment to fundraising and you mentioned trying to work in the area of getting private funds and then you mentioned federal funding. You mentioned that legislators in Albany were very friendly to us but we don’t seem to feel that in our pockets in terms of budget. We’re not a private university but we seem to be moving towards that as tuition goes up and we look more to private funds. We are a public university and the State is obligated to fund us properly. So I was wondering how you see your role and that of your fellow Trustees in terms of, in addition to the things you were saying, really getting the money that we deserve from the State. / Trustee DiMartino - I’m meeting next week with Senator Lackman; he has called and wants to meet with me. I know Bruno. For those of you who may or may not know, I am the Executive Vice Chair of the New York Republican State Party, seventeen years in that capacity, so I hope to use my contacts there. But when I was there for my confirmation hearing I only heard really good things about CUNY, so I will follow up, I will go to Albany. And in Washington DC I was with AT&T for fifteen years. I still go back and forth there, and so I know a number of members of Congress. If I can help and go with faculty or whatever, I’m available. And also, having been with AT&T for twenty-five years I have a number of corporate contacts and foundation contacts. / Professor Friedman - We look forward to your advocacy.  

Professor Pecorino (Queensborough Community College) – Sort of the flip side of that question making it personal. As a Trustee with your fiduciary responsibility to this institution, which you regard as about the finest higher education public institution, where are you going to draw the line in keeping it public? Right now the tuition is accounting for nearly 45-47% of the operating budget. Where would you say enough is enough? When it gets to 50, 60, 70? How far as a Trustee are you willing to accept what the State, the City and other forces are pushing us towards? / Trustee DiMartino - I know that was very unfortunate about the tuition increase but it was something that had to be done. I will meet and talk to my other colleagues on the Board and, again, I’m new. We’ll take it from there. / Professor Pecorino - But it’s a good thing to think about. / Trustee DiMartino - Absolutely, I’m glad you brought it up. I really do appreciate it. / Professor Pecorino - And I thank you for your efforts on our behalf. / Trustee DiMartino - Thank you. 

Professor Philipp (Chemistry, Lehman College) – I just wanted to make you aware that several years ago, several hundred faculty members petitioned the CUNY Board of Trustees to start a fundraising drive, the very kind of activity that you now described and mentioned that you would be willing to do. I think you will find that there are many faculty members willing to work with you to help you in your efforts to raise money for this University. So thanks for mentioning it. / I’m very pleased to hear that, thank you very much. 

Professor Gallagher (English, LaGuardia Community College) - Welcome to the University and welcome to the Board of Trustees. Just one thing I think you need to be aware of as you talk about funding CUNY more generously is that over the last decade or twelve years this University has been cut and cut and cut, it has been cut in very flush times by both the State and particularly the City. So in these rather meager times of the last three or four years there has been almost nothing left to cut. We didn’t reap the benefits of the boom of the 1990s like many other parts of the city’s economy and I just wanted you to be aware. It’s been about twelve, thirteen years straight of cuts. / Trustee DiMartino - Thank you, I appreciate you bringing that to my attention also. 

Professor Lewis (English, York College) – I run a journalism program at York. I’m involved to a great degree in recruiting journalism students not just at York but throughout the University and I run some very large recruiting efforts with high schools from around the city, usually more than twenty or thirty high schools, sometimes close to three hundred students at each conference that I run. One of the problems that we had this year that I’ve never seen before and I think we need help on a higher level to resolve is that there’s been a reorganization in the Board of Education and part of the reorganization has made it very difficult to work with them on large scale educational recruitment efforts like the ones that I run, because it used to be that one or two people were responsible for giving permissions for high schools to come to certain events citywide to help organized or coordinated efforts between a college or a university and schools across the city. Now with the reorganization no one is responsible or it’s almost impossible to track down who’s responsible. Jay, did you have this problem? / Off mike./ Professor Lewis - I guess what I wanted to know, is there a way of organizing it, are there one or two people that would take the responsibility for the education, is this something that the Board of Trustees can work out with the administrators at the Board of Education to create some sort of liaison set up? Is this something you could do in the future? / Chair - I don’t think it’s a Board thing actually. It might be a Jay thing. / Jay Hershenson - Why don’t we agree that I’ll help Glenn and follow up and try to see if we can get through the bureaucracy of the school system. / Professor Lewis - Thank you very much. 

Professor Cooper (History, College of Staten Island) – I want to thank you for the nice things you said about my college. / Trustee DiMartino - Also, Sandi, I met with a friend of yours this morning, had a 9 o’clock meeting with her, Mirella Affron. She said hello. 

Chair - Thank you. Next we have Agnes Abraham, the student Trustee. She is the ex officio voting member - Agnes votes, I don’t - on the Board of Trustees and she’s Chairperson of the 2003-2004 session of the University Student Senate. Ms. Abraham is from Dominica, resides in Brooklyn and is currently a Public Administration major at Medgar Evers College. She is also serving her second term as the President of the Medgar Evers College Student Government Association. Trustee Abraham was on Chancellor Goldstein’s search committee for the selection of a Senior Vice Chancellor and Chief Operating Officer for CUNY that resulted in Allan Dobrin and she has been on the Board of Trustees standing Committee on Faculty Staff and Administration since 2001. In addition, she is the President of the Women’s Fellowship at Ebenezer Missionary Chapel in Brooklyn and founding member and Vice President of the John Henrik Clarke CLR James Institute in Brooklyn. For her outstanding service to the University and her community at large Miss Abraham is a recipient of numerous awards and honors, including the 2003 Women History Makers Award from the Caribbean American Chamber of Commerce, the 2003 CUNY Student Leadership Award, and many more awards. I’m so pleased that she came to address us tonight. Agnes Abraham. 

Agnes Abraham - Thank you very much Trustee O’Malley. To my fellow Trustee DiMartino and to Vice Chancellor Hershenson, to the distinguished faculty and staff, professors and those of you who’ve done a thankless task to educate us, I just want to say thank you so much for your devotion, for your assistance, for being our parents, for being our psychologists, for being our doctors and for going beyond the call of duty to ensure that we get a quality education in a world where what matters most is not usually what you know, is who you know, and we’re glad we know you. Education to me is like the banks of a river from which life flows. Admittedly there will be times when floods come out of the banks. This is when students and professors come together to strengthen the banks of that river. Collaboration is the key to beat the proverbial devil. We as students and faculty are on that Jericho road together. Doctor Martin Luther King reminded us we might as well bind together to make positive change; otherwise we’ll perish as fools. Voting is one of the priorities; voter education and voter turnout is one of the priorities of this administration of the University Student Senate. After all, civic engagement is one of the things that are lacking in our society. As the University becomes the integrated university and as we strive to make a seamless transition from the community college to the senior college the advent of the e-permit is welcome news. I’ve had an occasion too wait two and a half semesters for a grade to be posted on my transcript. I am gratified that we have astute people like Trustee O’Malley to advocate on behalf of the Faculty Senate and also bear in mind, as she teaches people like me at the different universities that she goes to, that we all are complex human beings with the need to feel wanted, to feel educated and to become a change agent in this society. Hiring at CUNY is at its peak. How about hiring the wonderful CUNY graduates that we turn out in our education programs, in our nursing programs, with our Law degrees, and making them become the next Chancellors, the next Gittelsons, the next Trustee O’Malley of this country and of this great State of New York. We at the University Student Senate look forward to the lobby days when PSC and the Faculty Senate and the University Student Senate storm Albany and hold the elected officials feet to the fire. Let them know that our vote matters. It’s not enough to register someone to vote. It is our moral obligation to ensure that that vote is exercised and taken to the polls. We can change the face of politics as we know it in the city, Faculty Senate and University Student Senate. My last research informed me that there are over a million unregistered voters in the city. If we want CUNY to receive a capital budget, if we want the University to remain accessible and affordable we must engage our students, people like me and my peers in what it means to be civically engaged in this society. I may not do it all, you may not do it all, but as the older persons may see one drop of water fills the bucket. You’re not paid enough I know but that’s what we all chose to do because you love us so much and love, as it is related nowadays, is relative. However, we could not have had a great university called CUNY had it not been for people like you. I want to thank you and thank Trustee O’Malley for trying to make a difference in the lives of so many of us. Time would escape me and I would have been remiss if I did not tell you how very much I appreciate you. Working together we can make a difference. I look forward to working with you and as we face the challenges together we can do it. The journey of 1,00 miles begins with one step. I’ve taken that step tonight; the rest is up to you. Thank you. 

Chair - Are there any questions for Agnes? No questions. Thank you so much Agnes. You’re always so articulate. 

Moving on to the agenda. [Approval of agenda and minutes]. Just very quickly in my report, because I want to move on to the Academic Integrity but I just want to tell you a few things, since out last plenary in November the Patriot Act and the University Conference was held. It was a great success. A hundred people attended, the speakers were dazzling. If you missed the conference you can go to the website and then you’ll be linked to another website that Manfred Philipp set up and the whole conference is streamed on that website. You can listen to it in your leisure. That’s quite something. CUNY Matters is doing an article because they can listen to the whole thing on the website they said, so I’m pleased about that. 

We also had the hearing on the capital budget that a good number of you testified at. I think it was a superb hearing, not that it made a whole lot of difference. However, last Friday the Executive Committee met, as Stefan said, with SUNY governance leaders and decided to write a joint statement on the Capital Budget that we will work together. 

Master Plan, just a few things. Today we held a focus group on disability sponsored by our Disability Committee Co-Chaired by Sid Lefkoe and Don Davidson. It was chaired by Chris Rosa of Queens College. The discussion was excellent. Louise Mirrer was there and she came to me and said, “My goodness, I was there for 45 minutes and I got three superb recommendations that I think I can put in effect immediately.” 

Baruch, Hunter, LaGuardia, Queens, KCC and City were represented I think. Dean Savage, who’s here, from Queens College and Robert Kelly, Brooklyn Emeritus, are writing up the recommendations from the previous focus groups and I’m expecting them I hope some time in …You have the first draft with you, 40 pages of handwritten? All right. Ideally these recommendations will be gone over by the Executive Committee on January 13 and presented to the plenary on January 27. We’ll see if we can follow that schedule. 

The Academic Policy Committee met with Vice Chancellor Mirrer tonight to talk about the History initiative. Michael, I don’t know if you want to say anything. 

Michael Barnhart - It’s difficult to summarize it all in a couple of sentences but essentially we asked Vice Chancellor Mirrer exactly what she had in mind with regard to this proposal and what came across is that it’s in a fairly fluid state right now. I think that the general picture that emerged was that the administration would like to see it come up through the different departments and colleges and so on and work its way up rather than be imposed from the top down, although they certainly would like to see some sort of provision in the curriculum so that students are exposed to U.S. history more broadly. I think those documents that people look at are essential to understanding U.S. politics and its history. There was a fair amount of interest in the committee, one in potentially cooperating on this but also concern about things like “how are you going to impose this with already reduced graduation requirements and the need therefore for doing this without disrupting existing curricula.” There were other issues that were raised as well and we’re going to try to put together a memorandum of the discussion, which will also circulate to the Senate so that they can have some sense of what we found out. 

Chair - Thank you very much. The Academic Freedom Committee is being reactivated for the spring. Bobbie Pollard is the Chair. The need for this arose out of the Patriot Act Conference. Among other issues, they will be working on faculty e-mail privacy policies. 

The e-permit, that has come up already. A student’s GPA is now an integrated university GPA. The policy has been that the grade received for a permit course transfers as a Pass or Fail. The Office of Academic Affairs, without consulting with faculty, has decided that the course grade will be averaged into the GPA. This may or may not be a good decision but how the decision was reached is unacceptable. I think we need to write a letter or we have a draft of a resolution, so the Executive Committee will be discussing this and moving on this. I’d be interested on your campuses if you want to e-mail about how e-permits are happening at your campus or if there are problems. 

Unidentified - One thing I’m wondering about is the discussion is related to the grades and the transferability of grades for the e-permit but what about a student who transfers. A student comes from LaGuardia to Queens College - and this isn’t my own thought, somebody came up with this the other day and I’ve been wondering and I haven’t seen an answer - would it be that if a Queens College student goes on permit to LaGuardia now he gets a grade for it but a student who transfers from LaGuardia to Queens does not? Or is there more of this still to come? Does anybody know what the intention is about that? / Chair - Bernie, do you want to respond to that? / Professor Sohmer - I’m not sure what the intentions are, they may very well be evil, but the fact is that GPA and standing in class and all kinds of things like that are faculty matters for the particular campus, and it is not the case, as I’m afraid Susan just verbalized, that it’s changed. Nothing has changed. Somebody at 80^th Street has written a memo. On the other hand the faculty reserved the right that they always had, which is that it is their GPA that is computed and if a campus desires to compute the GPA some other way that’s up to that faculty, but at least in some of the oldest schools it is the case that it is the local GPA which is considered. / Chair - The order has come from on high without faculty consultation. Say what City College is doing, Bill, for the record. / Professor Crain - City College for the record does what we’ve said all night, which is we give credit but we don’t count the grades. / Bernie - It’s a moot question at the moment because our Registrar has found it impossible to accommodate to the e-permit and it’s sort of immaterial at the moment. That doesn’t mean that it will not sometime in the future be pressured. / Professor Crain - Whether it’s right or wrong it’s faculty…/ Chair - It’s the policy. / Professor Crain - Right. And also what Professor Cooper mentioned earlier in the test when she asked the question, there is a settlement agreement in the Polishook case. There was an agreement that curricular issues shall reside with the faculty. This settlement agreement was approved by the State Court of Appeals, that’s why I blurted out “it’s illegal” and at the least it goes against all the principles that they agreed to. They agreed to section 8.6 of the Bylaws that they would abide by those and this is something we could take to the Court of Appeals. / Chair - Yes, if we want to take it to court. Here is City College’s policy; there is a policy. Why don’t you fax me all the policies and then we’ll see what we can do. 

Professor Barker (Medgar Evers College) - Quick point is that in the discussion of an integrated university we do not have integrated grading systems. We have campuses with grades that are missing; they’ve been taken away from the faculty. For example the C- grade is not in use for about a year at my campus and a couple of other grades as well, so what will that mean if a student gets a C- grade at Brooklyn when it comes to my campus. Will it become a C or worse for the student? So I don’t think students’ rights are being protected completely here until we have a uniform grading system. / Chair - Is that what you advise? / Professor Barker - What’s my opinion? I would like to have a complete grading system, as complete as for example Brooklyn or City College has.  

Professor Bell (Educational Services, Brooklyn College) – While I was reviewing my mail yesterday I got a brochure from the Honors College. What does this have to do with this is the question? On the back page it has a list of rules and regulations of the Honors College and it says that students of the Honors College my take courses at any branch of the City University of New York and those grades will be counted on their transcript at their home institution. I read this to Bernie yesterday when I received it. Evidently, this was put into print about a year ago and has been circulated but now is in a very fancy colored brochure. So I suggest you look for the brochure, but it has now been published and sent out to all of the Honors Colleges. Also, this is going to have a negative impact on students because currently if they fail a course on another campus it doesn’t come back into their grades. It will not only be positive grades. You can’t transfer in an F, so there is no credit for the transfer. So this is not all positive. Also it will affect the computation of honor societies like Phi Beta Kappa grades, which need to be earned at a particular institution. So I don’t know how that’s going to affect all the honor societies, and that’s a very serious issue.  

Professor Cooper (History, College of Staten Island) – I believe this whole thing started out with the Executive Vice Chancellor or someone in her office having discussions with Registrars. I’m surprised that the Registrars didn’t alert the group. Maybe they did and it was ignored to these ramifications. One of the things I don’t remember now, and it might be of some validity in this discussion at least to have as information, is what happens to CUNY BA students who take courses all over the place because they essentially lead permit lives. / Chair - We know that. There are two separate GPAs that the CUNY BA has; I asked that question at a meeting with them last week. / Professor Cooper - They may be using a certain predecessor model but this policy is a product of apparently an attempt to use technology to speed up the process. The other thing I would like to know is about how many students are we talking about. I don’t have a clue how many people are taking permit courses. If it’s a handful of students it’s probably not worth a lot of hot air but if it’s a significant number it’s worth continuing to pursue it. / Chair - Let’s find out the number. The policy is in the back of the room. A couple more questions on this, then let’s move on. 

Professor Baumrin (Philosophy, The Graduate School and University Center) – I think it’s a Registrar’s crisis and the heads of the governance need to be apprised by you that they are supposed to tell their Registrars to record grades as the college policy requires and the Registrars can choose to disobey and follow the lead of the Executive Vice Chancellor or to obey. And I think it ought to be put to them right now in preparation for their then deciding what to do about their crisis. This isn’t our crisis and we can of course bring it all home to them after the systematic civil disobedience. / Chair - OK, thank you. 

Professor Philipp (Chemistry, Lehman College) – It doesn’t have to be civil!  I find it fascinating that the Chancellery is using one of their own failures to promote an increase in their power. The failure that I refer to is their inability to get a system of information flow among the colleges so that faculty advisers can see how students are doing at different colleges and advise them appropriately. It’s a failure and they have failed at this for many years. Now they have taken this failure and used it in a way to override college Senates’ ability to create curricula and calculate GPAs and see that the courses are appropriate for the given curricula. I have to say that the Chancellor saying it all depends on the faculty member approving this or not, I don’t think that should be the case. It depends on Senates’ approving it. Faculty individuals are not responsible or cannot be responsible for curriculum. So I think it’s an interesting power play. It’s fascinating and really interesting to use weakness and failure to increase your authority. We have to learn from that.  

Professor Lewis (English, York College) – It seems to me that there are two or three kinds of unique problems that are going to emerge from this down the line that might be really upsetting to faculty across the University and in putting certain programs forward. When people on different campuses create certain programs, especially programs that lead to internships or lead to the kind of work where you’re guaranteeing the quality of your students to outside sources, that’s going to be really difficult to do if you don’t have the right to vet courses the students are taking as equivalencies, because then you don’t know how accomplished they are at that level. Not only that but in a lot of programs across the University you have to perform at a certain level to reach the higher end of certain programs, to get into certain more advanced courses or seminars. How are you going to vet that if you don’t have the ability to vet the courses that students are putting forward to qualify for those things? So if you take these things away from people, and I don’t think this is a college-wide situation or college-wide vetting situation, I think this is really and has always been done by departments. Departments tend to see what’s equivalent from one school to another in deciding which courses are equivalent. If you take that away from departments then they lose control of their own programs and they can’t really guarantee the quality of the students coming out of their program. / Chair - I am told that the e-permit is the same as the regular permit program. Nothing has changed except the GPA. That’s the big change. As in the past, approval of a permit remains in the hands of faculty advisers at a student’s home college. But we need to see if that is what is happening. / Professor Lewis - If it’s put into a system, if this is all going to be computerized, then it gets away from you and you really can’t make that phone call to the Chair of another department or to someone who’s your counterpart in another college and say, “Exactly what is that course about, what’s the level of work here, does it include this and this and this.” By the time you do that, the student is past you. / Chair - Two more questions on this. 

Professor Leslie Jacobson (Brooklyn College) - I think the problem we have is very immediate. This semester has ended everywhere in the University, so that the Faculty Councils will not be meeting until February, students will register for this program and they will expect to have their grades transferred. So the problem is really very immediate and I’m not sure I know how we can handle it, but these students have the option of registering and getting grades and grades being transferred. The faculty will not have met on this issue at all, and that is a serious problem.  

Professor Barnhart (History, Philosophy and Political Science, Kingsborough Community College) - Piggy-backing on the whole issue of it getting out of our hands and having a life of its own, there was a sentence in here that bothered me when I first read this memo, and the sentence is on the second page halfway down and it’s after saying that all college staff, including professors, that play a role in processing or approving permit requests should be aware of the new system, that is they have a role to play. Then you go down to the next sentence and it says for each level of permit approval required, a second and third back-up should be assigned and entered into the e-permit system by using the Registrar’s office so that the system can function despite the absence of a primary approver. Does that mean the faculty? / Chair - Yes. / Professor Barnhart - In other words the faculty may be the primary approver but if they’re not in their office or around then it falls to somebody else and then when does it fall for example to a counselor it becomes a more regularized and sort of routine kind of decision. / Chair - Excellent point. 

Professor Moore (Queens College) - Generally when students transfer from one college to another the course is transferred as equivalence from one school to the other without any grades. / Chair - Interesting point. 

Chair - Just couple of other things in my report. The Faculty Experience Survey Committee is meeting on Friday with David Crook. I’ll keep you posted. It’s Dean Savage, Ken Sherrill, Karen Kaplowitz, Al Levine and myself. Cluster Hiring Committee is also meeting this week, chaired by Leslie Jacobson and is developing guidelines around cluster hiring. I think we’ve made a little progress in this. It has already started to receive some interesting proposals. Finally, in January I hope there will be time for the Executive Committee, the UFS-FGL listserv, and the plenary to think about how the UFS could be more central to CUNY. We tend to be the ones to expose the pitfalls of the central administration’s policies, but it is time that we become the initiators of policy. The Faculty Experience Survey may be an example of this as it was initiated by the UFS. Also we need to initiate policy on how faculty and particularly librarians handle the Patriot Act; that may be another thing that we start getting in motion. This also came out of our conference. Perhaps the Information, Literacy and Technology Committee’s work on CUNY support for open access to scholarly information, Phil Pecorino is chairing that, is another. I welcome your ideas on how to strengthen the effectiveness of the UFS. We’re always reacting and behind and somehow we’ve got to change that. 

Moving on to Academic Integrity so you can see where we are right now. Let me tell you about the timetable. The first meeting of this Academic Integrity Taskforce was in January 2003. The taskforce will meet in mid-January 2004 to incorporate all of our comments. Karen and I are the faculty on the taskforce. It is a very different policy, given particularly Karen Kaplowitz’s work. The policy will go to Board Committees, I believe CAPRR and Student Affairs, probably in February. This might be delayed until March if we want it to be. Several colleges have reported that their councils are reviewing the policy in February. The current policy is a disaster. The particular disaster part is on page 3 of the Diaz memo, just so you know what is in effect right now, which says that “all allegations of plagiarism must go to the campus Chief Academic Officer to determine whether the matter is academic or disciplinary. If the Chief Academic Officer determines that the matter is academic the college’s regular procedures in terms of grading and appeals are followed.” In other words, grading is removed or can be removed from the faculty. I think the new document is much better. I think we should look at pages 7 through 10. I’ve received a number of responses and I put them in the back of the room in a little packet and these have been incorporated. There is one from Al Levine that is put on page 7 -- you can see where that is in the second paragraph, second sentence. Al wanted the sentence to read “the decision as to whether to seek an academic sanction only rather than a disciplinary sanction or both types of sanction will rest with the faculty member but in cases of repeat offenders the college retains the right to bring disciplinary charges against the student.” I think that does make it much tighter. It was interesting that  Laraine Fergenson from Bronx Community College pointed out the same thing and made the same suggestion today. Andrew Hacker’s comment from Queens College, I think, is asking for more information or suggestions how to avoid plagiarism. It seems to me this can be done at local campuses. What we were trying to do with this is to make it general enough and to put the authority in the faculty’s hands about grading. Then colleges can develop their own policies that are more particular. If you look at page 7, you can see in the second paragraph “a faculty member” and then “will rest with the faculty member.” Over and over again we put in, say page 8, “the faculty member’s discretion,” line 5, section 3, “if a faculty member decides to seek a disciplinary sanction.” So over and over again it is the faculty member who decides. On page 9, this was quite a struggle, in section 5, line 2 “to the academic integrity officer it is strongly recommended that the faculty member contemporaneously file with the Chief Student Affairs Officer or other official in charge of academic integrity reported the violation in writing on a form provided by the college.” So it’s strongly recommended, but it’s not required. This is so that you can see if there are repeat violations. We can take additional comments tonight or preferably by mid-January. If it needs to be in February because of college Senate meetings, that’s fine with me. 

Professor Bell (Educational Services, Brooklyn College) – Brooklyn College has a body called Policy Council, which is not our Faculty Council, but in fact is the only body that has students, administrators and faculty on it on the campus, on which I serve on the Executive Committee. We’ve discussed this document this week and there were lots of different things, and I will forward you my annotated document, but there were two major issues. The first issue is the college has Departmental Grade Appeals Committees and it seems to me there is no clear way to implement Department Grade Appeal Committees in this document and that needs to be allowed for. It was unclear to us. / Professor Kaplowitz - Unless I’m misunderstanding you, Martha, it says, this is page 8, item 2b, “if the student denies guilt or contests a reduced grade awarded by the faculty member then the matter shall be handled using the college’s grade appeals process or the Committee on Academic Integrity.” By that we meant, and we can clarify it, including departmental, because we did a survey that every college has departmental grade appeals and that’s what we meant. / Professor Bell - This could mean something else, it could mean just the general and not the departmental and I think we have to have a mention of departmental. Also the XF grade was universally disliked and really the sense of the body was that this scarlet letter, essentially that’s what it is, may or may not be removed from the transcript and the question is of course is it legal to remove something on the transcript once it’s there and I think according to state law it is not legal to remove something. You can move it to another part of the transcript but it stays on the record, like an incomplete. You have a record that the incomplete has been changed and on what date on the college’s record. When this grade is changed and it is noted when the student comes back and applies for graduate school, the Bar, fitness things, the student affairs office is then obligated to report this, even if it happened first semester freshman year and it has been removed because there is a record for that student. This record could be potentially more harmful than a suspension or an expulsion because it will stay on the record in a way a suspension would never stay on the record because it’s unclear as to why a kid is there for a semester, a year or two years--our kids drop in and out all the time. And so we have really created a permanent penalty and I find that appalling. / Professor Kaplowitz - The purpose of this was largely to be a deterrent. / Professor Bell - After the first time you use it it’s no longer a deterrent. Like the death penalty. / Professor Kaplowitz - Not in that sense, in the sense that right now the only options we have is to give a penalty grade of an F, the course can be taken again, the student can get a C, and the F…/ Professor Bell - I would rather see you write something in that the F can’t be replaced. / Professor Kaplowitz - We cannot do that without changing the F grade policy entirely. / Chair - Perhaps we should change it. / Professor Kaplowitz - We suggested at the taskforce; that did not fly. / Chair - However, at a holiday party yesterday amongst drink and all I was told that they would be willing to get rid of the XF grade if we really wanted, that they would not hold on to it for dear life. / Professor Bell - Give them a D, it’s a worse penalty than an F. / Chair - But then I would like to get rid of the F grade policy. If they’re willing to do that, then we need to get rid of the F grade policy. 

Professor Pecorino (Queensborough Community College) – I agree with Martha about the XF. It creates more problems than it really solves. It comes out of vindictiveness to ensure that a permanent punishment is there but instead it creates a long enduring problem for both the individual and for anybody else in the system that encounters that XF grade. It’s got to leave some kind of impression on a faculty member who gets to see it, although Karen said it’s going to be like invisible, only special people get to see the XF grade while it’s there before it disappears, which it doesn’t quite do. It’s very mysterious to me. Anyway, I don’t want to discuss that. Both the Diaz memo and this set of recommendations have an important word in them. These are not policies; they are procedures for what happens when the policy gets violated. Where are the policies? Maybe they’re still leaving that for us, it’s our prerogative to create the policies. These are descriptions of what to do when something goes wrong. The setting of the rules as to what should be that which when you break there’s something going wrong, that’s still left to us, and I think that’s still something that we as a collective body can maybe assist in developing, the policies. And it’s certainly not a program. What every campus needs and the University needs is a program, and a program consists of not just these procedures and the policies but the entire idea of disseminating this, effectively educating the community and setting up prohibitions, proactive policies for prevention and what have you, and none of that is really here. And I think if anything happens they’re just going to say, “well, we’ll change the Bylaws a little bit for the disciplinary matter,” but I don’t see them moving very quickly to create the nice website for the instructional program. That’s still going to be for us to do. So this is still I think basically a disciplinary thing and we should still act as a collective body to see what’s the best out there. I mean they commend Baruch for something or other and I know there are other units that have maybe policies and programs that we should set forward as models for the others to consider, not just this document which is just a procedure for when things go wrong. / Chair - So what are you saying in terms of what we should do first? / Professor Pecorino - In terms of the UFS taking initiative, we could come up with let’s say a model policy, a model program, based on what’s out there already and a combination of things and then have the units consider that. This is very limited and if this is all we do then they’ve taken the initiative from us, they’ve stepped on our prerogatives and they’ve defined this whole area as one of disciplinary procedures. / Chair - But this is to be developed on campuses. Now we could take a central role, sure. / Professor Pecorino - Yes, that’s what I’m suggesting that we do./ Professor Kaplowitz - One of the problems was that at this very body faculty complained year after year that there was no way for faculty to have a say about what to do when students did plagiarize or cheat and in fact certain colleges reportedly overturned faculty grades. And so we in effect were asked to address this and this body passed a resolution last year unanimously calling for just this very process and document. It’s not sufficient but it may be necessary. / Professor Pecorino - I didn’t say it wasn’t but there’s a lot more needed. / Professor Kaplowitz - If you would lead a group in developing … / Professor Pecorino - I’d be happy to. I bring up this device now [a cell phone with camera built in]. We’re going into exam period. There are legitimate reasons for students who have small children, medical problems, they need to be alerted, but these little devices are capable of doing so much and faculty are unaware of some of the things they can do. One of the things we now see promoted for commercial purposes is they take little snapshots of things, like the exam that the student is taking, to be immediately sent to others outside of that exam room for their edification and while we may not want to take it upon ourselves to presume to tell students “you must place all of these devices up on the front table,” you know, private property, then the University worries about confiscation or even temporary removal of private property from the due owner and did you follow due process in that, that’s where a policy that says “electronic devices are not permitted except under certain circumstances” is required rather than leaving it all into this vague area. It’s going to be forced on us because they’re getting more and more clever and they’ll figure out ways. Eventually we’ll learn, we’re kind of slow, and then we’ll be doing catch up. I’m saying let’s try and get out there ahead of what’s happening and have a complete program.  

Professor Baumrin (Philosophy,  The Graduate School and University Center) – I generally agree with everything that Phil has just said. I haven’t really concentrated on this as much as I wanted to but one thing troubles me a good deal partly in the discussion of the XF grade. We have a section on page 3 called “falsification of records and official documents” and it seems to me that every policy that you’ve mentioned makes this very likely as these are matters of serious criminal fraud, forging signatures or authorization, falsifying information of an official academic record, falsifying information on an official document such as a grade report, letter of permission, drop/add form, ID card or other documents. Cheating, that’s part of being a student; this is part of being a criminal. / Professor Kaplowitz - We addressed this. / Professor Baumrin - This is not that we want to discourage but that we want to punish. / Professor Kaplowitz - Well then, if you look at page 8, item 3: “Procedures in cases where disciplinary sanction is sought.” The Diaz memorandum said that a faculty member could not both give an academic penalty, let’s say an F, and seek disciplinary action. Here we’re allowed to do both. We can give an F grade or a D or a D-, we could also bring disciplinary charge or make a request for a disciplinary charge. And then the article 15 of the CUNY Bylaws goes into effect where there is the disciplinary hearing for those kinds of serious issues. For some faculty plagiarism and cheating are sufficiently serious issues, but at least now there are three options faculty have. Faculty don’t have to give the XF grade, faculty could just give a D or a D- or an F. Faculty could also just go to the disciplinary procedure. Faculty could give an F and go to the disciplinary procedure but faculty could also give an XF. It gives just one more option but no one has to use it. There is no requirement to use the XF grade. / Professor Baumrin - I think if you look at this carefully that might turn out to be true but let me point out that  you did leave something out: The Registrar, who isn’t a faculty member. / Professor Kaplowitz – No, we didn’t leave it out, we have it here. / Professor Baumrin - Can a Registrar bring a proceeding? / Professor Kaplowitz - We have it here in the policy, page 7, second paragraph, and this is where Alfred refined the language. We have “ a faculty member suspects a student has committed a violation, the college’s Academic Integrity Policy shall review with the student the facts and circumstances as a suspected violation whenever possible. The decision as to whether to seek an academic sanction only rather than a disciplinary sanction or both types of sanctions will rest with the faculty member but,” and then if we use Alfred’s language, “in cases of repeat offenders the college retains the right to bring disciplinary charges against the student.” That includes the Registrar. The point is that if the faculty member does not want to bring disciplinary charges but because of the recommendation that faculty report incidents on this kind of form that is recommended here and then there is repeat offenders, the Registrar’s Office or the Dean of Students or the Provost could bring disciplinary charges. / Professor Baumrin - Even if I think this indirect reference is sufficient and as a person trained in this kind of stuff it would be sufficient, nevertheless you don’t say that these egregious matters are included.  

Chair - Two more comments. I am curious, though, if the XF grade could be removed from a transcript, would that be OK? / Unidentified - I understood once that once a grade is on a transcript …/ Chair - If nothing can be removed, then it’s an impossible policy. Karen, what do you think? / Professor Kaplowitz - What’s interesting is that we were given examples when notations were removed, notations that this grade was given because of plagiarism and cheating, and this would be considered a notation, not a grade. This is being studied and maybe we have to wait until we get a ruling both from the Registrar’s Council and Legal Counsel. Vice Chancellor Schaffer said he reviewed this and he thought it was legal but maybe the Registrar’s Council has to be asked if it looked at it. / 

Professor Donohue (Languages and Literature, Medgar Evers College) - I just wanted to clarify what seemed to be the …/ Chair - page / Professor Donohue - Do I understand this right that this would be in every case, that in every case of plagiarism there would be a faculty report form filed? / Chair - No, it is strongly recommended but not required. / Professor Donohue - Because what I’m familiar with is the cases are most successfully handled between the teacher and the student. I have a very strong example from last term of clear plagiarism. She combined two websites word for word. At first she protested very strongly that it was not intentional, whatever that meant. Be that as it may she finally took the F, retook my course, the same course this term, and is now doing A- work and I think if it had to go further it would have become much more messy if I had to file a faculty report and there was a record of it. This is just between us and now she has learned. / Chair - I agree with you. That’s why we advocated “strongly recommended.” Karen and I had to fight hard for that one. The administration from Baruch wanted it required. / Professor Donohue - Can we amend it down to “suggested”? / Chair - I’m not so sure because they might then take out the strongly and put required.  

Professor Barnhart (History, Philosophy and Political Science, Kingsborough Community College) - On page 9 I’m going back to the issue about seeking both an academic and a disciplinary sanction. The old policy as I understand it was that you couldn’t do both and you had to wait on the academic and go through the disciplinary. At least that has the virtue of being unambiguous; this is a little ambiguous to me. It says, “it is best to begin with the disciplinary proceedings seeking imposition,” which makes it sound like you could do both but then if you go down another sentence it says, “if the Disciplinary Committee finds that the alleged violation occurred then the faculty member may reflect that finding in the student’s course grade.” So essentially you can’t do very much, it sounds like, until the disciplinary committee is done, which would make sense because of course you don’t want to hand a grade in and then the Disciplinary Committee says it never happened essentially, which is basically what you say in the next sentence. So I was curious about whether we were saying you could do both but it doesn’t sound like you really can do both as a practical matter. / Professor Kaplowitz - It says really the temporary grade is the PEN grade, pending grade, which is part of the group of grades that is in the lexicon of grading in the University which some colleges have adopted and others haven’t. It’s saying it’s best because we kept arguing that faculty have to be able to give grades. / Professor Barnhart - But it would be a pending grade, it wouldn’t be a grade. / Professor Kaplowitz - No, you could actually give an F and bring charges. / Professor Barnhart - And put PEN next to it? / Professor Kaplowitz - No, what happens is if you lose at the Disciplinary Committee you’d have to change that F to let’s say an A, so you‘re better off giving... / Professor Barnhart - So you are going to have to white things out. / Professor Kaplowitz - Exactly. / Chair - The PEN gets removed or maybe only a slash through the PEN. 

Professor Moore (Student Personnel, Queens College) - I think that the disciplinary thing only gets complicated like that if the student denies having done the offense. And under most cases where the teacher presents clear evidence most students don’t deny it, they say “yes I did it,” and then you can do the grade thing and the disciplinary thing. And I think that a good experience with one student is not enough to say that always when a teacher and student work it out together that that’s the best way. There is sometimes one good experience but that doesn’t mean that the student won’t do the same thing again with another teacher, and that’s the benefit of having a form in which the Academic Affairs Office could make a determination, “OK, this is the first time, you have to write the circumstances,” but if it happens three, four, five times it’s important that that be known in the school so that could be disciplined more severely.  

Chair – The plan is to incorporate these comments and then bring the document back to you, I would think in January, if not January, then February, so you’ll see the next version of this policy.  Now, new business. 

Professor Crain (Psychology, City College) – The Student Affairs Committee offers a resolution. (resolution read) 

Chair – Do I have a motion. Let’s have a discussion then. 

Professor Baumrin (Philosophy, The Graduate School and University Center) – The resolve is that the University Faculty Senate request that CUNY in its development of the new Master Plan seriously… Why not just say eliminate the ACT writing test as a barrier to admissions and progress and consider more appropriate alternatives. Why do you want the rest of this stuff? So I’m going to move “in its development of the new Master Plan,” drop “seriously discuss with the Senate” and “the” and change “elimination” to “eliminate” and drop the “of.” That’s my motion. 

Chair – Accepted? Accepted. 

Professor Gallagher (English, LaGuardia Community College) – This document you produced, Bill, the ACT writing test fails, I think is a good first step but I think more information is needed. So far I think it only makes the argument that the test is incorrectly calibrated, that is, the 6 and the 7 seem to show no differentiation. You may remember the WAT test, which is the same scale, was impossible to accept. There was always a third reading, if you had a three and a four it went to a third reader, so you can only get an 8 or 6. I think what we need to do is to look two numbers on either side of the 6’s and 7’s to see if there is a big gap, because that’s what people may come back to us with. And I think there is also a risk here. If there is a big gap between 7 and 8 they may just decide to make 7 a failing score, so I think we need to be aware of that as we pursue this, but I think we need more extensive numbers before we can go ahead with a recommendation to get rid of the test, which I am very sympathetic of. / Professor Crain – It’s been impossible, as you know, to get CUNY, anybody, to meet with us to get any more information on the data presented so far, so we need a way of engaging the central administration. They just will not meet. They will not answer letters, they will not meet, so this is the best we can do; they just refuse, like they refuse to give you data on enrollment ethnic breakdown. / Chair – I’ve been asking for enrollment data. I’m on the union open admissions committee; I sit on it from the UFS. The head of that committee has asked for…/ Professor Cooper – As a faculty Trustee have you asked for this data? / Chair – I have not. /Professor Cooper – Before we say we didn’t get it you ask for it and the next month we say we didn’t get it. 

Professor Gallagher - Can I just follow up and ask Bill for clarification of this table on page 1 where you have ACT writing test scores and then grades and composition. The students who got a 6 most of them would have taken freshman composition in a community college on that table because they wouldn’t have been admitted to a Bachelor’s program? / Professor Crain – They’re ESL and SEEK. / Professor Gallagher – So these are all students at four-year colleges. / Professor Crain – The first table, yes. / Professor Gallagher – And there’s no necessary relationship between freshman comp and the first term totals. That is a lot of students wouldn’t have taken freshman comp in the first term?  

Professor Laraine Fergenson  (Bronx Community College) – First I would like to thank Bill because I really think that there is a lot of discontent with this test, and I speak as one who is a certified grader on this test very familiar with the rubric, and it conflicts with our own departmental standards. One of the things that it says is that students may get a sort of middling adequate grade when there are “numerous errors” on the test and because of this it’s inconsistent with our standards. Right now we’re embroiled in a huge controversy in our department about what to do with this. I would like to make a little friendly amendment. I think the word “suggests” in paragraph 3 ought to be “suggest” to agree with data. But anyway, I really think that it would be wonderful if we could get rid of this test. It really conflicts with good academic practice and good academic standards. 

Professor Fridman (Kingsborough Community College) – I want to just thank Bill and the committee for their fabulous work on this question. And just for people who are not as familiar with the exam I think that some of the discussion of data in a sense obscures the narrowness of the conception of what writing is that forms that exam. It becomes just ridiculous as a teacher of writing and it must be very confusing for students who have a certain amount of trust in their teachers and in the exams of the universities to be presented continuously with little practices that ask you to talk about topics like “there are two proposals before the City Council, one is for more funding for the library and the other one is for more computers and which…,” and this repeats, different formulations of the identical two proposals. It is the narrowest notion of the ways that we prepare students in writing. 

Professor Sohmer (Mathematics, City College) – Since there seems to be some confusion, some mud around what the question is, I would prefer that this resolution be referred to the Executive Committee for return to this body in January, early in February, around there. So it’s a semi-tabling. / Chair – Don’t we have to vote on the original motion of this first? No, OK. It’s not tabling, it’s referring. / Professor Crain – If it’s referred it’s discussable. / Chair – OK, let’s discuss the referral.  

Professor Crain – It’s fine with me but I was under the impression that the deadlines, the Master Plan recommendation is going to go in and I want this…/ Chair – Yes, but it’s not due until the spring and we’re putting in our recommendations. But I think I have a pretty good sense of the group; we just need to get the resolution a little better. Yes or no? How many people are in favor of our referring this to the Executive Committee to be brought back in January? A formal vote if there is enough people to formally vote. / Unidentified - …to be considered by the Executive Committee…some suggestion of what’s going to replace this if we get rid of it…You can’t get rid of something that’s in place without suggesting any testing whatsoever to replace that…

Professor Brijraj Singh (Hostos Community College) – We like everybody else are plagued by this exam. The CUNY WAT for the bad test and I think the ACT is worse. About the question of what the Executive Committee might wish to consider, I think there are at least three issues that I would like to lay before you so that when you talk about this in January they might be things to consider. I think Bill has already mentioned two of these obvious three. One is the issue of validity, the other the issue of reliability. And if I could just explain a little bit what these two things mean in relation to the ACT. The exam does not consist only of one set of questions, the value of sewers versus the value of libraries or whatever the choice happens to be. Sometimes they ask you to talk about a community garden versus a jail. So the first thing that needs to be established is that one set of questions should be no easier and no harder than the other set of questions. And this should happen not only in the course of one particular testing but in the course of the exam all through so that the questions of 2000 were no harder and no easier than the questions of 2003. This kind of data are gathered I’m sure by ACT and by the other people who prepare these exams but I don’t think that these data, technical though they might be, have ever been divulged to the public at large. I would suggest that this is certainly one thing that might be looked at. The other question of course is the question of reliability. Again, to what extent can we use these tests as a reliable indicator of a student’s ability to make certain kinds of progress at the higher levels? Here again the data might be technical but I think we need to look at them and I don’t think that they have been made generally available. And the third thing that you might wish to consider is the fact that there is a certain perception, it may be wrong, that the standards of grading vary from semester to semester and sometimes from borough to borough. I wouldn’t know about the borough to borough but I think the semester to semester variations can be established if we look simply at the number of students who passed this test. Assuming that the students of one given semester are not substantially better or worse than the students of another semester, we would assume that if the students of one semester passed at the rate of 50% in the other semester they would pass at a fairly comparable rate. So when you find suddenly that there is a 10% decline in the pass rate one begins to wonder how reliable or valid or fair this test is. I think these are the three issues that might be looked at by your committee when you consider this.  

Professor Pecorino (Queensborough Community College) – I’m just throwing this into the discussion. No harder, no easier, and yet not the same. I hear that student are reporting to fellow students and some instructors are also reporting it might be a better idea to schedule taking the ACT exam not in the first session, not in the second session, but in the third session. Why would that be? And if there is indeed a difference then this speaks to what I’m talking about, a general program about academic integrity here to be observed by everyone.

Chair – My sense is that it’s going to be referred to the Executive Committee. It will come back in January. Also the recommendations for the Master Plan will come back in January, so you will see what is going on and there will be recommendations about the ACT too. / Professor Kaplowitz – May I also suggest that we add to this a formal directive to you as Chair and as a Trustee to ask for the data about the ACT? / Chair – Yes. Have a wonderful holiday. I think it was a super meeting.