Subject to Senate Approval

 

THE TWO HUNDRED AND SEVENTY FIFTH PLENARY SESSION

OF THE UNIVERSITY FACULTY SENATE

OF THE CITY UNIVERSITY OF NEW YORK

 

January 30, 2001

 

Chair Sohmer called the session to order at 6:30 p.m. in Room 614B of the BMW Building at The John Jay College of Criminal Justice.  Present were Senators from the following campuses:  Baruch:  Hill, McCall and Pollard; BMCC: Friedman, Herz, Neis, Price, and Young; Bronx CC: Gonsher, Read, and Tanaka-Kuwashima; Brooklyn: Antoniello, Bell, Jacobson, Kahan, Shapiro, and Tobey; CCNY: Crain and Sohmer; CSI: Cooper, Foleno, Levine, and Yousef; CUNY Law School: none; Graduate School: Baumrin and King; Hostos CC:  Pam; Hunter: Doss, Kurzman, Sherrill, Steinberg, and Wonsek; John Jay: Bohigian, Kaplowitz, and Alternates E. Davenport and Lanzone; Kingsborough CC: Farrell, Galvin, O’Malley, Richter and Alternate Barnhart; LaGuardia CC: Beaky, Reitano, and Alternate Davidson; Lehman: Bullaro, Feinerman, and Jervis; Medgar Evers: Harris-Hastick and Alternate Leocal; NYC Technical: Cermele, Hounion, Walter, and Alternate Richardson; Queens: Diamond, Kulkarni, and Marshall; Queensborough CC: Greenbaum and Alternate Tully; York: Alternate Necol. Newly elected Senator Manassah attended. Governance Leaders present: Baumrin (GSUC), Feinerman (Lehman), Kaplowitz (John Jay), Levine (CSI), O’Malley (Kingsborough), Perlstein (BMCC), and Tobey (Brooklyn).  Excused were Senators Philipp and Rodriguez.  CUNY Faculty members Jones (Hostos) and Dahbany-Miraglia (QCC) attended.   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 Minutes of December 12, 2000: The Minutes were approved as distributed. 

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

a.       Chair (oral).

b.      Chancellor (oral).

c.       Representatives of the Board Committees (written). 

IV.              New Business:

a.       Research Committee: 

Professor Kahan (liaison) presented a report on funding of the PSC-CUNY Award Program.  It recommends funding be increased to $4.4M at minimum to cover the cost of inflation since 1998.  An additional $325,000 is recommended as a supplement for newly hired and junior faculty.  Further, it cites that the real value of the average PSC-CUNY grant has declined nearly 32% since 1996.  The report was prepared in July and forwarded to PSC President Bowen for contract negotiations. Although received favorably, the item did not appear on the demands posted on the PSC web-site.  Professor McCall noted that it was demand #155 in the final written text.  The committee requested the item be given more focus.  See Reports & Deliberations for full discussion. 

Professor Richardson, Chair of Research Committee, asked Senators to nominate colleagues to become liaisons to the PSC-CUNY Award Program.  An additional $1,500 was added to the final year of the in-service allotment, which brings the total allotment to $6,000.  Faculty are needed in the following areas:  Chemistry, Earth & Environmental Science, Engineering, Ethnic & Area Studies, History, Library, Linguistics, Speech & Hearing, Communication Arts & Sciences, Mathematics, Music & Musicology, Performing Arts Production & Scholarship, Political Science, Law & Criminal Justice. 

b.      Resolution on Americans with Disabilities Act:  Professor Kaplowitz presented the following resolution on behalf of the Senate’s ADA Committee.  

Resolution to Assure True Faculty Representation on Campus ADA Committees

Resolved, that the UFS requests that the Chancellory direct each college to have the faculty members in its 504/ADA Committee selected by the campus’ faculty governance body or its equivalent. 

Approved unanimously.   See Reports & Deliberations for full discussion.

 c.       Update on ACT Testing:  See Reports & Deliberations.

 There being no further business, the meeting was adjourned at 8:20 P.M.

Respectfully submitted, 

Bill Phipps

Executive Director

Subject to Senate Approval

 

REPORTS & DELIBERATIONS

OF THE TWO HUNDRED AND SEVENTY FIFTH PLENARY SESSION

OF THE UNIVERSITY FACULTY SENATE

OF THE CITY UNIVERSITY OF NEW YORK 

January 30, 2001

 a. Chair: There was to be an appointment of a president of Hunter College.  The search committee put forth four names.  There was some manipulation in the search committee as evidenced by some of the testimony.  The Chancellor put forth the name, the Chairman of the Board moved to alter that name, and the Trustees then voted as to who should be the President of Hunter College.  It was clear from conversations, which were held during the last week, that the Trustees were under extreme pressure from political folks, primarily the Mayor and the Governor.  It was not necessarily direct; they have people who do these things for them.  Some of the Trustees were eager recipients of this advice.  Some of the Trustees were very unhappy with it, but decided that they would have to go along with it.  All of the Trustees who were called, except Michael Crimmins, who I don’t think either the Mayor or the Governor has any influence over, were in various ways threatened and intimidated.  Some of them were courageous enough not to care.  During this public session, Trustee Crimmins publicly objected to the extraordinary political pressure that was placed on the members of the Board.  

I would like to read you the list of those Trustees who did what their conscience told them was appropriate.   Student representative, Michael Anglin, Trustee Monsignor Crimmins, Trustee Ron Marino, Trustee John Morning, Trustee Ken Cook, and the Vice Chair, Trustee Benno Schmidt.  The Vice Chair made a passionate and rational argument as to why it was more advisable to appoint the candidate the Chancellor recommended, than the one the Mayor wanted.    

The major difficulty that some of us see, besides the fact that Hunter may have problems, is with the candidate.   The candidate herself is very smart and personable, but with not an iota of experience in education.  This terrible method of operating is clear.  There are articles in each of the papers today, most of which are reasonably accurate.  There will be an article in the next issue of The Chronicle.  There is no shyness by the news people in their writing.  I’m sure that some of the people will talk to the reporters.  The problem is that there are several other searches going on.   There is one for City College.  There will shortly be one for Queens.  It is clear that the well has been poisoned.  Sensible people, I presume, will stay away from this venue for presidencies.  On the other hand, as one of our wiser Trustees explained, all presidential candidates are fungible, and all we have to do is pick up the candidates who didn’t get the presidency at Hunter and put them at the other campuses, and it should work out very well.            

Just one more item before the Chancellor gets here.  The six names I read you and the Chancellor all behaved very well for this.  Some of the people who voted against the Chancellor, in private, made statements that there is nothing personal about this.  It is just politics as usual.  The Chancellor can’t feel great about the lack of support.  One of the arguments that Schmidt used was that we owe it to the Chancellor to vote for who he recommends. 

I attended a meeting of the SUNY Senate last weekend in New Paltz.  The President of New Paltz will be leaving soon.  He is a good guy, and he is the one who stood the burden of the attack by the Board of Trustees because of the Feminist Symposium on the New Paltz campus.  There was a lengthy discussion about the SUNY budget.  We either lead or follow things that happen to SUNY.  They are now in the position of doing differential tuition for their professional schools.  That is an important new step in the tuition game, which we entered into in 1975.  At the moment they have been empowered, and therefore will probably charge higher tuition for medical schools and law schools than for their other activities.   Therefore, as far as the faculty are concerned, this will also happen to other programs which have not yet been determined.  If it doesn’t happen this year, it will happen in years to come.  They are terribly worried about driving out many of their doctoral programs.  If the tuition goes up for some of their doctoral programs, they are no longer in the game because they are not funded very well.  Their fellowship programs are miniscule.  That is the news from up North. 

Professor Cooper (History, College of Staten Island) – “What was the position of the SUNY faculty on the differential tuition? At one point they were supportive.  Have they changed their mind?” / Chair Sohmer – No, they are still essentially supportive, but worried.  They are supportive because they think they should do that.  They are worried because they think it will be a disaster for the doctoral programs, if it moves over to the doctoral programs. 

 b. Chancellor:  Tomorrow I am going to be in Albany at the Joint Assembly Ways and Means Committee and the Senate Finance Committee.  I will be testifying about the Governor’s Executive Budget and where we see our deficiencies, and what kinds of corrections and considerations we need in order to proceed.  The approach I am going to take is something that I have said over and over again.  It goes back to a planning document, the Master Plan.  It is the operative piece of architecture that is a lens on our future.  The budget that we proposed and the Board approved was submitted to the Governor.  It goes right through the Master Plan and sets dollars associated with implementing the Master Plan.   It is a budget that will extend over a four-year period. 

 What we have received from the Governor’s Executive Budget is approximately $21 million over and beyond our current base budget.  Relative to last year, which was a blip up, this is a major blip up.   However, it is far from what we need to implement the Master Plan in the absence of additional funding; this will be my testimony before the Joint Committee.  I will lay out what our legislative plans are going to be.  The budget as proposed by the Executive for the senior colleges of approximately $21 million is, in reality, only about $9.1 million in additional money.  I am not trying to be confusing, but you are blending cost accounting and cash based accounting.  You have to be a little careful in terms of how you talk about the numbers so that you understand what they are.  We received money last year from the Legislature for full-time faculty.  We didn’t spend all of the money we needed, because it was spent on a cash basis.  This means, you spend when you need to pay the salaries.  So it is not as if you start the fiscal year saying I need $5 million, and you spend it all now, and all of those dollars are allocated.  The presidents are given their lines, and then they start allocating them to their divisions or departments, and then people hire throughout the year, so you don’t need all that money.  All of the money was actually placed into our operating budget base.  That’s critically important. 

 The second thing that was very important in the budget the Governor gave was the cost of annualization.  It is not just based on a cash basis, but we now have the full annualized costs which are built into our budget.  That is significant because we haven’t seen that in awhile.  In addition, Baruch College is opening up a brand new facility.  It is an academic complex.  It is about an 800,000 gross square foot building.  In many ways it is probably the equivalent of six buildings on a campus.   They are going to need approximately $6.3 million to pay the costs for people to run that building.  They have to pay for custodians, plant tenders, electricians, etc.  Also built into this budget is money for fringe benefit costs and mandatory costs for increments.  All of that is placed into the budget.  What I am really referring to is new programmatic dollars.  When you net out everything I have just said, we have a little over $9 million in true new programmatic costs.  What we will do is line out that $9.1 million and see where our deficiencies are.  We will go back to the Master Plan and see where our priorities are. 

 Our priority first and foremost is hiring full-time faculty.  We will go to the Legislature and say what we have said for the past couple of years.  We will point out that you cannot have a prominent university without having a cohort of full-time faculty, well beyond the cohort of full-time faculty that we have here in the University.   We have asked for about 300 lines this year.   If we allocate all of the $9 million for full-time faculty on a cash basis we can hire a lot of faculty.  We need to hire faculty, but we need to do a lot of other things as well.   We will also revert to the Master Plan.

 The Executive Budget also proposes, as it did last year, statutory changes to authorize CUNY and SUNY to establish campus based graduate and professional tuition rates.  This is something that was pushed by SUNY.  We are going to take a look at that.  You have to be very careful during a budget process, because we are certainly not going to interfere with what it is that we need.  It is something that will give us some flexibility. 

 On the community college side, the State has proposed keeping the FTE support for community colleges at the $2,250 level.  We asked, like SUNY, for a $175 increase in base aid.  It was not supported at SUNY or CUNY.  Chancellor King and I are going to use this in tandem to see if we can get consideration.   It is going to be very high on our agenda.   The Legislature last year gave $2.8 million for new community college faculty positions.  The Governor took out $2.8 million and that included $2 million for faculty, $560,000 for childcare, and about $190,000 for College Discovery.  We know that is the base we start from, and we are going to start building up as we get into the legislative process.

 I haven’t seen what the financial plans over the past few years have looked like for the community colleges.  But for the first time that I am aware of there is a very real addition of $5.5 million for faculty, and $5 million for College Now.  In the recent meeting with the Mayor, I made it clear that we need dollars.  We talked about the faculty piece and a few other things.   That is where this is now.  We are actually seeing it in the financial plan.  In the financial plan we see money for full-time faculty and College Now.  The City this year started discussions with us on the PEG reduction of around $6 million.  That would have to be taken out of the community college budgets this particular year.  When you annualize that cost, it would have been a horrific hit on the community college side.  We petitioned the City and they reduced that $6 million down to $1.6 million.  The Council said they would participate and provide $600,000 toward that $1.6 million.  We are looking still at a PEG reduction for this year of $1 million for all of the community colleges.  That has still not been resolved. 

 If you look in the financial plan, the PEG reductions do not look friendly.  This is a very opaque lens on what the future is going to be.   People are estimating a softening of the economy, which means less tax revenues.  You need to layer in the tax cuts.  We are looking at substantial cuts, which is the case across all agencies.  The other issue that is looming out there is energy costs, which have risen in recent months.  We have had a very cold early January, and a very cold December.  That has played havoc, not only in the northeast but around the world, on both natural gas and oil prices.  We are concerned on the energy price side, but not so much for the City.  The City actually built in a better lens on what costs are going to be.  The State was a little less accurate in what the anticipated rises would be.  We are concerned about that, and we are going to have to look at it very closely.  The other thing that the Mayor did in this financial plan is to take the Merit Scholarship Program out again.  This is a Peter Vallone program that has been very much a staple. 

 The last thing that I will mention is that we are in the 30-day amendment period to the Governor’s budget.  There are three areas where we have asked for restoration.   $2.7 million dollars was pulled out of the SEEK Program.  I expect that that money will be put back in.  There was a reduction of about $1.4 million in childcare money that was also a Legislative add-on to the Governor’s budget.  That was also pulled out of our base.  Lastly, the Queens College Center for Worker Education money, which was a little under $400,000, was taken out.  There will be an effort to get that money back in.  This gives you a sense of where we are, and the things that I am very much focused on right now.  We have a full agenda.  I am going to need the active support of this body.  This is a year when we really ought to get out there in a very significant coordinated way, to see that this budget is finally put to bed in a way that’s going to be helpful, and not hurtful to this University. 

 I’ve already met with the leadership in the Assembly and with the leadership in the Senate.  I’ve met with a number of the senators on the Republican side in New York.  We are going to continue with borough-wide meetings with legislators.   We are going to have our CUNY Legislative Action Council making lots of efforts.  We are going to have a Board meeting in Albany on March 12-13.  We will go with the full Board and meet with the members of the Assembly and the Senate.  For the first time, we will be coordinating certain things with SUNY.  Part of the problem that we have had with full-time faculty is that SUNY has never asked for full-time faculty.  If we are asking alone, it is very hard to get this kind of consideration.  We are going to start seeing some of that moving ahead.   We are going to see some coordination on base aid for community colleges.  We are going to see coordination on academic technology and economic development.   

 Economic development was really very much a corner piece of the Governor’s Executive Budget.  Executive Vice Chancellor Louise Mirrer, Cathy Wolde, the new President of the New York City Partnership, will be in Albany next week.  Louise has really taken the lead in the University on the whole issue of how this University can participate in a lot of money that is out there under the rubric of economic development.  Whether it is NYSTAR, or the NY State Economic Development Corporation, there is a lot of money.  I call it “off-balance sheet money.”  It is parked in these agencies, and we’ve got to get there and pluck some of it.  Louise was very successful with our new Software Institute in getting a NYSTAR grant with our efforts in photonics.  We got the only two grants in New York City.  That is a statement that we are really moving ahead.  We have to think in different ways.  I’ve said this to the presidents over and over again.  I need to say this to the faculty as well.  We cannot only rely, as a one asset institution, on either the City side or on the State side.  We really have to be out there looking for ways to find revenue streams that will support the operating budgets on our campuses.  I believe that we are going to be very successful this year on the federal level. 

 In two weeks I will be going to Washington, D.C. to meet with Hillary Clinton and Charles Schumer.  I will be accompanied by Harold Levy and Randy Weingarten.  We will discuss the whole notion of a teacher empowerment zone.  This is an area that we think will have great impact on the way that we prepare teachers for the schools.  We’re going to be looking for some big money.  We started this process this year, and we got about $1.2 million to support it.  We are going to be doing a lot more.  Under Louise’s direction, with Dean John Mogulescu, we’ve just gotten about $12 million from the Human Resource Administration to do a lot of training.  You’ve heard me talk about presidents that we hire, and presidents that are here now, who really have to spend a lot of time outside the campus doing what they can to raise money.  They must bring those dollars back to cover the deficiencies in our budget.  We are just taking very different approaches than have been taken before around the University.  I suspect that if we pull this together and do it right, and really bring this University into the mainstream, we will see growth in our operating budgets.  Let me stop here.   I will be happy to take any questions on any issues.  Questions can also be directed to Louise Mirrer or Rick Schaffer.

              Chair Sohmer – One bit of information that I don’t think the Chancellor yet knows, which I learned upstate over the weekend -- somebody from the Governance Office said that the energy problem is going to be a supplemental budget item.   Everybody is supporting it, which should take part of the curse off that element.

              Professor Levine (Engineering Science and Physics, College of Staten Island) – “Chancellor Goldstein, you had proposed to the Board of Trustees a Budget Request that called for approximately $100 million in new money.  The Board of Trustees approved this Request.  I am very pleased that you are going up to Albany to argue for your Request.  Do you have the support of the Board of Trustees? Since they are such obedient political figures, shouldn’t there be some quid pro quo?” / Chancellor Goldstein – They approved the Budget Request. / Professor Levine – “Are they accompanying you to Albany to fight for this?” / Chancellor Goldstein – I mentioned that we are having a Board visit to Albany on March 12th-13th. 

              Professor Crain (Psychology, City College) – “Congratulations on your principled recommendation with respect to Hunter College.  Since we get one question, I will say the question that I won’t ask, which has to do with the ridiculously exorbitant tuition and suffering our community college students go through.  That should be part of the Budget Request.  On September 27, 1999, the Board passed a resolution.  Initially the Mayor’s Office said that they wouldn’t even fund the City Budget unless they passed this resolution.  He was then taken to court over that, and the judge said that he can’t hold a budget hostage.  The Board approved this resolution anyway.  The resolution states, “be it resolved that all colleges shall use common objective tests reflecting national norms and other assessments as deemed necessary, to determine when students who have been placed in remedial course work qualify for exit from remediation.”  It goes on and has an explanation about how students may need more advanced preparation.  Couldn’t this be read in a way that says that colleges have a right to exercise best practices with respect to placement, and use multiple measures, such as portfolios, course grades, and samples of a student’s work.  It says, colleges should use a common objective test, and other assessments as deemed necessary.  Do we have that opening?” /

          Chancellor Goldstein – Let me respond very quickly.  When I came in as Chancellor in September of 1999, I asked Louise Mirrer very directly, what is the status of all of our tests?  I know a little about the analytical side of it, but not much about tests in general.  She indicated that we really needed to do something dramatic about the test that we had in place.  I think everybody in this room knows that the tests were highly compromised.  It was very difficult for anybody who knew anything about tests and measurements to say that the tests that were in place were able to address very basic challenges of reliability and predictability.  We replaced those tests with nationally normed tests.  The tests that we are using now are ACT tests, along with a home-grown mathematics test.  That’s where we are now.  With respect to how students are able to get into baccalaureate programs, this was in part a result of your pleading in this body and other bodies.  We said that there would be committees of faculty and others on each of our campuses that would actually use those kinds of determinants for students who we felt had value, but were not really shown to have that value through these standardized tests.  I think it worked very effectively.  It worked on the City College campus, and it has worked well on other campuses.  We will continue to do this.  I don’t think one test, unto itself, is the best way to assess a student.

            Professor Bell (Educational Services, Brooklyn College) – “Last Tuesday at the Executive Committee I asked you a question about the 30-day amendment period.  You said that we weren’t going to pursue items during the 30-day amendment period because there didn’t seem to be any errors in the budget.  This evening you said that we were going to pursue the same things that I was thinking about that day, in terms of SEEK, childcare, and Worker Education.  What has changed your opinion and how can we support it?” / Chancellor Goldstein – Childcare, SEEK, and the Queens College Worker Education Program have been staples of this University for a very long time.  Where we will get consideration will be during the Legislative session. / Professor Bell – “I just think that it is a distraction during the budget process, if we are spending so much time restoring the money.  If it could be restored earlier, that would be less of a distraction.” / Chancellor Goldstein – It would be, but life at the City University is very distracting. 

              Professor Friedman (Developmental Skills, Borough of Manhattan Community College) – “I have a question about some of the figures you mentioned.   There was a $1 million PEG reduction for the community colleges.  I don’t know if I caught this: you said that there is a big grant of $12 million, which is going to be used for training.  You didn’t say teaching, you didn’t say educating, you said training.  Maybe it is just a semantic or linguistic thing with me.  What is that money for? Is that continuing education?” / Chancellor Goldstein – It is basically continuing education.  These are not degree programs.  This is a specific kind of training needed by personnel connected with HRA.   What we are trying to do is to build these more substantive bridges to other organizations that will give value to the University.   This is something that will add great benefit to the University.  However, it does not reflect on the actual academic programs that lead to a degree. / Professor Friedman – “What about using it for remediation purposes or ESL?” / Chancellor Goldstein – Why I think this is important is that it builds bridges from the University to areas where there are people who may not be reflecting on CUNY.  The degree to which we can engage them, get them excited about learning, developing skills, etc., is a good investment.  I think it is a good investment to see if we can get these students as degree students.  Oftentimes it happens.  I think it is a good way to build the University’s presence in the City.

              Professor O’Malley (English, Kingsborough Community College) – “I wanted to ask you about part-time TAP.  It was my understanding that last year there were three pilot programs for students using part-time TAP.  The idea was to see if we could establish if it financially made sense, because students would complete more credits, not having to take the required 12 credits.” / Chancellor Goldstein – Louise, do you know anything about that? / Vice Chancellor Mirrer – As far as we are concerned, the pilot will be continued until next year.  There weren’t as many participants as we had anticipated.   We’re monitoring the progress of those students. / Professor O’Malley – “How many colleges are participating?” / Vice Chancellor Mirrer – I will provide you with all of the data.  The program is limited to upper division students.  The population controls include those students who have already demonstrated that they are committed to moving forward. / Professor O’Malley – “How many students?” / Vice Chancellor Mirrer – There are a few hundred students in the pilot.  I can’t remember the exact figure, but I have all of the data, and I will give it to you.

              Professor Pam (English, Hostos Community College) – “I have a question which may just be local, as opposed to University-wide.  One of the main concerns we have at Hostos is trying to help our students meet our basic academic standards, and to pass the test.  We are doing this not only through our classroom instruction, but through our Tutoring Center.  We have not had anything like a functioning Tutoring Center for most of the 15 years that I have been at Hostos.  There may have been only one or two years where I thought that we had enough tutors in the Tutoring Center.   When we raised this issue at the Faculty Senate, the answer we have received for the past two years has been, “Well, we had a grant, the grant ran out, we applied for another grant and we didn’t get it.”  I said, “I don’t understand why tutoring is something funded out of grants.  I thought that it was part of a basic educational plan.”  Shouldn’t there be a certain sum that comes out of a student’s tuition that goes to support services of this sort? With all of these tests, we have to work very hard trying to get students to pass the tests.  Without tutoring and that kind of support it is really unfair.” /

          Chancellor Goldstein – There are dollars for academic support services, which were built into our base, in an amount of about $7.1 million.  The dollars were allocated to the campuses.  Is it enough? No.  It is supplemented in a variety of ways depending upon what college we are talking about.  I remember when I was at Baruch, we raised a lot of money, and we put it into tutoring centers.  That helped in a dramatic way.  That is also the case at Hunter, Brooklyn, and at other campuses as well.  I don’t know the specific local situation at Hostos.  I know that we do supply Hostos with academic support service money through the dollars we received in our budget.  It may not be sufficient for your needs.  It is something that we need to take a look at. /

         Professor Pam – “The amount of money that used to be put into the English Department budget, which was earmarked ‘tutoring’, was all we ever had in the budget.  That amount is one-fourth what it was 5-6 years ago.” / Chancellor Goldstein – I think at Hostos -- because of the dramatic reduction in student base, which is reflected in tuition dollars -- there is less money.  This is what you are really seeing the result of.  What we need to do is get more students at Hostos. / Professor Pam – “We are working very hard to do that, but we like to pass the ones we have.” / Chancellor Goldstein – I agree, and I hope you keep the ones you have, too.

              Professor Baumrin (Philosophy, The Graduate Center) – “It is very discouraging, as you undoubtedly revealed yourself, after a considerable amount of effort to select a candidate, to be turned down.  You are not the only one in those shoes.  I would appreciate it if you could address the issue to the larger University community.  Faculty members serve on search committees for presidents, for senior administrators at the Central Office, and also for administrators at the campuses.  To have those recommendations, after a considerable amount of effort, turned down, sits very badly.” /

          Chancellor Goldstein – I assume that you are referring to the most recent Hunter situation.  I don’t think anybody was happy with what happened at Hunter.  I am not talking about who was ultimately appointed.  That is almost a side-bar issue.  The whole process itself was one that all of us felt was not an optimal process.  Yes, hundreds of hours of people time and a lot of money was spent on these searches.  We hire top executive recruiters, we pay travel expenses, people are put up at hotels, there are dinners, and a whole variety of things.  This particular search, I think, was really unique in recent years.  In my administration, we have had five presidents appointed.  I don’t think that this is a good example of how searches have traditionally run. 

          We have two very high profile searches, one at City going on now, and one that I am going to announce very soon at Queens College.  We are going to have other searches in the next 2-3 years.  The thing that I am deeply concerned about is the public view that a search is not a legitimate activity at City University.  That will cause a chilling effect throughout higher education.  It will be important to us in our ability to attract the most able people.  At this search, we attracted a very good pool of people.  I think that Jennifer Raab is going to need a lot of help from the administration, faculty, and others.  I think she is a very fine person.  She is a very bright woman and very well educated.  At this particular point, we do have a president, and we really have to show that president support.  Ultimately the thing that we should be reflecting on is not so much the president, but the students, the life of learning on that campus, and the way in which there is a vitality and excitement about what that institution means in this University.  We have to look forward, and that is what I am going to be doing.

          Professor Manassah (Electrical Engineering, City College) – “We talked a little bit last time about what the role is of the flagship programs that we keep hearing about.  Since that time I went and did a little homework.  I picked up the catalog, which to my understanding is to a great extent a contract between the University and the entering student.  I looked with respect to the past five years.  I looked at all of the courses that have been offered.   I chose at random five programs with which I am familiar within the field of engineering.  In none of those programs have we fulfilled our obligation.  Many core courses that should have been offered, so that students who enter these programs can graduate, were not offered.  This occurred even in some of those areas where we are talking about flagship.  I understand that there are some financial constraints, and all kinds of other reasons.  We commit ourselves to certain programs, advertise them, include them in our catalog, and recruit students, but don’t offer the courses.  I remember that you said to one of my colleagues, “get more students.”  The students I am referring to are in Master’s programs.  You can get more students when students believe when they join the program that within a reasonable amount of time, for example a two-year cycle, the core courses in those degrees will be offered.  They are not being offered.  I will be very happy to supply the academic department with evidence to that.  Last time we agreed on the same topic, that if we want to have a flagship program, you have to have an educational program that goes with it.  Having done my homework, I come back here to tell you that it hasn’t.” /

          Chancellor Goldstein – I would agree with you.  It is not just at City College in Engineering.  We are a very poorly funded University.  That is something that needs to be said over and over again.  The fact is we lose students to other universities, in part, because students are not able to make satisfactory progress toward their degrees.  This occurs because students are not able to get the courses they need.  It is a ubiquitous problem that is not going to be resolved until we get better funding for this University.   That is something that all of us have to be loud and clear about.  We have to make sure that these resources are delivered.  That is the foundation.  Thinking about the University as an integrated University says to me that when you go to City College to take a course, and City College does not give that course, and you need that course to graduate, the covenant that we ought to strike is that someplace in the University that course is going to be made available to you in a reasonable amount of time.  I don’t think that is an unreasonable kind of thing for us to force upon ourselves.  Nor do I think that it is an unreasonable thing for us to deliver.  Unless we start thinking about it in this way, all other things remaining equal, this problem is never going to go away.  The notion of flagship is embedded in this notion of sharing resources. 

            Professor Cooper (History, College of Staten Island) – “Al Levine at the outset of the question period pointed out that about $100 million was requested by you and the Board for next year.  You report that the Governor is offering $9 million.” / Chancellor Goldstein – No, it’s about $20 million. / Professor Cooper – “There is a gap.   What is a reasonable number for those of us who will come after you tomorrow on the speaker list, when we are asked by Ed Sullivan, or Denny Farrell, ‘What do you need?’  What is a reasonable number to answer?” / Chancellor Goldstein – I think the answer is that the University has a planning document, and the cost of fully implementing that planning document is what you see in the budget message.  The Governor approved this, the Board approved this, everybody approved this planning document.  The planning document really says, in 2001 we are here, in 2002-2003 we want to get here.  I know that we are not going to get all of it.  We are going to have to pare down some of the areas of the Master Plan.  We are going to need a lot more money than what the Governor has proposed.  / Professor Cooper –“Somebody is going to ask us for a ballpark number, even off the record.” / Chancellor Goldstein – Just as a friendly piece of advice, I really think we have to have the same voice here.  The number is the number in the budget message.  I wouldn’t say, well, if you can give us another $5 million we will be happy and leave you alone.  Or if you give us another $15 million we will be happy.  I think what you need to say is for the first time in this University the budget message was directly aligned with the Master Plan.  We have differences in this room about what is within that Master Plan.  However, I think all of us agree that the front of that Master Plan is about full-time faculty.  We front-loaded it with full-time faculty this year.  I think the number was 300; we have to stick with that number.  I wouldn’t start negotiating numbers down with people, because they will hear a number and that’s what you will get.

IV. New Business.

  1. Action Agenda from Research Committee:

     Professor Kahan (Political Science, Brooklyn College) – This is information and an action agenda from the Research Committee, for which I am the liaison from the Executive Committee.  There is a document out on the table dated July 14, 2000.  It discusses the PSC-CUNY research award funds.  The PSC has not put an increase in PSC-CUNY funds on their list of contractual demands.   The Research Committee feels that we should try to make the argument for this to be added to the list of demands in our current contract negotiations.  The tables in this document tell us the story.  Since 1988 inflation has eroded the PSC-CUNY fund by about 35% in actual money that is available.  If this year’s allotment of a little bit over $3 million had kept up with inflation since 1988, it would be a bit over $4 million today.   That would be stasis with 1988.  We believe it should be more than that.  We have a couple of arguments in favor of it that we are trying to mount and communicate to the PSC leadership. 

     First, we are finally recruiting new faculty in measurable numbers.   The availability of research grants is a very important amenity that we are trying to offer them.  Other universities in our own region give, along with the appointment, substantial research money to most new faculty.  Secondly, we have to recognize the fact that adjuncts have largely been “sheltered from” access to PSC-CUNY grants.  One of the proposals that we are also suggesting to the PSC union leadership is that for part-time faculty who have put in a certain amount of time, there will be a set-aside for those part-time people to get research grants.  This is so that they can build a record, do some research, be more fully participatory in University life, and mount their own intellectual resume so they can compete for full-time jobs.  We think that this is an important item, and it should not be ignored in the contract negotiations.  Research and research grants are essential for the intellectual life of the University.   We are going to, as gently as we can, advocate to the PSC leadership that this item be added to the list of negotiable items in this current contract negotiation. 

     Professor McCall (English, Baruch College) – I have the contract demands and proposals with me.  Number 155 says, “The PSC-CUNY funds shall be substantially increased.  Awards may be used for two courses of release time for community college faculty, and one course release for senior college faculty.”

    Professor Levine (Engineering Science and Physics, College of Staten Island) – “I’d like to make a comment relating to the report of the Research Committee on the PSC-CUNY grants.  I support their proposal that the amount be increased.  However, I would like to report to this body that the University Faculty Senate Budget Advisory Committee received a proposal from Stefan Baumrin relating to providing money in the budget for Chancellor’s Fellows, which would provide a full-year of research support for a certain number of un-tenured faculty, so that they could develop a serious research program during their probationary period.  This is separate from the PSC-CUNY.  The Chancellor actually liked the proposal, but in the context of the budget cuts, it is doubtful whether this proposal will survive.  I believe that we should fight for this, too.  Unfortunately the PSC-CUNY, even with the recommendation for the increase, does not provide adequate support to a junior faculty member to develop a serious research program.” 

          Chair Sohmer – Could your committee bring it back to the floor of this body for endorsement? 

 b.      Resolution on Americans with Disabilities Act

          Professor Kaplowitz (English, John Jay College) – “This is the document that was outside.  It is a one-sentence resolution.  This is being proposed by the Executive Committee at the request of the University Faculty Senate Committee on Disability Issues.  Since the Executive Committee supports this, we are presenting it to the body.  It says,

          Resolved that the University Faculty Senate requests that the Chancellery direct each college to have the faculty members on its 504 Americans with                  Disabilities Act Committee selected by the campus faculty governance body, or its equivalent. 

    The co-chairs of the committee are Sandra Neis and Don Davidson, who are here.  The 504 ADA Committee on each campus comprises many people, the facility officer, deans, students, staff, HEOs, and faculty.  The ones who usually have the ability to be most vocal and active about issues of access for students, faculty, staff, and visitors are tenured faculty.  The faculty who tend to be appointed to the ADA 504 committees on the campuses, however, are the most vulnerable faculty, the most junior, least vocal, or most out of the loop.  If per chance some very vigorous member of the faculty is appointed, they get knocked off the next year.   We are proposing that  the faculty members on each campus committee be selected by the appropriate faculty governance body, or its equivalent, not any of the other members.   They won’t be selected by the chair, facility staff, or by the students.  At all of the campuses except two, the ADA 504 director, who is the chair of the committee, is someone who serves at the pleasure of the president.  Therefore the chair is not always free to appoint faculty who are the most appropriate.  The two exceptions are Don Davidson and Tamara Green, who is the Chair of the Hunter College Committee.   We present this for your action and approval.

              Chair Sohmer – Is there a second? Is there any discussion?  All of those in favor of calling the question please say “aye”.  All those against?   The question is now called, would you please signify support by saying “aye.”  Against? Any abstentions?  It is unanimous.

              Professor Kaplowitz – Thank you on behalf of the committee, some of whose members are here.  They waited to here this, so thank you.

 c.       Update on ACT Testing

 Professor Beaky (English, LaGuardia Community College) – I just wanted to give some information on the December administration of the ACT Reading and Writing Tests.  There were two multiple choice tests, Asset Reading and Asset Writing.   The latter didn’t count this time, but it will.  They also took the ACT Essay Test, which did count. 

     This is the information we have from CUNY:  9,700 students took the Essay Test, and 6,370 took the Reading Test.  Placement data for students entering in Spring 2001 are not available, since all of that will continue at least through February.  On the ACT Essay Test, the passing rate CUNY-wide was 47.5%.  These are preliminary figures.  These are the students who took it in December as an exit exam from remediation.  On the Asset Reading Test, when the passing score was 40, approximately 25% of those students passed.  What happened was that they lowered the score from 40 to 36.  I don’t have anything here now about how many students passed under a score of 36.  The change was made during this month in January while students had already been told that they didn’t pass.  Some of them were registered for special expresses, and some of the students couldn’t take classes -- for example, at LaGuardia we have a six-week session where students can take classes.  Several students were unable to take classes because they were told they had failed, but now they have been told that they passed and can go into English 101.  There is a lot of confusion.  I know that my chairperson has had to change her instructions to my department since September maybe three or four times on all sorts of things. 

     Why were the Asset Reading Test scores so low? These are some of the reasons that were given.  The test is nationally-normed on Midwestern, middle class, community college students.  The fact that the test is timed is a huge factor.  Also, the questions are exclusively literal -- sometimes if you are educated and know how to take these, they actually tell you not to read the passages.  Instead you are to look at the questions, and then skim for the actual answer.  Our students may not have known that.  They may have wasted time actually reading the passage.  After all, this is a Reading Asset Test!  The first of the three selections was actually the most difficult -- not the best way to administer a test.  It is multiple choice, and necessitates a strategy to pass.  You may not be up on it if you never took ACT or SAT prep classes.  The Chancellor mentioned the lack of reliability and validity for the tests we used to have, the C-WAT and the C-RAT.  The reliability and the validity of the ACT are no better than for the tests we had before.

    [Unidentified Speaker] – Two questions, what was the consequence of lowering the score from 40 to 36?” / Chair Sohmer – We don’t know. / Professor Beaky – We also don’t know what the enrollments are for the spring for English 101.  We do know that the projected enrollments, and some of the actual enrollments for Composition 101, were low, and that was the reason the Reading score was lowered.  Students were not getting into Composition 101, and those classes were not filling up.  I don’t have facts and figures on specific campuses, but that was the motivation for lowering the score. / [Unidentified Speaker] – “The other part of the question is, could you put these passing rates in the context of previous passing rates?  How do they compare, this 47.5% and 45%?” / Professor Beaky – There is a lot of anecdotal information.  Some people feel that these passing rates are lower, and some people feel that they are higher.  One point that I would make is that it doesn’t matter -- the tests are still not valid and reliable.   I don’t know whether or not we have concrete information about that.  I do know that they think that the Writing Asset Test passing rates were similar to the Writing Asset Test passing rates on the pilot that took place during the spring and the summer.

    [Unidentified Speaker] – “I was under the impression that there was no unique passing grade for the ACT.  I thought that the grade of 40 was established by a pilot study that involved an apparently small number of self-selected students.  Is it possible that the pilot study was not representative of the CUNY student body as a whole, and therefore a grade of 40 was meaningless?” / [2nd Unidentified Speaker] – They used that pilot for standards setting and they did set a passing score with the pilot group.

          Professor Beaky - In the pilot, about 25% also passed.  Actually the results of the pilot are quite similar to those of the actual test.  Students took the Writing Asset multiple-choice editing test, but it is not going to count yet.  However, I was told that on February 1st there will be a meeting of the Advisory Group.  That part of the Asset is going to count and be given a weight.   The Advisory Group will be deciding or recommending how much weight that multiple choice test should be given, and there will be three separate scores.  Students will get a Reading Asset score, a Writing Asset score, and an Essay score.  I’ve said many times that I think phase two is data collection.   I think they are going to say that the ACT Essay and the Asset multiple choice tests are completely correlated, so we don’t really need the Essay -- we can just go to the multiple choice.  When I brought this up I was told that this won’t happen.   However, I think that it is a real threat.   They will be testing an ESL Compass multiple-choice test.  It will be an un-timed instrument given in the Spring.

           [Unidentified Speaker off-microphone:  Question about students at some campuses being allowed to take courses like Sociology before passing skills tests.]

     Professor Beaky – If you are asking me, this is my idea.  I don’t represent any of this.  Can we use the word “pre-requisites?”  I think that there is a real issue there.  I don’t have a problem with that.  I don’t think that the students should be able to take Sociology without being able to read or write at a college level.  I don’t think that that is defensible, but we wouldn’t have anyone in our classes.  Chair Sohmer – At many campuses the first writing course is a pre-requisite to enter a course like Sociology 101.  Schools are unique, and this may be different from campus to campus.

    Professor Cooper (History, College of Staten Island) – “Is there some way that we can ask Vice Chancellor Mirrer’s Office for some kind of study to follow the students who have been admitted to regular classes?” / Chair Sohmer – That has been asked.  Theoretically they are doing it. / Professor Cooper – “Can we get a clue as to what happens to them?” / Chair Sohmer – Their trajectory has been asked for.

    Professor Crain (Psychology, City College) – “As for the timing, how many of us read with a clock while doing our scholarly work?  Do we give ourselves only two minutes to read a passage and think about it?  It is very artificial.  Students of color are known to do significantly better when you take off the time limit.  Secondly, the National Council of Teachers of English strongly recommends that you never make any decision on the basis of a single test with respect to writing.  You always should use other assessments when they are available.  It is unfair.  It is bad pedagogy.  Al Levine is right.   You can’t say what grade level this test is.  I looked at the technical manual.  The ACT asks you to set your own level in terms of where you are going to maximize your success.  The ACT manual says that you should try different levels to reduce your error.  That is the whole game. You try not to misplace students.  You have to do the kind of validity and predictability testing that should be done before you bring in the test.  They have no business doing this yet.”

    Professor McCall (English, Baruch College) – “I just wanted to say that the Chancellor invited us to participate in the Spring to do some of the lobbying in Albany.  There are going to be many opportunities for you to help CUNY survive.  We have a steady-state budget, which means that we are not being funded as a university.  When the opportunity arises for you to come with us to Albany, please come.”

    Professor Manassah (Electrical Engineering, City College) – “Last time I had asked if it was possible for the Vice Chancellor of Academic Affairs to stay after the Chancellor leaves, so that some questions about academic matters could be addressed.  If this is not possible, I would really like to see a forum where I could see some of our questions answered about these things.  I came today with a list of 5-6 questions, which are a matter of life and death for us.  I asked one question, but I still have 5 more.  I don’t know where the forum is where I can ask these questions.  If it is not possible to have it within the meetings, we should have some other forum where these questions can be asked.” / Chair Sohmer – Let’s start with the questions being addressed to me, and I will ask them and get at least written responses. / Professor Manassah – “Would it be possible that she stays after the Chancellor leaves?” / Chair Sohmer – I will try. She frequently does, but I will try to say it specifically.