Reports:

a. Chair: The Chair’s Report is an occasion to summarize the issues confronting the University and to lay out proposals for solutions. Obviously the most important issue this month is CAP, the remediation question, the proposals in their numerous incarnations. In terms of a final solution to coin an awful phrase, "there is none at the moment." The Chair of the Board, as some of you know, has chosen to convene yet another meeting of the Long Range Planning Committee of the Board for May 6th. This one is to consider commentaries on CAP. Presidents at the moment are submitting potential impact statements, that is, statements of potential impact if any one of three or four CAP proposals might be applied as policy.

On the back table you will find copies of the latest version, the one that we discussed about a week ago at the Long Range Planning Committee Meeting. There was an article today in La Prensa which I excerpted on CUNY-Talk a little while ago. I thought you would be interested in this quotation from Herman Badillo yesterday: "According to Herman Badillo, a member of the Board, the vote was postponed until an agreement was reached between Governor George Pataki and Mayor Rudolph Giuliani. The negotiations continue to determine up to what point there should be remedial courses." Since this was all filmed and taken down by several reporters, I don’t believe I am repeating a canard. So I guess the reason for the delay in the Long Range Planning Committee Meeting is to wait until the Governor and the Mayor have the time to get on the same page on this issue. In any case, it’s a pretty clear cut description of where we stand.

In addition to the copies of CAP that are on the back table, you will also find copies of a proposal endorsed and supported by Councilwoman Helen Marshall, on behalf of a coalition of political, educational, and community leaders. In itself it is an elaboration of a proposal that members of this body developed. We will return to that later.

[CHAIR’S REPORT CONTINUED AFTER GUEST SPEAKER HOROWITZ]

I have a few pieces of business which I really need to have your attention paid to for a minute, and then we can flee. I was reminded that we have to get a formal approval from this body for the Budget of the UFS Office which is presented out on the back table as a document. May have a motion to accept? Second? Any opposition? Thank you. If you look at it, you will see that we will be getting an increase in the budget for the first time in a number of years, a small increase.

Secondly, I’d like to point out again that the whole issue of the PSC-CUNY grants remains up in the air because we are still missing faculty for some crucial discipline areas. We do not have any nominations for people to serve in the following areas - Earth and Environmental Sciences, English, Ethnic and Area Studies, Music, and there is an opening in History. Stasia Pasela is in charge of this, and she has been sending appeals all over the place. So I urge you to take this quite seriously.

So congratulations to those victors and we look forward to having you busy for the next two years with us.

I just wanted to make one last announcement. Over the last weekend, at the State University of New York, the SUNY Faculty Senate Meeting, a resolution was introduced from the floor and unanimously passed. It said,

Whereas, the City University of New York has always been committed to the twin goals of academic excellence and access for the citizens of New York City, and

Whereas, plans are being presented plans to limit both academic excellence and access, by reducing remedial education and admissions,

Therefore, Be It Resolved, that the Faculty Senate of the State University of New York, supports its sister institution in its educational endeavors and urges rejection of all plans to curtail programs that provide educational opportunities for CUNY students.

I sent them our thanks, and I thought you should know that.

Chair Cooper - I would like to turn to the special surprise mystery guest who I have sitting up here, and that is Helen Marshall. As horrible as the last few months have been in regard to fighting for the survival of this University, the one piece of light in all of this is the surprise appearance of Helen Marshall on our side. This is a lady who was given a chore about three months ago by Peter Vallone, Speaker of the City Council, and was not in particular involved in higher education issues, at least on the City level, although she claims she got her training under Ed Sullivan, upstate. She found herself in charge of a new committee about which I’ve reported several times. Since this committee was created it has held some of the most important public hearings on the University’s future and policies that have been held in the City. I think she was born with an a priori sensitivity to do the right thing when it comes to us. But she claims she got there through a CUNY education. In appreciation of her support, the Executive Committee of the Faculty Senate has voted the following Resolution:

In recognition for her unflagging and dedicated support and effort on behalf of the students of the City University of New York, the Executive Committee of the University Faculty Senate extends its heart felt gratitude and admiration to the Honorable Helen Marshall, Chairperson of the Committee on Higher Education of the City Council of New York, for her effective and informed leadership.

Is there unanimous support for this resolution? I am pleased to introduce Helen Marshall.

Helen Marshall (Chairperson of the Committee on Higher Education of the City Council of New York) - Sandi said she would like me to come and say a few words. I had no idea that a resolution would be passed. I accept this resolution for a few different people. One, the group of people who are my colleagues in the City Council. You have no idea of the strong support of what you are doing. I have their complete endorsement to say anything. And believe me, our Speaker says, "Helen, go with it, whatever you need, just tell me and I’ll be there." In fact, when I asked him about forming a Committee on Higher Education, I only asked for a subcommittee, but he insisted that it be a full committee. That means an awful lot, it means I have a task force of staff to work with me, research, etc... I also accept this for the students in the City University, for those who are there now and for those who are going to come for generations to come. What we are doing is for them.

Lastly, I would like to thank you for my City and your City. Without our City University, and particularly its program of openness as the original Free Academy said, to educate all, we have built this City of greatness, we have invested in the most important natural resource of our City, and that is our people and educating them. And they have formed among the most powerful tax base, middle class, wonderful City, and many of them came through the City University. If I am working it is because all of those folks are behind me, pushing me. I’ll tell you, as I told my colleagues today, I am first. They said, "Helen, you’re acting all excited." In fact my husband said too, "you’re as excited now about the Council as you were about the Assembly." And he is right, because I am doing something I love. I love being an elected official, I love being a member of legislative bodies, and I love serving my constituents. But this is a new and important job that I’m doing. I want to thank you, every one of you. Every time I’ve called, whether it is to come to a meeting or to get information for me, you have all been there for us; I have told my colleagues that. You should know, I still haven’t gotten a full count on how many of them went to the City University. But you can believe, nearly all of them did. If they didn’t go entirely, they went for part of their education. Thank you very much.

I would like to talk to you about the Governor’s budget. Some of the things that we have talked about like those 150 full-time faculty members. Even the grant for the students to help them with their text books. He did not bother the capital budget, but he did cut into so many of the areas, and there was additional FTE that we were supposed to be getting, and that’s been cut. I want to share with you my experience. I was in the Assembly for nine years. There were times when we even threatened Governor Cuomo that we were going to pass the budget just the way he gave it to us. He would have died if we did that, because it would have shown the cockamamie budget that he put together on certain items.

Governor Pataki, and this is politics, he wants to answer to the conservative right. In fact he has to worry very much, about Common Cause, because they are on the necks of mostly the Republicans. They want them to be more conservative than to be Republican. He has put out his budget. I hope that it is based on the fact that the Senate and the Assembly are going to change that. There will be negotiations. I don’t believe there will an override, because it might not be necessary to be an override. It is the case that the Governor’s budget, the Mayor’s budget, are only the beginning. From there the legislative bodies go to moving it around, to changing it, moving it into different areas. They took a different tactic this time. Instead of doing it that way, the Senate and the Assembly each one, they agreed on a budget, and they sent it in. The Governor now has vetoed many important Republican items too, not only items that came from Democrats. So we can be sure that there will be a lot of discussion going on. There are some things that the Governor wants that he didn’t get, so that leaves room for negotiations. Also, in the City, the Mayor has put out a budget, his budget is not that exciting, and it’s not really at all enriched as we would like it to be. Some items he has not put in deliberately, or he has cut, because he knows that we’re going to put the money back in.

We haven’t changed our pattern in the City. We are going to follow the same path. We are going to now sit down and negotiate back and forth, cut here, add there. The Mayor does set the bottom line, but then it is up to us to go through that budget. There will be hearings. We are going to have a hearing on both the Expense Budget and the Capital Budget for CUNY. It will come before us, I believe it is the 6th and the 8th, but I will make sure you know those dates. The Chancellor will definitely be here, and staff. We will be asking him questions and we’ll also have the Office of Management and Budget, who we will put on the carpet about what they’re trying to do to education, particularly in this year where we do have a $2.4 billion surplus. There is no reason not to invest in the most valuable asset we have, and that is our people. So we’ll be in there fighting and we’ll let you know about those hearings and I’ll probably see you tomorrow. Because we see so much of one another, which I love.

Chair Cooper - Before turning the microphone over to Chancellor Kimmich, I want to quickly report the results of the mail poll which the Senate Office conducted over the vacation following the last meeting. After we had a call for quorum and could not vote on the proposed Executive Committee Resolution that was drawn up regarding CAP, we held a mail poll. The results as of today were: Yes - 80, No - 4, Abstain - 2. Therefore I have transmitted the results of this poll to all of the appropriate authorities. I’d like to ask Chris Kimmich if he would join us and tell us more good news.

Thank you very much, Sandi, I am pleased to be here tonight. I am also just enormously pleased to have come in at the moment which Sandi was reading the resolution on behalf of Helen Marshall who has proved to be an enormously strong friend and defender in all of our dealings with the Mayor, and also in our dealings on the current issues that embroil the University. I am just enormously pleased that you did that. That is just a wonderful thing you’ve done, Sandi. I’m pleased to have this opportunity each month to report to you on current and immediate issues. Of course the most immediate is the news of the budget. Helen has already talked a bit about that. I would like to give you a few more details, both on the State and the City budget. I also want to take a little time to bring you up to date on the current state of admissions for the Fall and say a few words about the concerns we have about the picture we see developing.

Let me start with the State Budget. I think all of us were taken aback when we opened the paper yesterday morning and discovered that the Governor announced on Sunday that he had decided to veto 1,000 items in the legislative agreement on the budget, reducing the budget agreement by a total of $760 million in spending and another $800 million in future borrowing. Included in the details are all the operating aid additions to the CUNY and the City budgets that had been agreed to by the State Assembly and the Senate. And that really hurts. I have here, just a short list, some of you may be familiar with this, but I’d like to read it to you so you can get the full impact of what we’re facing here.

Remember that the Senate and the Assembly had agreed to fund a number of requests that we had put on the table, for which we had lobbied very hard. As I reported to you earlier, we would spend time in Albany as well as down here in order to make our case. Let me start with the Senior Colleges - new funding for $4.5 million for faculty positions, vetoed; new funding for $1.2 million for child care, vetoed; new funding for $2.9 million for SEEK, vetoed; new funding for $4.8 million for full time student home purchase aid (remember the $65 vouchers for full-time students), vetoed. Community Colleges - new funding of $8.5 million for increase in State support of $150 per FTE, vetoed; new funding of $3 million for faculty positions, vetoed; new funding for $800,000 for child care, vetoed; new funding of $300,000 for College Discovery, vetoed; new funding of $1 million for contract courses in the Community Colleges, vetoed.

One of the main items that we pushed very hard for much of the Spring was Aid for Part-Time Students. As you know, those make up much of our population. They had been increased by $5 million to a total of $19.6 million, and that entire item was vetoed. The CSTEP and STEP Programs that some of you may be familiar with, which had been increased by $2.5 million, that item was vetoed. For the privates, the Bundy Aid increases that they had lobbied for very hard were vetoed, so we were not the only ones. On the other hand, the maximum TAP increase, which doesn’t really apply to us because it goes beyond our tuition, was not touched. So that the private institutions did benefit something from this budget slaughter. Just to compare us to SUNY for a minute. They had been given by the Assembly and the Senate, $8.8 million for new faculty, that was vetoed; child care, $2 million, vetoed; community college base increase, which was the same as our $150 per FTE (for the SUNY colleges that amounted to over $17 million), that was vetoed; economic development, job training, $5 million, vetoed; small business development center, vetoed.

So across the board for higher education we see a very negative, grim picture in these early vetoes. It is clear that the Governor is riding high on the line that the State should adopt a fiscally responsible budget. I don’t think anybody argues for adopting a fiscally irresponsible budget. We can appreciate that concern, but we do plan to continue working with the Executive and with both the legislative houses to see whether we can’t get them to reconsider some of these issues. In the broadest sense, our requests are modest. We are not talking about millions and millions of bucks. But they are crucial to what we are doing. I would say that in my discussions with the legislative leadership, the Senate and the Assembly, there is widespread dismay. This they hadn’t expected. They expected some vetoes, absolutely. They expected for the Governor to pluck out issues here and there, but they had not expected anything of this magnitude.

Some of the more encouraging responses, aside from the dismay, which really was universal, related to the earlier position that the Senate had taken, and Senator Bruno had enunciated about not even encouraging an override. I no longer heard that particular language. It doesn’t mean that they have necessarily decided to change their mind on it. But they are not talking about it right now. So that from a number of corners, I got sort of subtle signals that we were going to try to enter into discussions with the Governor on this matter. And that there would be some opportunity perhaps to change his mind on one or the other item, more than it would be the case now.

Some of you may have seen just a very brief article, which appeared in some of the local papers upstate and made it down to ours here and there. The Governor had expressed the feeling that there was some room here for discussion. Although he quickly says, "but you know it has to be within the agreed budget, you can move things around." At least he hasn’t said, "I’m not going to talk." Let me also tell you what you should know that I’ve asked the Presidents that they should make every effort to get in touch with their legislators. Legislators are going up to meet on the 29th to discuss the impact of these vetoes. Anybody that we are close to, as college faculty, as college presidents, as central office staff, we are going to try and reach out and indicate the two most important issues, which we are now pushing very hard. That is, the full-time faculty, which is very high on our list. We need to rebuild the faculty. And secondly, the increase in base aid for community colleges. And if possible, the part-time student aid. Those issues are for us the most important thing that they could do for us. Take that back to your campuses, please. This morning I faxed to each of the presidents the same kind of request urging them to make their calls, urging them to reach out to their friends, and to communicate that. I think that we might make a difference if we are there all the time. We call a lot, and the more calls there are, the better it will be.

On the positive side, the Governor let stand the five year Capital Plan which he proposed earlier on. There had been some question, and in the first press release there was some conflict about whether this would stand the way it had been originally proposed. But clearly the five year Capital Plan will stand and this is essential for the campuses as they plan out construction, our rehabilitation, our renovation. All of you know that there are also such things as member items, individual items proposed by members of legislature to assist particular causes and there are a good many for CUNY. We were just faxed late this afternoon a list of those that were vetoed. We got the total list which amounted to about 18 pages of member items. We are trying to comb through those to see which our ours and which apply to others. The moment we know about ours and we have a good number pending, we will obviously notify the campuses. This particular issue of member items is still under review. But you should know that there are also slashes through that whole list.

All in all we are going to try to review the budget message and the veto message. To talk with the Division of the Budget to make sure that we fully understand what it means, and of course to work with our friends in the legislature to see whether we can’t do something about that. I haven’t given up hope on this, although the news is not exactly positive. We try to enlist you and as many of you who can help with this in moving this particular agenda forward. Because there is still room for play.

Regarding the City Budget, the preliminary analysis is that we see very little change from last year. The Mayor’s budget recommends that the City’s share of the Community Colleges Operating Budget, remains at the 23.8% that we’ve had before, which adds up to $78 million . Which leaves the students to provide 42.7% at the current tuition rates. That is an equivalent of $140 million. The State provides its customary 1/3, 33.5 %, $128 million . The law as you know is that it should be, 18/3, 1/3, 1/3. But for quite some time the City has not lived up to that particular law and has simply given us what it has given us in previous years. Helen Marshall said earlier that she and her colleagues at the City Council will look very carefully at this budget, and this clearly is the moment at which City Council is at its most powerful. This is the time in which it can withhold approval, at which it can provide its voice in making these budget decisions. Helen said that the Mayor decides on the bottom line, but there is some flexibility. Clearly with the reserves and so forth, the City Council could act on this. We are going to work very closely with the City Council, also with the Mayor for that matter, to address issues that are unresolved. There is the whole question of inflationary increases. There is funding for increased collaboration with the public schools, the College Now Program that you are familiar with. There is funding for full-time faculty which are as important in the community colleges as elsewhere. There are other priorities which were all lined out in the University’s Budget Request. We are going to put them all on the table when we meet with our friends in the City Council.

The odd thing which all of you know about in the Mayor’s proposal regards attendance. The question came to us about a month ago. What were attendance policies? We wrote back saying that in fact the University has a policy requiring enrollment verification in all courses in the community colleges, and for that matter senior colleges, by the end of the first third of the semester. All of you know about the first five weeks of keeping attendance, of verifying enrollment. That is done to satisfy both the federal and state regulations. It is consistent with policies applicable throughout the State, this is not unique to us. The Mayor knew this. It is not that we somehow withheld such a secret and are now blamed for not communicating this earlier. We communicated four weeks ago. I think most of you know that it is standard practice at the community colleges to turn in attendance rosters at the end of the semester so that that too is available. It is done manually, it is not computerized. Anybody who would like to see those rosters is certainly welcome to them. We’ve offered to share them if there was an interest, and there was no response. The third part of the attendance issue is the one that’s perhaps the most troubling, and that is that, in the budget message, there is a point to the effect that, unless students attend class 80% of the time, they should be dropped from enrollment. The Mayor is making our allocation of funds contingent on this particular attendance record. Let me say two things about this. One is that we believe that he has no legal authority to do that. But you should also know that that may not be our word against his, but has to be tested in the courts. I hope it doesn’t come to that, but we’re quite confident that we would prevail in this.

The other is this. When you think back to January and what was then said by the Mayor, and put out in writing, was a lot fiercer than what you see in writing now. He then spoke about ending open enrollment. He now talks about taking attendance.

Attendance is one thing, open enrollment is another. I think we ought to consider those two differences. In any event, this is not something that we are going to take lying down. If there is any kind of contingency, we believe that we have the legal right to funds the Mayor has allocated. We have our friends in City Council and I’m sure elsewhere to make sure that we do. In the meantime I asked the Deputy Chancellor to make sure that we indeed have all information on attendance taking, enrollment verification, and all that from the campuses. This is usually material kept at the campuses, and rightly so. There is no reason for us to collect it centrally. But we are trying to make sure that we are fully equipped with all that information so that if the question arises again there will be no doubt about the answer.

Third, as I did at our last meeting, I would like to bring you up to date on where we stand on admissions for this Fall. There are as you all know, two categories, entering freshman and transfer students. For the Fall for the entering freshman there have now been four allocations at the colleges and there are four to go. For the transfer students there has been only one allocation early in April and there are still four to go with those. That’s the context. Let me start with the freshman. Overall freshman admission at the University is just about at the same level as last year about this time. Admissions are up by about 0.3%. We’re just about steady which breaks down into regular freshman admissions down slightly, special program freshman admissions up slightly. But overall, across the University, just about the same as last year at this point. Now if you look only at the senior colleges you’ll notice a drop overall of about 3%. And if you look even more carefully you notice that the colleges that offer baccalaureate and associate programs, admissions are up in colleges that offer baccalaureate programs only. As you probe these figures you begin to see that there are curious patterns of increases and decreases.

At the community colleges regular admissions are up by 5.2%, special admissions programs up by 18.8%. So community colleges have in fact drawn up both categories. There is a point that we should be aware of, the current pool of allocations tends to show a bit of academic preparation. I think that can be attributed to the impact of CPI, the CAA’s (College Academic Averages) for entering freshmen is up for all categories, most strongly for those with 85 CAA’s and up. I think that is a very useful index to see how well we’re doing with our collaboration with the high schools. As to transfer students, the first and only allocation shows a University wide decline of 17.3% compared to first allocations last year. That’s true of both the senior and community colleges. Although more of the community colleges than the senior colleges. We are not talking about large numbers here, we are talking about slightly over 1,000. But we are taking about a significant drop in percentage terms.

This is first admissions cycle, just to remind you, in which the Board policy on skills tests, that is, students transferring within CUNY. The in-CUNY transfer rate is down by 36.4%. That’s within CUNY, from CUNY to CUNY college, compared with last year. The rate of non-CUNY students seeking transfer into CUNY is up by 7.5%. I think there is some correlation there which we will track and which you should note. A final word on enrollment. In talking about enrollment to the Enrollment Staff of the University, I don’t get a sense of a great deal of optimism. They remind me that we’re drawing largely from the high school pool which is larger this year than it has been in years past. But the profile of the students, since so many of them are better, shows that they probably have wider choices. So the concern that the staff tells me that they have is the show rate might not be as strong as it has been in years past. so as better students apply to CUNY, they will be wooed by other institutions and therefore we should be worried about the show rate. Often this is made up by the non-traditional students as you know. They tend to apply late, starting about now, and it is not clear at this point whether they can make up the difference. If it’s the same as last year we’ll probably be down in the Fall.

What I would say to you is that, whatever you can do, and again take this message back to the campuses, is try to maximize through phone-a-thons, open houses, receptions, whatever you can do for the show rate. We are getting good students, we are getting the same number of students we had last year, but these are students for which we have to compete. It’s not something that we are necessarily experienced with. But I think many of us have done on the campuses a good job, and I would encourage all of you to push to see what can be done in these weeks to make sure that the show rate is better. This is not true necessarily of all colleges. There are some colleges where in fact the individual allocation and the individual show rate is going to be on target, if not more. It is true at a sufficient number of colleges that you should take that back to the campuses and to see whether you can energize the staff and help with colleagues to move this forward. We don’t have, unless there is a significant change which we are all hoping for at Albany, we don’t have the cushion of the budget to absorb a serious loss in enrollment. I don’t want to leave on that final negative note, but I have one other thing to tell you that relates to Sandi Cooper. I understand you have scheduled elections for next time, and I want to say that in the five months that I’ve been in this particular office, I’ve found Sandi an enormously valued and good friend, and her counsel and advice has been helpful throughout. She has been a very strong voice for the faculty, for the University, articulate, eloquent, effective, assertive. The University is enormously fortunate to have Sandi in its corner. There is not much more I can add to that except to say that I hope that the rumor that there will be an amendment to the by-laws to give her another four years is true. Sandi, thank you very much.

Professor Levine (Applied Science) - "With all due respect to your political wisdom, I find that the Mayor’s attacks on us have been unrelenting and uninformed. What can we do to answer his attacks, saying we only take attendance for 1/3 of the term, which is false. All of us take attendance for the entire term. I can tell you, the one semester when I didn’t hand in my attendance sheets, I got called on it. Why isn’t this information made available to the press?" / Interim Chancellor Kimmich - The information is being made available to the press. That’s not the issue. I’m afraid to say that I’m not sure arguing on those terms with the Mayor is going to get us very far. Has he been listening to us? Has he changed his mind? It’s not because we’re not trying. I think we need to look for other supporters to help us. He is not listening to us, he has written us off into a corner in which we are said to be ineffective, useless, full of self-serving rhetoric. I think what he needs to listen to is people to whom he pays attention. People who are in his political camp, people who make an impact. As a University we get uniformly high marks, that’s not what seems to count. We’ve got to think more creatively.

Professor Crain (Psychology, City College) - "Speaking for myself, colleagues, and everyone I know, and students, all our energies have been devoted to CAP. We have been exhausted by the CAP process. Faculty put aside everything for it. I point out that this latest CAP is put out as a compromise that kills open admissions more explicitly than any other version. Whereas open admissions would guarantee high school students a place in University enrollment, this one would only allow enrollment to those students whose Skills Tests say that they indicate they can complete remediation in one year. Now we have these Skills Tests with questionable validity serving as entrance exams and the situation is, if anything, worse. Now we are in a situation where we are going into the summer where the faculty won’t be able to as effectively monitor what is going on. The students won’t be as effectively able to monitor this. You ask us to lobby, you ask us to do phone-a-thons. If you would take the CAP away, we could do those things. We could have been lobbying, we could have been doing phone-a-thons, we could have been doing everything, but this CAP is such a sweeping indication of some destructive proposal, that we’ve had no choice but to put incredible amounts of energy into fighting it. Why don’t you take it off the table for six months? Just take it off and then we can say it’s a bad idea, it needed further study, its an impossibly written document, its a political document and it shouldn’t be here. Take it off and maybe we can get some more money. If you do that I will rally everything I can to go up to Albany." / Interim Chancellor Kimmich - Mr. Crain, I wish I had that power. / Professor Crain - "You can take it off." / Interim Chancellor Kimmich - Will it disappear? / Professor Crain - "Well, give it a try." / Interim Chancellor Kimmich - It is not my document, Mr. Crain. I’m as distressed about the point you raised as any of you. I didn’t stress it because at the moment there isn’t much to say that you probably haven’t heard. The document that surfaced at the Long Range Planning Committee was a much more general document. It superceded as far as we can tell, the document that had been around since March 19th. The Chairwoman has announced that there was room for further discussion yet on this document. I think there has been some impact from the presidents and from the Faculty Senate on this. More discussion on this is obviously necessary. I will not tell you any secrets when I say this is a document that is also being discussed outside the University. The pressures come from there, they don’t come from within the building. They don’t come from within the trustees.

Professor Beaky (English, LaGuardia) - "I don’t mean to hector you about attendance, but in the New York Times Report of that whole issue, you were reported to have said that the State laws require community colleges to maintain attendance records for the first third of each semester. And Jay Hershenson said, "that in response to the Mayor’s complaints, Mr. Kimmich had ordered a review of community college attendance policies. This sounds, and I’m not thinking about the Mayor’s reception of this report, but of the public reception. This is one of the most sympathetic of the newspapers. I think that was a very damaging account. I was just wondering. Do you have any plans, don’t you think it would be appropriate to take a more proactive stance and explain what are policies actually are. That we do have policies for the entire semester, rather than this suggestion that, yes there is something wrong and we are going to try and fix that too." / Interim Chancellor Kimmich - I don’t think there was a suggestion. First I had to find out what there was. When we discovered on Friday afternoon what the Mayor’s budget was, the question in the Central Office was, what is in fact the policy? We knew about, and had communicated to the Mayor earlier what I said before, the five week policy. But there was no record, there was no further information held at the Central Office about individual college policies on this matter. There are some practices which have changed. We do not know whether they are being kept. The first thing I did Friday afternoon was to find out. What exactly is going on. Before I can make a statement saying that, yes there is Board policy and then the Mayor comes back and says, "oh yes, let’s audit." I want to be in a position to say, this is the practice that coincides with the policy. My first step was to find out exactly what we do. I keep saying, I think in various fora, and I’ve said here, that I believe that the responsibility or the authority should be on the campuses. I don’t want to track this sort of thing from the Central Office. My first step therefore was to find out what we’ve got. We are beginning to get that information. Much of it came in yesterday afternoon. Some of it has not yet come in. I simply want to confirm what exactly is going on. / Professor Beaky - "There will be some sort of release or communication to that effect?" / Interim Chancellor Kimmich - I hope so.

Professor Kaplowitz (English, John Jay College) - "This latest version of the Comprehensive Action Plan is missing a statement that appeared in the last two versions, and that was an assumption of additional State and City funding to implement the provisions of this. This of course came out before the Governor’s veto. So it’s disturbing on both levels. I remember that just before the Comprehensive Action Plan came out, a group of Trustees went to Albany to argue on behalf of CUNY. Although I gather some argued differently than we would have liked them to. Since the presidents are going up and were just to go up and talk to our legislators here and there, do you know if any of the Trustees are going up and can you comment on the absence of that? I know it’s not your document. The fact that that last sentence which was so important isn’t in the document now." / Interim Chancellor Kimmich - Two things, one is, yes, we all noticed the absence of that phrase. It is an important phrase and I’ve been working to get it back into the document. Without that particular phrase this is not workable in any form. Secondly, I do not know whether the Trustees are going up. We are certainly urging Trustees to be in touch with their contacts whether by telephone or here in the City so as to make the case for the budget restoration. Since many of them are appointees of Governor Pataki, this is not without influence.

Professor Greenbaum (History, Queensborough Community College) - "Two part question, politics. Do you think there’s any chance of the Governor’s vetoes being overridden?" / Interim Chancellor Kimmich - On this one I suspect that the strategy, at least that is what I kept hearing or reading between the lines in my contacts with people in the legislature, was that the threat of an override might move things to the table. / Professor Greenbaum - "The second part, if that doesn’t succeed, do you think we can get most of it back in the supplementary budget?" / Interim Chancellor Kimmich - It’s hard to say. If he stays the course, he can stay the course for that as well. I think our best chance is that our friends up in the legislature will prevail in letting him save face, we will have to live with some of these vetoes, but perhaps some of them can be reversed.

Professor Diamond (Mathematics, Queens College) - "I’ll bring the discussion to a much lower level in a sense, simpler. You wrote a memorandum in response to the Board Resolution. The Board Resolution from September said that incoming students who have taken the S.A.T. and have scored a certain level, identified by you as adequately demonstrating basic academic skills, would be exempted from taking the Freshman Skills Test for Placement, prior to registering. Louise Mirrer has come up with a score in Mathematics, it’s 500. I think this is a good example of the problems of micro management from up on high. Currently entering freshmen take an 80 question Math Placement Exam. The Assessment Test is merely the first 40 questions. If you tell entering freshmen that they have passed this test and don’t have to take it, they are not going to take the placement exam. And we will have thousands of students coming in in September who do not have placements. We will have a giant problem. So somebody should do something fast to stop this thing." / Interim Chancellor Kimmich - What do you suggest? / Chair Cooper - I suggest that we don’t do it on the floor here. / Professor Diamond - "Study it for a year and then don’t do it." / Chair Cooper - I don’t think we can come up with a solution here, but this is one of the many problems that arises from this document. We have been sending memos about this that have to be paid attention to or we’re going to have chaos.

Professor Bell (Student Services, Brooklyn College) - "Chancellor Kimmich, having watched these many incarnations of the CAP document, what do you think the possibility of them stopping to tinker with this, and trying to redraft a completely new thing? It seems to me that they are getting nowhere. Or whoever is doing this, in changing sentences and clauses. Maybe if somebody took it aside and started writing a new one, or even the one that we did with the Executive Committee looks at it in slightly different way. Is it possible to break the mind set of stopping to tinker with sentences and really think about it again? Is that something that can be encouraged or done?" / Interim Chancellor Kimmich - I’ve been encouraging the possibility of trying to come up with something that exists, as we said, of general principles, and puts the responsibility on developing implementation plans on the colleges. I don’t know how much headway I’m making with that. The first part of my answer to the question is that, yes, it is being thought about. In fact we have done some drafts along those lines. We have proposed, we have argued, and much of this of course goes on an almost daily basis with the Trustees. The second part of my answer is that it may be entirely possible that there is such a document being crafted, but not by us.

Professor McCall (English, Baruch College) - "Every time I’ve heard the senior college presidents talk about admissions criteria, several of them have said that they understood that their freshman enrollment would be down and has been down on the basis of the admissions criteria. But that they made up the difference in transfers. Now that we see that policy is creating a real problem with getting transfers, I don’t think phone-a-thons are going to be enough to make up this shortfall. I think it has to be again, handled at the policy level. So what do you think?" / Interim Chancellor Kimmich - What seems to be stopping the transfer obviously is the requirement that the test be taken before the transfer actually takes place. I’m not sure that we can move that particular policy. That is fairly closely monitored by the Board that recently passed it. I don’t think that is something we can get out of. Whether we can do a better job, and I always look for better ways of doing things, whether we can do a better job of expediting this. Of collaborating between the senior colleges and the main feeder colleges, or within the colleges that have both, whether there is a better way of expediting this or moving it forward is worth looking at. I’m quite in agreement that phone-a-thons and open houses are not going to make up the difference. They might make a difference though. / Professor McCall - "I really think again, we need these Trustees to back off because they really don’t know what they are doing here."

Professor Reitano (History, LaGuardia Community College) - "Could you explain the Chancellory’s position on the UFS Proposal that all remediation be completed by 27 credits instead of being defined by time semester limits?" / Interim Chancellor Kimmich - The Office of Academic Affairs has taken the position that to leave open the possibility of people doing their remediation at the very end of this period was not really what was intended. Now if it can be front loaded I don’t see there is any difficulty. / Chair Cooper - The second version of that included stages. It was discussed with Louise and I thought the impression the Committee had, was that there were these stages and these gates. / Professor Reitano - "And it is front loading anyway. Because right now its 60 credits and 27 is half of that." / Chair Cooper - Joanne wouldn’t know about this, but there was a lengthy discussion with Louise Mirrer and the Executive Committee about a week and a half ago about this. It’s not yet over. But I think he would not have known about that.

Professor Grossman (Education, City College) - "Chancellor Kimmich, we are told at the City College School of Education, that at the behest of the Board of Trustees, you have sent to President Moses and Provost Lavallee, the Board of Trustees Task Force on Education 1988 with the injunction that the School of Education now revise its curriculum according to the 1988 guide lines. There are several things about that that puzzle me and puzzle my colleagues." / Interim Chancellor Kimmich - Not to my knowledge. The discussion of the teacher education issues and the Board led even before I became Acting Chancellor, to a discussion of the last major teacher education reform in 1988. The outcome of that discussion was that Trustee Everett, who had been very much involved with that discussion in 1988, asked that the original concluding document be distributed to all the campuses for review, to see if there was anything worth pursuing, to test their own present programs against those that had been proposed then. But I know nothing further beyond that. / Professor Grossman - At City College it’s been presented to us as the absolute law. What concerns me most is the statement here, just two sentences. Nineteen-eighty-eight remember, the State Department of Education changes requirements in 1993, and we have a program that complies with that. The Education Certification sequence that is included should not exceed 24 credits, exclusive to student teaching, this is in line with the State requirement of the minimum of 24 course credits for provisional certification as an early childhood or elementary school teacher. In other words the rationale of this report was, because the State Department of Education at the time required 24 credits plus student teaching, therefore School of Education should not exceed 24 credits. Our Provost and our President are telling us this is the law. The Trustees and they used your name, perhaps in vain, are saying that this is what we must do and forthwith we must cut our program to 24 credits plus student teaching. They will hear nothing but that. Whenever I raise the question, my colleagues in Liberal Arts & Science say, you’re irritating us with that. I have been trying to point out that, if the Trustees did indeed say that the rationale is because this is the State requirement, it follows then that they should change this to 30 credits plus student teaching. Because since 1993, that has been the State requirement. Could you comment on that?" / Interim Chancellor Kimmich - I can’t obviously react to the details. But I can tell you that I am a bit puzzled. The 1988 policy was adopted by the Board. But then each individual college proposed a different plan that was suitable to its particular circumstances. The Board adopted those and therefore the matter was laid at rest. For this ten year old document to resurface with that kind of momentum puzzles me. I certainly did not put it back into the mail stream with that kind of injunction. If you can give me some clearer information on where I’m suppose to have said this, or how I’m suppose to have done that, I would appreciate it. / Professor Grossman - "I will and thank you very much, that’s very helpful."

Professor Sank (Anthropology, City College) - "What I’m going to say, I’m saying gently, and I hope you’ll take in the spirit in which it’s given. Since you are an acting Chancellor, not a permanent Chancellor, and since the CAP that you recommend obviously has very widespread and far ranging impact on our University, don’t you think that it is somewhat inappropriate for an Acting Chancellor to possibly handicap a permanent Chancellor that we will be getting. A permanent Chancellor who might not necessarily agree with this direction. In that context, I bring in this whole idea of the rush to judgment, in that why don’t we have more time to discuss the CAP at all levels, administration, faculty, and students. So if we do go in that direction, we are going with united thinking in that." / Chair Cooper - I’m going to take the prerogative of the Chair and answer this. The generation of that document was from the Chair of the Board of Trustees and not the Acting Chancellor. If we don’t want to face that fact, than I’ll sell you the Brooklyn Bridge and the Tooth Fairy for a cheap package. This was a document that came out of another place. It did not come out of any academic center in this University. / Professor Sank - "But the impression we’ve all gotten..". / Chair Cooper - No, that’s not the impression we’ve all gotten. If you had listened to me read the article from La Prensa when I started, you would have gotten a very clear cut indication of where the discussion is taking place. / Professor Sank - "As the Acting Chancellor you are spokesperson in that sense." / Interim Chancellor Kimmich - You have not seen me represent this document as a spokesperson, have you? / Professor Sank - "I heard your response to Professor Crain. That’s why I pursued it."

Professor Sherrill (Political Science, Hunter College) - I wanted to return to the decline and to the transfer applications. I was curious about whether or not anybody has had the opportunity to analyze the demographics of the decline." / Interim Chancellor Kimmich - The only figures I have, Professor Sherrill, are across the board. But I think you raise an important point and I suspect that the staff has done some of that analysis and I’ll let you have it. / Professor Sherrill - "I’d really appreciate that, thank you."

Professor Bohigian (Mathematics, John Jay College) - "Interim Chancellor Kimmich, I’m going to follow up. We spent a lot of time last session, and I thought we had come to some conclusion. I realize that the Board made the initiative in this. But I think you are underestimating the power that you have even though you are Interim Chancellor. The situation as I see it is this. In consultation with the University Faculty Senate I think we should develop our own CAP program, one that the faculty can approve. We’ve got to take out the statement that says, "the President may Initiate." We’ve got to put in, "the faculty must approve." You present this to the Board and say, this is what I can live with, or if you can’t live with this and you can’t implement this, I have to resign. The political implications of this are tremendous. The Board cannot take your resignation. There is too much invested in it all the way up and down the line. It took a long time for this to come in place. I think this is the proper strategy to take. That we develop jointly what should be the policy and we carry it out that way. And the ultimate threat is that you will not be there and the publicity that will surround it I think will be devastating. Can you live with that?" / Interim Chancellor Kimmich - Clearly we will have to see where this goes and adjust our strategies accordingly.

c. Faculty Members of Board of Trustees – The reports were received.

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

Professor Rodriguez (Chair of Election Committee) - Tonight we’ll take names for people who want to run for the Executive Committee, both as officers and as members-at-large. By May 4th it is requested that if you wish to put in a biographical statement, you should forward it to the UFS Office. Nominations can be made anytime between now and including the meeting of May 19th. Elections will take place on May 19th. Seats for Chair, Vice Chair, and Secretary -- the current Senators holding most positions are not eligible to run. Those will be open. Professor Kaplowitz was filling in the remainder of the term for Professor Speidel and will be eligible to run for Treasurer next year.

[nominations recorded in minute above]

Professor Rodriguez - We need a 250 word biographical statement if you are going to be running for an at-large office. Three-hundred-and-fifty words if your name is put in for officer. If received by May 4^th, those statements will be distributed.

V. Guest Speaker - President Frances Degen Horowitz, GSUC, on "The Consortial Nature of Doctoral Education at CUNY: Achievements and Issues."

Chair Cooper - Months ago when we expected something of a normal academic year and we were planning our program we created a special sub-committee to deal with the problems of doctoral education. The Senate wanted an opportunity for something other than anguish and misery to be discussed in front of it. Given the discussions of the last several months you would think that the only thing we do is remediation, but obviously we do a whole lot of other things. I’d like to ask the Co-Chair on the Special Committee on Doctoral Education, Stefan Baumrin, to come up and introduce the President of the Graduate School.

Professor Baumrin (Philosophy, Graduate School) - Thank you, Sandi. The committee was appointed by the Executive Committee and has met a number of times for long hours trying to determine what are the appropriate policies relating the Graduate School to the individual units in the University and the general faculty to the University. Finally, we decided that the best thing to do is to have the President of the Graduate School address the Senate and tell you what the current situation is and give you the chance to ask her pointed questions. You needn’t be complimentary. Dig out the information that you want, but find out how it works from the person who is administering this. I only have actually three more things to say. I’ll give you the background. The Committee determined after long consideration that this would be its first public act, to have the President speak to you. The Committee consists of myself as Co-Chair along with Paul Kurzman from Hunter College, and the following Senators - Dean Savage, Ravi Kulkarni, Bill Berkowitz, Barbara Katz-Rothman, Barbara Hampton, Richard Pizer, Ned Benton, and Manfred Philipp. It’s a great committee, and really a lot of fun to work with.

President Frances Degen Horowitz and I just passed each other at Antioch College many decades ago. I regret that we didn’t have the chance to meet then and get to know each other. I found it a wonderful experience to get to know her here. So I give you the third President of the Graduate School and University Center of the City University of New York, Frances Degen Horowitz.

President Frances Degen Horowitz - Thank you very much, Stefan. We probably share some basic philosophical points of view, both having gone to Antioch, which is a memorable experience for anyone who went to that college. I have to say that before I came to CUNY, I spent thirty years at the University of Kansas. Some people think that is very odd, to come from Kansas to CUNY, but I did grow up in the Bronx. It was coming home in some ways, and I really love being a part of CUNY and all that it stands for in terms of its mission in the City.

What I thought I would do is take about twenty minutes if you let me, and talk a little bit of the history of this unusual consortium. Some of that history, some of you may have lived, and will know it better than I. To talk about the current situation and how the consortium model is operating; some of the issues that we’re dealing with that I know you’re concerned about; what some of the options are and what the future looks like; and what I see as some of our strengths and weaknesses. I think many of you know that when CUNY was federated in 1961 a large debate took place about the fact that, as a University, while there were associates degrees being offered, bachelors degrees, and masters degrees, none of the campuses had been chartered to do doctoral level work. The question became, who was going to do it. At one point the notion was that a few colleges would be designated as providing doctoral level work, and then a number of arguments ensued as to who would do what and what happens if you assign English to College X and History to College Y. Does that mean the people in College Y can never teach in the doctoral program in English, and vice versa.

After a long debate, I gather, the model that was drawn up and the one that we are living with, the consortium model, was really a unique solution to how the City University would provide and do doctoral level education -- not without its controversy, not without its problems, not without its stresses and strains. What I’d like to do is show you how it operates. Some of you are very involved in the doctoral programs and know a lot about what I am going to say. And then identify some of the issues, the opportunities, and also do some comparisons. Because one of the options, of creating a few colleges that would be chartered to do doctoral education and not permitting any of the other colleges to do doctoral education was in fact the route that SUNY took. SUNY and CUNY were created at about the same time and, as many of you know, they have four campuses called university centers and they are the only ones that provide doctoral education. I think there are some at some of the medical centers. In the recent discussions about the future of CUNY there have been a number of voices that have said that we need to go to the SUNY model and designate some campuses as university centers that are research campuses, and not have other campuses be expected to participate in doctoral education or in research.

I want to show you some data about the relative success of SUNY and CUNY having adopted two rather different models. When this consortium model was developed, some of the colleges that were thought to be most ready to be involved in doctoral education, known as the four older senior colleges, were allocated a bunch of lines to add faculty who would participate in the doctoral programs. That was subsequently superseded by what is called the allocation system, whereby the Graduate Center holds the lines and allocates them to the campuses proportional to the campus contributions to the doctoral program. I am going to show you a little bit of data about how those operate. In fact the consortia model is not a single model, but rather four models. We have currently, 32 doctoral programs. We enroll almost 4,000 students in those doctoral programs, some of them are very large and some of them are very small. Of these 32 doctoral programs, 21 of them are based here at the Graduate Center, so that all of the courses are offered here and all the faculty are at or come to the Graduate Center to offer the courses. Though the students, especially when they get to the dissertation stage, will be working with faculty all over the University potentially, and not always here, but maybe working with faculty on the campuses.

So that’s the largest organization of the consortium model. Then there are the Science Doctoral Programs, five of them which have the non-lab courses taught here for the most part, and the laboratory work is on the campuses. The decision was taken when the consortium model was established, not to have any wet labs at the Graduate Center. So the students are based on a campus and they come to the Graduate Center for non-lab courses and for cross-campus colloquia and so on. But they do most of their research in the laboratories on the campuses. Then there are five campus-specific doctoral programs as a function of the special mission of the campuses. Though they vary a little bit in how they operate. And that is Criminal Justice at John Jay, Engineering up at City College, Business at Baruch, Social Welfare at Hunter, and the Biomedical Sciences Degree Program which is entirely up at Mt. Sinai. That is an affiliated relationship with Mt. Sinai. Most of the Mt. Sinai faculty, some people being excepted, have their appointments primarily in the Biomedical Sciences Doctoral Program. We do have the pleasure of having some Mt. Sinai faculty in other programs. Then there is one program, Psychology, which was organized in terms of ten sub-programs, and seven of those sub-programs are on the campuses, in what is called a chosen-agent model, and three are here. Since that developed, Psychology has undergone major changes in the organization of knowledge in psychology. I think what we are going to be seeing is some reorganizing and some bringing together of these sub-programs into greater interaction between them.

The total faculty in the senior colleges is almost 4,000, I think 3,900. And in the Community Colleges, about 1,700. What I want to show you now [referring to overheads] is the distribution of faculty by campuses, by appointment in the doctoral program. What you have here are the campuses, these are the faculty from the community colleges and doctoral programs of which they are affiliated. The other are various faculty in other institutions around the City and in the professions who have an appointment on the doctoral faculty for the purpose of offering a course or being available to help with the dissertation. Here are the doctoral programs, and this is the total number of faculty from each of the campuses that have appointments in the doctoral faculty. I want to say that some of this includes adjunct, visiting, and emeritus. So for example, at the Graduate Center, it says 130. But when you substitute the administrators and the visiting and the emeritus, actually the functional number of doctoral faculty based at the Graduate Center is closer to 87. All of these numbers include emeritus.

So we have a total of 1,770 members of the doctoral faculty, but in fact, if you take out the emeritus, if you take out the adjunct and visiting faculty, and if you take out the Mt. Sinai faculty who are primarily associated with one doctoral program, this number of 1,770, becomes 1,282. Of those 1,282, 1,266 are at the senior colleges. And if you look at the total number of full-time faculty at the senior colleges what you realize is that almost 1/3 of your colleagues on your campuses are members of the doctoral faculty.

These numbers, if you are looking across, of the total number of faculty per program, this number is modified. For instance it says, in German, that there are 5 faculty members on the German doctoral faculty. But that’s misleading, because a person was counted in this accounting only once. In fact, there are 15 members of the doctoral faculty who are affiliated with the German doctoral program. You have people from Comparative Literature, you have some people from some other programs that are also on the German doctoral faculty. So functionally, for example, German is 15 and not 5, Comparative Literature is 32 and not 19, Biochemistry is 58, and not 24. Many people in Biochemistry or in Biology or in Chemistry, they were counted only once. So they end up in the Biology or Chemistry faculty, but they also serve in the Biochemistry faculty. Chemistry is 80 and not 68. On the other hand Physics, which is 109, that includes all the emeritus and actually that number is really 92. So to understand the actual distribution of the faculty by programs, you have to add and subtract multiple appointments and then subtract the emeritus. Some of whom are available to work with students, but many of whom are not. Engineering is not 90, but 76. And French is not 22, but 17. Similarly, the Graduate Center base faculty, some of these numbers are also functionally different. For example, Anthropology is 4 and not 7 because of the emeritus. Economics is 2 and not 4, and so on. So to unpack this, you have to know about the various factors that went into each of these numbers.

When the consortium model was developed, there was a fair amount of discussion about the notion of what we call central appointments or Graduate Center appointments, who are individuals, primarily at the professor level, who are at the Graduate Center full-time. We can discuss some of that later for those people who are interested. The rationale as I understand it was a mixed one. In some doctoral programs, where you need a particular kind of specialty and none of the campuses wants to or is able to hire somebody in that specialty. Then that, because of the generality of that person’s work does not contribute significantly to the undergraduate needs of the program, became a rationale for making a central appointment. Also, in terms of recruiting some people who would not otherwise come to CUNY. It was an opportunity for CUNY to attract certain faculty. And then finally, the notion of giving a stable presence at the Graduate Center for the doctoral students who function here.

In fact, this model actually makes a stable presence for every student. For the students who are based on the campuses there is the stable presence particularly in the Sciences. In the doctoral faculty in the laboratory sciences, and similarly at John Jay and Baruch in Engineering, there is a fair amount of cross-interaction between the doctoral programs that are based on the campuses, like Business and Criminal Justice, because a number of their students take courses that are also offered at the Graduate Center. At City College in Engineering, because so many of the doctoral faculty in the sciences have cross appointments with Engineering, most of the students who take non-Engineering courses, or study with non-Engineering faculty are studying with faculty based at City College.

The campuses are reimbursed for the contribution of faculty, by what is called the allocation system. Let me show you now how the allocation system is distributed. What happens is that for every doctoral program that utilizes a faculty member from Baruch or Queens or City College, there is a credit given to the campus for every faculty member who participates, either by giving a course or sitting or chairing a dissertation. There is a complicated formula about the number of dissertations to be advised and so on. Then the Graduate Center holds in trust about 235 lines, which are then made available to campuses as a function of their participation in the doctoral programs against which they can appoint people. The campus can appoint anyone to these lines that they wish. There are some people who get a check from the Graduate Center who are not on the doctoral faculty. The Graduate Center does not interfere with any campuses use of the lines. The is considerable variation in the total number of faculty associated with each campus, with City College having the largest number, 316, having appointments on the doctoral faculty. Queens is next with 259, Hunter next with 217, Brooklyn with 168, Baruch with 143, John Jay with 50, Lehman with 80, and College of Staten Island with 62. Then there are 126 other people appointed to the doctoral faculty who may or may not be strong participants in the doctoral faculty.

The allocation to every campus changes as a function of the campus releasing people to teach in the doctoral program. Every year, after the fact, there is a calculation made for each campus in terms of the faculty that they have released, and what that earns them in the allocation system. This is a comparison of 1996-1997. This is this year’s allocation. There is a total of 215 lines that are allocated, although there is 238 in the entire system. You’ll see that Baruch this year earned 23 lines, Brooklyn, 29, City, 56, Hunter, 45, John Jay, 10, Lehman, 20, Queens, 46, and Staten Island, 9. When community colleges release a faculty member to participate in a doctoral program, the Graduate School reimburses them with dollars rather than lines. That is a separate allocation. In addition, there are 12 support lines that are distributed to the campuses, and these are lab technicians, assistants to the doctoral program on the campus. This adjunct line is given to campuses if they need to have somebody to participate in the doctoral program who is not on the CUNY faculty. So there are specialists brought in, let’s say for some courses that need to be offered at Baruch and also at Queens. And there are dollars distributed in that manner, the dollars equate to lines. This resource that goes to the campus is used by the Provost on the campuses to make appointments. This is part of their budget, and they count on these lines as part of their overall budget. If a campus were to say tomorrow, we will release no faculty for the next two years to work in the doctoral programs, if Baruch said that, they would lose 23 lines from their budget, against which they can appoint people. The doctoral program is budgetarily built into the budgets of the campuses.

There are a lot of issues that are surrounding the doctoral programs and the consortia model. One obviously is, who is and who is not on a doctoral faculty. There are some disciplines in which we don’t offer any doctoral work so there would be no appointments on the doctoral faculty. When a new program is proposed -- we haven’t had a new program initiated at the Graduate School since I’ve been here, although there are some in the pipeline -- the Governance By-Laws say that the first set of appointments to the faculty is done by the President of the Graduate Center. Then the President of the Graduate Center, never more, ever, can appoint anyone to a doctoral program. That is decided by the faculty in the doctoral program. So it’s your colleagues who are making the decision as to who is and who is not appointed to the doctoral program. There are many faculty who are not interested in teaching in the doctoral level. There are some who are interested and who are not invited to teach at the doctoral level. This is not any different than any other University that I know of where appointment to the doctoral faculty is generally not a right, but a selection made by the particular doctoral programs. I’m not naive enough to not understand that this sometimes causes hard feelings. These are human judgments, and they are fallible. Sometimes programs have a particular emphasis and a person who might very well qualify for the doctoral program, who doesn’t work in that area, may not be appointed because the program has announced or decided that it’s going to keep a particularly targeted focus. These things change, and there is a regular evaluation of every doctoral program.

We have two evaluation systems that go on. One is a State system in which doctoral programs are evaluated by discipline across the whole State at the same time. They are evaluated by external consultants and then we get information back and then we have our own internal doctoral evaluation program which started a few years. The program does a self study and then we bring in outside consultants. We’ve gotten some very interesting reviews most recently. The other issues are that there is sometimes resentment on the campuses that a person is taken away from offering a course in a department, offer a course at the Graduate Center, or to participate in the doctoral program. This has been especially exacerbated in the last several years where there has been such a diminution of full-time faculty and a struggle on the part of departments to release people to teach in the doctoral program when they are having a hard time meeting their own teaching needs on the campuses. We are sensitive to that, and we understand that. On the other hand, our goal is to try to get as many of the best faculty as possible who are working in areas where our students have interests to be part of it. There is a tug that goes on. This is exacerbated by the fact that if the English Department at Queens releases somebody to come and teach a course at the Graduate Center, the English Department at Queens is not assured that the Provost will put replacement resources in the English Department. If I could wave one wand and make one change, I would like to make the allocation system have a more direct quid pro quo for the departments that are releasing people. But in a resource-starved University, I have sympathy for the Provosts who are dealing with Hobbesian choices all the time in terms of where they use their resources. I’m encouraged this year by the faculty appointments that are being made with the 100 lines that were allocated, and very disappointed if we can’t do that again next year. That’s the long term hope in easing up the pressure of adding more full-time faculty to the University.

There is also an issue that has arisen recently in respect to a growing trend on joint appointments where the Graduate Center and a campus appoint individuals jointly. This has two effects. If the joint appointment is in a particular area of expertise and there are other faculty across the University who have that expertise, then the joint appointment kind of ties up a certain number of courses in that expertise. We have used it recently. I’m concerned by an increasing use of that, as well because faculty change over the course of their careers. Some people are very research active for a portion of their career and then are not. One of the strengths of the consortia model, you can move across the University and select for the doctoral programs, the people who are most relevant to both the student interests at that time, and whether or not they are research active. The more joint appointments we make, the more that flexibility, which I think has been one of the real strengths of the doctoral programs, will be reduced. So I am concerned about the number of joint appointments that are being made. And there is of course the issue of some hostility or jealousy toward the people who hold central appointments, thinking they have the life of Riley here.

I would like to invite you to talk to some of them, if you don’t know many of them, in terms of the loads that they do carry. I would say that voluntarily, over a third of the central appointments in any given semester, are teaching courses on the campus. We are very encouraging of that. Some of the departments are more welcoming of central appointments who offer to teach on the campuses than others. I think it’s fair to say that the Manhattan campuses get the greater presence because of the travel issue. It is something that I have been encouraging and I hope that we can strengthen.

Let me talk about some of the options that could be faced by the University and what I see as some of the consequences albeit from my point of view, and my obviously prejudiced point of view. I do think that the consortia model has yielded for CUNY a level of quality and recognition that, had CUNY made other decisions, would not have developed. One could say, why are we doing doctoral education anyway? We have a mission in terms of the very large numbers of students that we need to serve in the City. And some people I think would say that doctoral education is a luxury. I think that if CUNY did away with all of its doctoral programs, we would become the City Colleges of New York instead of the City University of New York, with lots of consequences beyond that, as well as removing from New York, the one single public source of doctoral education. Everything else in this City is private and considerably higher tuition levels. I’m very proud to say that we have really strengthened our efforts in term of pipeline programs to the campuses. We have been funded nationally for Bridges Program, and even we thought we didn’t do so well, because we now have six minority doctoral students who have come out of the sciences in the campuses in our doctoral programs. It turns out we’ve done better than any other Bridges funded institution in the country. We have a very strong minority doctoral student enrollment. About 20% of our domestic students are minority students. When you consider that we do not currently offer a Ph.D. or Ed.D., where more than half of minority doctorates are awarded, we are enrolling large numbers of students in the root sciences and in the arts and sciences disciplines in terms of the doctoral program. I was told the other day that we have 30 minority doctoral students in our Anthropology Program alone. When you consider that there are maybe 25 anthropologists nationally holding the Ph.D., you can see the potential we have for changing a significant aspect of the whole discipline of Anthropology. We work very hard at this.

The other option would be go to a University Center model, where you would allocate different doctoral programs to different campuses. The consequences of that are that if you are at City College and the History Program is at Brooklyn, you as a history faculty would not have access to the History Doctoral Program. Unless you did some kind of distributed consortia model and I think you’d get right back to the University concept of the consortia model that we have. I want to talk a little bit about the University Centers, and the notion that what we have now does not shut out any faculty member a priori, from participating on the doctoral faculty. It gives all the faculty and all the programs the greatest flexibility. I showed you the number of lines that were earned by the different campuses. For example, Baruch earned 23 lines in the allocation system. Baruch is the site of the doctoral program in Business. Most of the students take their courses at Baruch. The fact of the matter is that more than half of the lines earned by Baruch were not in the doctoral program in Business. There are faculty in History, Sociology, Psychology, and all of the other disciplines from Baruch who participate in the doctoral program. If you had a doctoral program assigned to one campus in one particular discipline, it would potentially shut out the faculty in the other disciplines at that campus from participating in the doctoral faculty. The same thing is true at John Jay. More than half the lines earned by John Jay are earned by the faculty participating in programs other than the doctoral program in Criminal Justice.

I can make a lot of arguments for why I think this is a useful model. Even taking it as having the problems it does. I have tried to suggest that in fact CUNY has a University Center which is the Graduate Center, but with distributed functions on all the campuses that participate in the doctoral program. We were never funded as a University Center. SUNY’s University Centers not only were given doctoral faculty lines, but they have fellowships for doctoral students in the State budget, which we do not have. They give tuition remission to the students who teach on their campuses which we cannot yet do. I’m hoping we will be able to do it. And their labs were funded for research level work, which we were not funded for. One of the largest deficits in this model fiscally, is that the Graduate Center has no funds to reimburse the campuses for the expenses they occur in the doctoral programs in the sciences. I have been trying to work with the Central Administration to get a comparable allocation system for what’s called in this University OTPS, the supply and equipment money. That we could then distribute to the campuses in the same way that we distribute the allocation lines for faculty participation, to reimburse the campuses for the cost they incur in maintaining those laboratories.

Let me close by just saying a few things. I believe that if the consortia model in the Graduate Center did not exist and we had gone to some distribution of doctoral programs by campuses with the potential for duplication, that we would be in the wrenching process of trying to create the Graduate Center now. That there is an efficiency and an effectiveness that I don’t believe CUNY with all of its fiscal problems could have achieved in any other way. We have little or no duplication and that is an important part. I think many of you know what’s going on in other states with greatly distributed geographical units offering multiple doctoral programs in a particular discipline and where they are trying to discontinue those doctoral programs. There has been even some talk of that in SUNY. There is an intricate relationship between the Graduate Center and the campuses that goes beyond the fiscal. The Executive Officer in English commented to me that the English doctoral students now teach 20,000 CUNY undergraduate students a year. That is a major presence of our doctoral students on the campuses. We’re very committed to try to strengthen their background and their training. We have a number of things that we are doing. The consortia model was a compact that was drawn up between the State and the City University when it was created. The question to me is, how do we strengthen that compact and try to achieve better distribution of the resources out to the campuses.

I want to end by showing you some comparative data with SUNY. I think some of you know that in the last national ranking of doctoral programs, by the National Research Council, which is a reputational ranking, we came out very well. Over a third of our programs in that ranking were judged the top 20 in the United States against a lot of privates and a lot of public Ivies. But of interest to me, was where we fell both nationally and in terms of SUNY. Let me just show you. These are data that Dean Savage put together. These are the doctoral rankings and it shows the quartile that each of the programs ended up in. These are the Arts and Humanities which were mainly in the 1st and 2nd quartile, Comparative Literature is probably an error, in that some piece of paper did not get returned to the National Research Council, and a lot of faculty were left off the list which then affected the ranking. It’s not a valid ranking. In the Sciences and Engineering we ended up in the 1st, 2nd, and 3rd, one in the 4th quartile. When it comes around the next time given some of the changes occurring and the faculty recruitment that is going on, that will change. In the Social and Behavioral Sciences, we were either in the 1st or 2nd quartile. When you look in comparison to SUNY, the vaunted University Centers, we find some very interesting data.

This is Engineering and the Physical and Mathematical Sciences. In Chemical Engineering the only other Chemical program in the State in SUNY is in Buffalo, and we out rank them. In Electrical we outrank, Stony Brook, Buffalo, and Binghamton. For Mechanical both Stony Brook and Buffalo outranked us. When you come down to the Physical Sciences and Mathematics, in Computer Science only Stony Brook outranked us, and we were higher than Buffalo and Binghamton. In Geo-Sciences, Stony Brook, Binghamton, and Albany, we were higher than Buffalo. Mathematics, we were outranked only by Stony Brook. Physics, we were outranked only by Stony Brook. When you look at the Social and Behavioral Sciences, in Anthropology we outranked all of the SUNY campuses. In Economics we were outranked only by Stony Brook, Political Science similarly, Psychology similarly, and Sociology we were outranked by Stony Brook, Albany, and Binghamton. If you look at the Humanities, SUNY has no doctoral programs in either Art History or French. In Comparative Literature we were outranked by Stony Brook, although I think that’s an erroneous ranking. English, we outranked both Stony Brook and Binghamton. Linguistics we outranked Buffalo and Stony Brook. Music, we were fourth in the country; we outranked Stony Brook and Buffalo. Philosophy, similarly Stony Brook and Buffalo. Hispanic and Luso-Brazilian we outranked Buffalo, Stony Brook, and Albany. History, we outranked Binghamton, Stony Brook, and Buffalo. Finally, in Bio-Chemistry we are outranked by Stony Brook, Buffalo, and Buffalo Medicine. The Biology disciplines, every campus organizes its faculty in biology differently and the comparisons are not easy to make. But in Cell Biology we were outranked by Stony Brook, Buffalo, and the Medical School. In Ecology, Evolution, and Behavior, by Stony Brook and Albany. And then the Neurosciences, by Stony Brook and Buffalo Medical School.

For a University that has had the difficulties we’ve had, I think this is a triumph. And it is a triumph based upon the reputation of our faculty. We have a wonderful faculty at CUNY and many of them participate in the doctoral programs. I think this is something to be treasured. As Sandi said, the public is only thinking about us in terms of remedial work, which by the way I think we can do very well. I don’t equate quality only with doctoral programs. There can be quality in all the dimensions of what the University offers. But I think this is a model, with all its stresses and strains that I believe at CUNY we ought to treasure and try to make it better and recognize what some of the difficulties are. So let me stop there and take comments, discussion, questions.

Professor Kaplowitz (English, John Jay College) - "I was wondering what the rationale is for having no central graduate lines at the campuses that have the doctoral programs that are taught, housed, and administered on the campuses?" / President Horowitz - That’s a very good question. It is something that has been raised, particularly by the Sciences. It is something that we ought to consider particularly in the theoretical area of hiring some faculty full-time at the Graduate Center who then would work across the campuses. Physics has been very interested in the possibility of doing that. The resource starving is preventing us from moving out there. / Professor Kaplowitz - "I’m glad you are considering it, thank you."

Professor Greenbaum (History, Queens College) - "This is not so much a question as it is a comment. As I look at the distribution of schools in the Graduate Program, outside of Physics, there seems to be almost no one from community colleges, and there are a number of scholars from community colleges. I think you might look into it." / President Horowitz - Well, in fact, in a number of instances where people from the community colleges have been invited to the doctoral faculty, the campuses have not been willing to let them. The community colleges are very pressured and I know that there are some fine scholars on the community campuses.

Professor Johnson (Physical and Computer Science, Medgar Evers College) - "What is the percentage of minority doctoral students, and what is the percentage of minority doctoral faculty." / President Horowitz - As I said, about 20% of the domestic doctoral students are minority students. I believe the last time I looked, about 10% of the doctoral faculty are minority faculty. / Professor Johnson - "Is there any process of trying to recruit more minority faculty?" / President Horowitz - Yes, we’re working on it.

VI. New Business - There was none.