MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Location: file:///C:/6915DE0C/dec05mins.html.htm Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Content-Type: text/html; charset="us-ascii" MINUTES OF THE THREE HUNDRED AND FIFTEENTH PLENARY SESSION

MINUTES OF = THE THREE HUNDRED AND FIFTEENTH PLENARY SESSION

OF THE UNIV= ERSITY FACULTY SENATE

OF THE CITY UNIVERSITY OF NEW YORK

 

December 6,= 2005

 =

The meeting w= as called to order by UFS Chair O’Malley at 6:35 p.m. in Room 9205/6/7 at the Graduate School and University Center.  74 voting members of 113 were pres= ent.

 =

Baruch: Present &#= 8211; Hill, Martell, and Pollard. Absent – Freedman, Myers, Smith, and Vora. Vacancies – 2.=   BMCC: Present – Agwu, Friedman, Martin, Rani, and Roy. Absent – Belknap, and Price,  Bronx CC: Present – Alozie, Asimakopoulos, Durante, Skinner, and Ismail.  Brooklyn: Present – Antoniello, Bell, Bloomfield, Jacob= son, Morawski, Shapiro, and Alternate Cherukupalli.<= span style=3D'mso-spacerun:yes'>  Absent –Cunningham, Rodman, = Tobey, Viscusi, and Wills. CCNY: Present – Crain, Daglish, Leonard, and Sank.  Vacancies R= 11; 5.  CSI:  Present – Cooper, Klibaner, Levine, Petratos, Yousef and Alternate Schumann.  Absent – Farkouh.  CUNY Law = School: Present – McArdle. Ab= sent – Andrews. Vacancies – 1.  Graduate = School: Present – Baumrin, and Alternate Burke.  Absent – King, Lerner, Nolan= , and Orenstein. Vacancy – 1.  Hostos CC: Present – August, Falcon, and Alternate Czarnocha. Vacancies - 2.=   Hunter: Present – Doy= le, Finder, Kaye, and Matthews.  A= bsent – Friedman, Guzzetta, Krishnamachari, McCormick, Sherrill, and Wimberly. Vacancies – 1.  John Jay= : Present –Crossman, and Kaplowitz. Absent – Brugnola, Caldwell, = Kubic, and Romero.&n= bsp; Kingsborough CC: Present – Barnhart, Galvin, O’Malley, and Ruoff.  Ab= sent – Farrell, Hume.  LaG= uardia CC: Present – Beaky, Lerman, Mettler, Rushing, Shean, and Alternate Green-Anderson.  Absent – Davidson.  Lehman: Present – Aronow= itz, Philipp, and Wilder. Absent – Jervis, Kolb, and = Mineka.  Medgar Evers: Present ̵= 1; Daly, Hastick and Alternate Stewart.  Absent – Simmons.  NYCCT: Present – Cerm= ele, Dreyer, Horelick, Hounion, and Alternate Pinto. Absent – Karthikeyan, Richardson.  Queens: Present – Bir= d, Casco, Gonzalez, Moore, Savage, and Zevin. Absent – Brody, Habib,= and Tse.  Vaca= ncies – 2. Queensborough CC: Present – Barbanel, Hest, Jacobowitz, Pecorino, and Alternate Dahbany-Miraglia.  Absent –Weiss. Vacancies = 211; 1.  York:  Absent – Divale, Frank, Lewis, and Rosenthal.

 

Dean Steve Shepard, School of Journalism, attended.   Professor Ibrahim Habib (CCN= Y) attended.  Ron McGuire, Miguel= Malo, and Jan Nordon attended.

 

Governance Leaders present: Anderson (BMCC), Ba= umrin (GSUC), Burke (GSUC), Cooper (CSI), Dreyer (NYCTC), Kaplowitz (John Jay), Leonhard (CCNY), Levine (CSI), Martell (Baruch), Mettler (LaGuardia), Pecor= ino (QCC), Savage (Queens), andYoung (Hunter).  Parliamentarian Andrea McArdle, Executive Director Phipps, Administrative Assistant Pasela, and Secretary Blanchard were also present.

 

I.   Approval of the Agenda:  The agenda= was amended to include Item IV. B. Resolution on Miguel Ma= lo’s Sentencing.  The agenda, as am= ended, was adopted.

 

II.  Approval of the Minutes of September, 2005:  Senator Dalgi= lish corrected page 37, line 5 to read, “have this Patriot Act overview of= faculty, so that the…”  The Minutes were adopted as corrected.

[T= he order of business was modified.  It = is recorded as stated on the agenda for consistency.]

 

III.  Reports: (Recorded in Reports & Deliberations)
       &= nbsp;    A.  Chair.<= br>        &= nbsp;    B.  Chancellor Goldstein.

IV.  New Business:

   &nbs= p;        A.  Resolution Regarding the Proposed = Online BA Degree.  The full discussio= n is recorded in Reports & Deliberations.&n= bsp; The resolution was adopted with 61 senators in favor, 3 opposed, and= 2 abstentions.  Professors Petratos, Bloomfield, and Stewart voted nay.  Professors <= st1:place w:st=3D"on">Bell and Pecorino abstained.

 

Resolution Regarding the CUNY Online B.A.

 

Resolved,    that the UFS cannot wi= th confidence support the proposal as outlined in the document below.

 

Proponent:  Executive Committee

 

The CUNY Online Baccalaureate

 

Planned to start in Fall 2006 with 300 students, the CUNY Online Baccalaureate is intended for "degree completers," students who began college but have been unable to complete their degree work. A var= iety of life pressures, from work to family obligations, mean classroom-based instruction isn't an option for these students.  With this key exception – th= at the only way they can complete their degree is online – they are just the students targeted by CUNY's mission: students given access to higher educat= ion who would otherwise be denied that opportunity.

 

The CUNY Online Baccalaureate is not just a perfect mission fit for CUNY–= a means of giving access and opportunity to students now outside the constituencies served by the existing campuses – but it is in every w= ay to be a regular CUNY degree, developed and delivered by CUNY faculty, if distinctive in its mode of delivery. The School of Professional Studies is = the ideal place for the degree; the relatively new school, now two years old, a= lready has a track record of working with CUNY faculty to deliver quality instruct= ion entirely to their satisfaction, and to do this quickly, flexibly, with care= ful attention to support services (so critical in this venture). SPS will be ab= le to draw on online instruction throughout CUNY but also to provide it with a single support structure, ensuring that students get the support they need = to succeed.

 

A half decade of exemplary work in online instruction and course development means CUNY has rich resources to mine for this degree: hundreds of instruct= ors have undergone extensive faculty development for online instruction, many of whom can now claim years of experience with multiple courses in online form= ats. Developed by such CUNY faculty, this degree's curriculum will be one in whi= ch features of online learning—computer-mediated communication, interact= ive inquiry, use of web-based resources—will give an added dimension to instruction. Still, forging existing and prospective online courses into a = rigorous, coherent, quality curriculum is a challenge. The Steering Committee for Onl= ine Resources and Education (SCORE) has been meeting since the start of 2005 to consider issues of curriculum, policy, and resource management posed by suc= h a degree. Faculty from SCORE have volunteered to serve on advisory committees= to take such thinking further, but final decisions must rest with the SPS Curriculum Committee (yet to be named), and approved by the SPS Governing Committee.

 

The Chancellor himself has proposed that the CUNY Online Baccalaureate be developed, taught, and overseen by full-time CUNY facul= ty who have joint appointments, both at their home campus and in SPS. It is important that these joint appointments are for service – things like curriculum development and oversight, teaching evaluation, and so on –= ; as well as for some teaching, so that a joint appointment might entail one cou= rse a year, for instance, plus committee service. The exact nature of these joi= nt appointments is being worked out (one challenge is to avoid making instruct= ion in the online degree happen at the expense of the colleges' teaching resources), but the decision to make joint appointments has been made and w= ill be implemented.

 

To round out offerings and accommodate growth, the online degree will tap other CUNY faculty with experience teaching online, contracting them to develop courses for the program and paying them to teach these courses as adjuncts = in keeping with the University rules on faculty pay. As the program grows, it = will add not just other adjunct faculty but also full-time faculty, not just as joint appointments, but as full-time positions teaching in the CUNY Online = Baccalaureate.



   &nbs= p;        B.  Resolution on Miguel Malo’s Sentencing:  The resolution was adopted with 69 Senators in favor, 1 opposed, and 3 abstentions.  Professor Burke was opposed and Professors Binder, Doyle, and Dreyer abstained.

Resolution on Miguel Malo’s Sentencing

 

Whereas,      Miguel Mal= o, a Hostos Community College governance leader, was arrested in August 2001 whi= le protesting cutbacks and fee hikes for bilingual and ESL courses at Hostos; = and

 

Whereas,      following = his conviction in October 2005 on a misdemeanor charge of reckless assault and a violation of disorderly conduct growing out of his arrest, Mr. Malo faces u= p to a year in prison;

 

Therefore be it resolved,<= span style=3D'mso-spacerun:yes'>      that the University Faculty Senate requests that Miguel Malo be allowed to perform community service as is common in misdemeanor cases, and not be sentenced t= o jail.

 

 

III.  Reports: Continued.&n= bsp; (Recorded in Reports & Deliberations)

C.  School of Journalis= m, Dean Steve Shepard.

D.<= span style=3D'mso-spacerun:yes'>  Results of the Faculty Experience Survey, Professor Dean Savage (Preliminary
      Repor= t, 12/6/05, appended).

E.  Representatives to Board of Trustee Committees (written).

 

   &nbs= p;        There being no further business the meeting was adjourned at 9:05 p.m.

 

 

Respectfully submitted,

 

 

Bill Phipps
Executive Director

 

REPORTS AND DELIBERATIONS OF
 THE THREE HUNDRED AND FIFTEEN= TH PLENARY
SESSION OF THE UNIVERSITY FACULTY SENATE
OF THE CITY UNIVERSITY OF NEW YORK

December 6, 2005

III. Reports:

A: Chair: Susan O’Malley: I want to start by saying our parliamentarian ju= st got tenure at the Law School. I couldn= 217;t be more pleased. She doesn’t have it yet in her hands, so it’s unofficial, but I just want to say that she has worked so hard. The chancel= lor is not coming today. He is at the Law School because they are interviewing candidates= for the Dean of the Law School. So he was u= nable to come which means we don’t have our entourage, which is fine with m= e. At 7:15 Dean Shepard arrives to talk about the Journalism School. Until then we have time to go over a few issues. There are three things tha= t I would like to talk about tonight. One is the reorganization of the doctoral Sciences. There was a retreat yesterday about this. I also want talk about = the online computers degree in the School of Professional Studies and the Perez decision that came down last week.

First, the Online Completers’ degree program. (= agenda item IV. A.) The meeting took place Nov 30th and everyone except= me on the Governing Board of the School of Professional Studies. voted for the Curriculum Committee for the online SPS degree. The UFS names three members of the SPS Governing Board, of which I = am one. We had extensive discussions and governance leaders talked to the memb= ers on their campuses. Barbara Weinstein, one of the UFS appointees, left to te= ach. The Chancellor called most of the members at home or at work and said that = the UFS was essentially doing a power play, and therefore, they should vote for= the Curriculum Committee of the online SPS degree. So there we are. I spent the meeting arguing that the document that we looked at her was insufficient. B= ert Flugman asked me why I thought it was insufficient. I= f you read it, you will see that it is not substantial at all. I asked why of the= 12 people making up the degree, there was not one scientist. And the answer wa= s, “The 12 people know scientists.” No one objected. I was amazed.= I said I didn’t know why of the six people making up the upper level courses, four are social scientists. That’s not a very good balance, = and three are from community colleges. I said I am from a community college, an= d I know well that community college faculty tend no= t to have the experience to design upper level courses even though some of us do teach at senior colleges. (I teach at City College’s Center for Worker Education). We don’t have the experience of senior college curriculum committees. George Otte said that the community college professors on the curriculum committee all would like to teach the material= of their dissertations. Now that’s a non-sequitur. I kept hammering and hammering, but I didn’t get support and I think it’s the people= in the committee – Bert Flugman, Mimi Abramo= witz, Dan Atkins, Allan Wernick, Gerald Markowitz, Barbara Weinstein, Robert Paaswell – they’re all very reputable fac= ulty, but they hadn’t been brought into the discussion until the very last minute. So when the vote came, I said I have been directed by the 127 membe= rs of the University Faculty Senate and by the 19 governance leaders not to vo= te for the curriculum committee. I said the 19 governance leaders include your governance leaders. and, you cannot get much bet= ter than Phil Leonhard (City College), Joan Tronto (Hunter), Karen Kaplowitz= (John Jay), and Stefan Baumrin (Graduate School). I listed t= hem all and the governing board members looked a little dead. They then proceed= ed to vote for the curriculum committee. They said privately to me, “Sus= an, you don’t have the votes, why would we cross the Chancellor?” It was a very sad day for me. I don’t know if you want to ask questions = or I don’t know if we want to move on to the resolution that we have. Why don’t you ask a few questions and then Michael Barnhart, who is chair= of Academic Policy, is going to reshape the resolution a bit, because of our discussion.

Professor Alfred Levine (Engineering Sciences and Physics, College of Staten Island) – I am from the College of Staten Island. T= he vote was to form the curriculum committee. It was not to approve a letter of intent. / Chair O’Malley - That is correct. You should have a = list of the curriculum committee members listed on the document. And then on the other side of the sheet are the people making up the degree. / Professor Levine – I believe the appropriate party to review and approve th= is and all other CUNY-wide degrees is the University Faculty Senate. I want to go on record as pledging that when I receive the letter of intent, I will consider it carefully. I will make my judgment sol= ely based on the quality of the letter of intent. I will not care who developed= it. Therefore, as far as I am concerned, let it be this curriculum committee th= at develops it. If it’s an excellent letter of intent, I intend to vote = yes. If it’s not an excellent letter of intent, I will stand up, state my reasons and vote against it. / Chair O’Malley – I had be= en promised that the letter of intent would be available today and then I could have brought it to our Academic Policy Committee to look at. However, today= I was told that it was not yet ready, but perhaps would be tomorrow. But it’s hard to proceed until we see the letter of intent. We need to vo= te on the preliminary document, but I very much want feedback from the UFS on = the letter of intent.

Professor Bill Crain: (Psychology, City College) – The question is what if they go forward without the UFS approval? /= Professor Levine – We have to state that they cannot do so? / Chair O’Malley - We can state that. / Professor Levine – And we c= an threaten to go to court. / Chair O’Malley – We are going= to talk about Perez, which is a decision that moves us into a much stro= nger position than we have been before.

Professor Anne Friedman (Developmental Skills, Borough of Manhattan Community College) – But I hear them say or imply that this committee= was going to create the letter of intent. The charge to this committee, or the = way it’s described here, this committee is not going to write a letter of intent but this committee is going to proceed with developing the coursewor= k, syllabi, admission, pre-requisites and so on. My understanding is that the letter of intent is coming from the Executive Vice Chancellor. But the committee is formed and already told what to do but eventually we’ll = get the letter of intent from her. / Chair O’Malley – Yes, I think it comes from her although these are the people who are working on it= . / Professor Friedman – I think we do have a problem with that. It seems= a little backwards to me. / Chair O’Malley – The letter of intent will be circulated to your college presidents to make sure there is = no overlap. We’re exploring that right now. Catherine Gorlin of the Office of Academic Affairs – she is convinced there is no over= lap. Until we see the degree, it’s hard to know. The major is Communication and Culture.

Professor Sandi Cooper (History, College of Staten Island): The SPS committee that voted to approve the members of a Curriculum Committee ̵= 1; it seems that they could not have had anything more in front of them than t= his page and quarter document that we have. / Chair O’Malley ̵= 1; That is correct. / Professor Cooper – This document called the CUNY O= nline Baccalaureate, which we have had floating around for about two weeks. It ha= s no signature and no date on it and no letterhead. There is an uncanny resembla= nce to the way the SPS arrangement was presented to us. That was about a year a= go. This document does not indicate who produced the variance permitting SPS to give a Baccalaureate. It was entirely supposed to be certificates, graduate programs and what I used to call “just in time” education depen= ding on who needed somebody trained for something. So it was a specific prohibit= ion against Baccalaureate degrees. Therefore, the people who have voted on this= on my money are doing something which is totally outside of their charge and t= heir purview. But it seems to me that 80th Street only pulls laws out when it’s convenient. I don’t think that the resolution that the Executive Committee is presenting tonight is out of line. It simply states that the attached document, which is this nameless, dateless, un-letterheaded piece of paper, describes an anticipated degree to be offered. And we are a= sked to assess the document we are given. SPS obviously assessed it. On what grounds, I don’t know. We have not had the advantage of having private phone calls from the Chancellor. There I think we can be more independent a= nd less intimidated although I don’t think personally a phone call would make me change my mind. I think the body should vote on this. It will provi= de a direction for the leadership of the Senate in the next few months and it wi= ll send a message, which clearly has to be delivered to those folks who are violating all the promises they made last year. / Chair O’Malley - Perhaps it would make sense to move to the resolution. It was sent to you in your packet and we have extras in the back. I do want to say that on next Monday the School of Professional Studies Governing Committee is being reconvened to vote on the letter of intent. I have said that I must have it with sufficient time to study it. We will see if that happens.

Professor Campbell Daglish (Media and Communicat= ion Arts, City College) - In this letter of inten= t what I would like to see is if it implies that there is a path to a goal that th= ey will achieve successfully. And I would like it described what that path wou= ld be, who would be included, and how they will succeed in the school. SPS at = NYU failed with an online degree and so did Columbia University= . Have either of these universities been contacted, asked to give some input, find out what mistakes were made, why it failed, how much money did they lo= se? Are we entering a fatal path towards a goal that we cannot successfully accomplish? And if so, what path do we need to follow in order to be successful? / Chair O’Malley - Phil, do you want to respond to that or not? Or do you know the answer?

Professor Phil Pecorino (Social Sciences, Queensborough Commu= nity College) - I volunteered to help out with developing this thing. I volunteered for the group that’s working on support services.

Chair O’Malley: Can you answer about= why the Columbia and NYU failed?

Professor Pecorino: They knew what they were trying to do. What this is trying to do = is something different so it’s a different path. It does not mean that t= hey are not going down another path that’s fraught with as many potential errors and mistakes and opportunities for failure. It might be helpful to k= now a bit about the initial target group. The office of Institutional Research identified about 66,000 people who had stopped out of CUNY with the followi= ng characteristics:  they had 30 = or more credits, they left in good standing meaning a GPA above 2.0, and they didn’t give reasons why they weren’t returning. Of that number, 44,000, I believe, had stopped progress at community colleges and the hope = is that somehow they will be enticed to return if this program offers them an opportunity to complete their degree. That would only be true if the reason= why they didn’t continue would be surmounted by the instruction being off= ered online. But every time we get into a discussion of the potential group R= 11; we had an excellent series of questions given to us a month or so ago about marketing – more questions come up. For example, these folks stopped completion of a particular degree, maybe in physics or chemistry or in sociology or whatever. They’re not being offered an opportunity to complete that degree. They are being offered only a program with one track = in it to become a holder of the baccalaureate degree. So the belief is that somehow from that group of 66,000 they are going to get folks, by and large= , that don’t need remediation although 44,000 stop out from community colleg= es where its quite easy to get 30 credits without having completed your remedi= al courses such as English 101. And of that group, there will be enough willin= g to take this program to obtain a baccalaureate degree in Communications and Culture for whatever use…I’m not sure. We’re talking about support services for advising and counseling people and job placement for people and it’s kind of like designing a wonderful program where the = core, your curriculum, may not be attractive enough to create a community that’s going to enter into the program. Nor to deliver the wonderful things you’d like a person to leave the program with. This is not to = say you cannot do a good job on delivering online instruction. I’ve seen = it. You can. But there are a whole host of questions and issues about this one.= You also ought to know that in developing this, in order to deal with the pract= ical questions, issues have come up such as: people who are out of state, what tuition will they pay? People who are not in the country, what will they pa= y? So my thinking is, when I hear those questions, that this is not just for t= his one specific program that might attract a variety of people from all differ= ent backgrounds (who also happen to be CUNY stop-out people) but it might then = go on to attract lots of others from lots of other places who like the idea of= the online degree. But the core of our governance issues is still there to be d= ealt with, looking at the particulars of the curriculum and the organization. / = Chair O’Malley - Thank you. And did you write some of the letter of int= ent? / Professor Pecorino – Yes. I told you, I’m more concern= ed about the budget than the letter of intent. The budget tells you what reall= y the intention is, what’s actually going to be there. / Chair O’Mall= ey – Okay, let’s look at the resolution. Michael Barnhart is going= to offer some amendments to it.

Professor Michael Barnhart (History, Philosophy and Political Science, Kingsborough Community College) – I thought that Phil did a very good= job articulating what bothered us in the committee on Academic Policy when we looked at this proposal. One of the big things that impressed us was that t= here seemed to be a big mismatch between the target audience and actually what w= as being offered. So we did in the end feel that perhaps it was worth taking a stand against the actual document that’s come out so far because we f= eel that the direction is perhaps very flawed, and not to mention the sorts of = governance issues that were alluded to in terms of the way in which it was hatched. But also we’re reluctant to come out against the concept of online educat= ion or to imply in any way that we thought it wouldn’t work. So, we sat d= own and tried to recraft the resolution to some ext= ent so it would reflect our concerns about the document itself, and it looked like= it was going to be a lot of whereases but Sandi Co= oper provided a nice handy reference to CUNY’s “Revised Faculty Hand= book for Preparation of Academic Programs,” and if we take a look at the requirements in there, they are fairly specific about how a program should = be designed. It’s very clear that there has to be some kind of rationale= in terms of the demographic appeal of a particular program and it’s clear, from the kind of thing that Phil said and from the proposal as it stands, that it does not seem to have been approached with any great care. = So we re-crafted the resolution to refer to those standards. So it now reads, “whereas the reference document (the one that’s attached to the resolution) fails to meet the standards requir= ed by the CUNY Revised Faculty Handbook for preparation of new academic programs.” The date on that handbook is January 2001, and, “whe= reas no letter of intent relating to the proposal for an online degree has been provided to the UFS, be it resolved that the UFS cannot with confidence sup= port the proposal as outlined in the attached document.” / Chair O’Malley - Do I have a second? / Audience – Yes. / Chair O’Malley – Yes, discussion. The vote is not to express confidence. / Professor Barnhart – We have resolved that the U= FS cannot with confidence support the proposal as outlined in the attached document. / Chair O’Malley – So everyone is clear about that? Sandi, did you want to offer something? / Professor Cooper<= /b> - For those who are wavering, I would like to read the criteria that the University itself requires every one of us incorporate in a new degree proposal. a) Academic Quality b) Justification of need.= Next, societal needs in terms of regional, state and na= tional needs. Then, career opportunities for graduates.= Student interest. Relationsh= ip to other programs of CUNY. Centrality to other camp= us programs and to college and university locations. Resources available to implement the program. Conformity w= ith the standards of accredited agencies for the profession. Conformity with the regulations of the State Education Depart= ment. Now if you open up this document and you find these items in there, I congratulate you. / Chair O’Malley - I think we could move the questi= on. Dean Shepard is coming in 15 minutes.

Professor Manfred Philipp (Chemistry, Lehman College) - I’m not against online instruction per se but it has to be d= one in a very high quality way. CUNY deserves that. In addition, my own college= , Lehman College, has a Mass Communication major, which is very close and very much overlappi= ng with the proposed major, in my view.

Professor Martha Bell (SEEK, Brooklyn) - The phrase “confidence” bothers me. It seems to me that it impl= ies that we could approve it but not with great confidence. I would ask the mak= er of the motion to strike “with confidence” and leave that we can= not support it. Is that all right with the maker of the motion? I don’t t= hink that helps. Yes? I would also like to say that Brook= lyn has at least two and probably three majors that are an overlap with this, including an interdisciplinary Communications major and major in Speech Communication. / Chair O’Malley – The letter of intent w= ill be circulated to the presidents. It’s very important to determine if = your college has programs that overlap with the proposed major in communication = and culture and that if this is true, that your Pres= ident has enough courage to say so. / Professor Barnhart – I underst= and Martha’s complaint. I do think it goes to the whole procedural questi= on that we constantly face which is that on the one hand, they craft these proposals and bring them down without any consultation on our part and then= we give them actually a mixed message because we often say to them, “Wel= l, if you had consulted us we would have more confidence in it.” And then they say, “Well, we are consulting you and it’s not a finished document” and then we say, “You didn’t give us a finished document, we don’t like it.” So we tend to give them a mixed message on these sorts of things. / Professor Friedman – I think that= we can only vote on what we have. The Chancellor is very aware of what Sandi r= ead and if they are not, then we have bigger problems than I think we think we have. I feel no hesitancy or wishy-washiness or concern or...Down the line,= we can always look for fabulous documents and change our minds, but today, thi= s is the last meeting of this semester. I think we have to make our statement.

Professor Stefan Baumrin (Philosophy, Graduate School) – So, an interesting layout. What the language implies is “come back to us with a different docume= nt with a different theory, maybe we’ll have a different view.” So= I don’t care. The wishy-washiness doesn’t bother me because you’re saying to the administration, “No, it’s not good enough, come back.” That’s not what they usually think they hav= e to do. That’s new. They may not come back. And then we’ll complain= a different way. But they may decide that they have to come back because if t= hey don’t come back and get our approval, they can’t get it through= the State Education Department.

Professor Vasilios Petratos (Political Science, Economics & Philosophy, College of Staten I= sland) - They have no budget, they have no estimate…they say it’s goin= g to be a money-maker. They have no plan. They have no letter of intent or un-intent. They have absolutely nothing. We have been asked to vote on a nu= mber of things. Martha was very kind. If she accepts, my amendment would be to simply say, “We reject this document.” They did not even have t= he courtesy of supplying the chair of this body with the letter of intent. I t= hink we should say we reject it. Stefan mentioned it before, we are the only ones that can approve a degree and grant a degree. So it’s time to take a position and a strong one. / Chair O’Malley - Someone called the question. One point to consider is that the plan calls for this degree prog= ram to be up and running in September ’06. I am against wishy-washiness. = All in favor of calling the question on the motion as it stands? Michael, read = it again. / Professor Barnhart – Okay, so as it stands, the Resol= ved is “Be it resolved that the University Faculty Senate cannot with confidence support the proposal as outlined in the attached document.”= ; / Chair O’Malley - All in favor of calling the question. / Audience ̵= 1; Aye! / Chair O’Malley – Any opposed? One opposed. Any abstentions? We have to name them. We will have le= ssons on the Perez decision later. There are no abstentions. Michael, read= the Resolved, and then we will vote on it. / Professor Barnhart – = Be it resolved that the University Faculty Senate cannot with confidence suppo= rt the proposal as outlined in the attached document. / Chair O’Malle= y – All in favor of the resolution? Do we need to count? How many nos? One, two, three, four, five.= How many abstentions? One. We have a count of the votes. Has Dean Shepard arrived? Because of the Perez decision, we h= ave to have the names of the people who voted “no.” Put up your han= ds once again. The “nay” votes: Bloomfield, Stewart and Burke. Abstentions:  Bill, Pecorino. We’re learning how to do it properly. Has Dean Shepard arrived? [Chair’s Report continues after items C and D.]

 

III. Reports (cont.):<= br> C.  Journa= lism Dean Steve Shepherd: -- Chair O’Malley - Dean Shepard has arrived. I asked for his bi= o, and I wasn’t given one, so, I’m making it up. Dean Shepard was Editor of Business Week for many years. He’s extraordinarily prestigi= ous. The last time he came to the UFS, I had a long bio ready, but we didn’= ;t let him speak because we were so involved with the online degree. We went on and on and on and I thought we were reasonably rude. He had to leave for a previous engagement. I am so pleased that Dean Shepard, the Dean of the New Journalism School, is going to address us tonight. Dean Shepard.=

Dean Shepard: You lost my bio. I lost my notes. So I just have to wing it. Good evening, everyone. Thank you. The most salient thing about my biography is = that I went to City College. I was an Editor of a maga= zine called Vector, which was the Engineering School magazine because I was an engineering student at City College. And it was the start of fulfilling an ambition to become a journalist. I started as a science writer and worked at McGraw Hill editorial training program at Business Week for ni= ne years, a couple of which were in London. Came back and worked there for a little longer and left to teach at Columbia in the Journalism School – Economics and Busin= ess Journalism and then went to Newswee= k where I was a Senior Editor for five years and back to Business Week. I became Editor-in-chief in 1984 and served as Editor for 20 years until last March when I left to take this job as Dean of the new Graduate School of Journalism in City University. So, in a way, coming full circle. As I said, whe= n I left Business Week, I thought this is something that stirs my soul; = this is something that needs to be done. You know, there is no publicly supported graduate school in journalism, not just in New York City but the entire Northeast.= So if you don’t have $45,000 to go to Columbia, you are out of luck. So I don’t have to tell the people in this audie= nce what that is like. So, we’re starting a Masters program in Journalism, leading to an MA degree.

We will start in September with our first students. We will start with 50 stud= ents and ramp it up over three or four years to 150 students, which will be the capacity of the school. It is a three-semester program – fall, spring, summer internship (of which I will talk about in a minute) and then the fall semester again, 16 months. It is a full-time program. The curriculum (becau= se we are 3 semesters compared to just 2 at Columbia, Northwestern, and some other graduate schools) we will have a chance to do = not only media tracks (broadcast and increasingly online journalism) but also subject concentrations. We will start with 3 sorts of subject concentration= s. One in Urban Reporting, one in Business and Economics, and the third one in Health and Medicine. And then in the second year, we’ll have some more students who’ll have a fourth concentratio= n in Arts and Culture. So you can see that those four areas are very germane to = New York, meanin= g the industries are substantially located here, whether it’s culture or business. Urban reporting - N= ew York is the best possible place to do this, and this is also the Health and Medi= cine center. So, each of those concentrations, depending on which one you choose= as a student, students can take three courses in each of those concentrations.= So the curriculum is a bit of a matrix – it’s<= /span> media tracks on top of subject concentration. We think it’s very important to have subject concentrations, not simply because of something y= ou might want to be, you know like business reporters, but because having a concentration means you can do in-depth journalism, gain a certain amount of expertise in the subject, you develop sources, you can do a more analytic f= orm of journalism or in-depth form of journalism. So if you’re asked to h= elp some other beat, you will understand what that means and learn how to do it= . I mean, you can tell potential students, you can think of it as a major in college which doesn’t mean you end up doing what you majored in but y= ou learn how to learn. So that’s the curriculum – three semesters.=

The school will be located on = 40th Street between 7th and 8th Avenues in the old Herald Tribune building, which ceased publication (for those of you who remember that wonderful paper) in the 1960s. So it’s almost 40 years. They’re going to have a commemoration in = our building in fall of ’06. Those of the people who’re still aroun= d, some pretty famous journalists. The other thing about the building is that it’s next to where New York T= imes is building its new headquarters. So this is nitty-gritty New York, where it’s half a block from Times Square, half a block from the Port Authority Bus Terminal and = in the Garment District, next door to the button shops. It turns out to be a g= reat place to do a graduate program in Journalism. It’s not just that the = New York Times will literally be t= he next building but you can walk from that building to 50 major media compani= es in New York, literally walk and a cab ride from another five. It’s really very good and makes it easier for adjuncts to come in and do some of the teaching.

 We are often asked, what makes this graduate school different from all other graduate schools? Why should someb= ody come to this school? And there are several things that make it special. In = the summer internship program, we are going to pay everyone. In other words, if students get a summer internship at a place that pays (I remember when I wa= s at Business Week, we paid interns), that’s fine. But if you don’t, we’ll pay them a stipend, something approximately $3000 for the summer, so that they don’t have= to go work at some other job. I think internships are a critical part of the <= st1:place w:st=3D"on">School of Journalism and this is a good opportunity. And of course, these things often lead to jobs, which of cours= e we are very concerned about. So the summer internship program as a paid summer internship program is a rather unique proposition. We are going to be very, very strong in new media – interactive journalism. We are going to ca= ll it citizen’s journalism, meaning we use web logs (I hate to use the w= ord blogs because it has such a pejorative meaning for so= many people), but web logs basically done in communities become a form of citizen’s journalism – from–the–bottom kind of reporting for local communities that just doesn’t get done. So techno= logy makes that possible. We will have as a part of the Urban Reporting concentration a community news service that will be a wire service basicall= y, except it will be on the web which means you’ll have video and audio = as well as text, which will be student stories sent out under faculty supervis= ion and sent out on the web to any of the hundreds of community and ethnic newspapers in New York City that want to run it. So it’s a great outl= et for student journalism. Another outlet for student journalism will be CUNY = TV. I believe I am right in saying we are the only university in New York that has a television station= 24/7, and it’s in this building. And so the broadcast students will be able= to produce programming for CUNY TV. We will also have a network of radio stati= ons on a number of the campuses, which have radio stations, and we are going to form with them a CUNY radio network and we’re trying to do this with either NPR or Bloomberg or both. We can make it something really special. We will have a strong emphasis on the New Media part of it. We’ve hired a man names Jeff Rogers, who’s one of the leading figures in this new w= orld to run the New Media program. So that’ll be a str= ength. If I had my notes, I’d look at what I’m forgetting. / Chair O’Malley - Faculty and students. / Dean Shepard – Ye= s, about faculty. We’ve hired and announced four faculty people. I’= ;ll tell you who they are in a second. We’ll hire two more. So the core faculty for the first year will be six faculty f= or the 50 students and we’ll start off from there. And we will have a bunch = of adjunct faculty from various news media in New York. So for the Business and Econ= omics concentration, we’ll have a course in covering financial markets on W= all Street and that will be taught by an adjunct who= is at Business Week or Wall Street Journal or = New York Times, whoever can come in and teach that course. / Chair O’Malley – Will any present CUNY faculty be teaching? De= an Shepard – There will be some consortium faculty on the model of T= he Graduate Center but nowhere near as extensive. Graduate Center has roughly 120 full-time faculty people here and 2000 or more consortium faculty based on one of other of the campuses. So that’s how it works= and it works really well. We will have just a handful of consortium people from= the campuses. There are some very good people like Paul Moses from Brooklyn College who is a Pulitzer Prize wi= nner when he was at Newsday, and the= re are others around like Glenn Lewis who is active in the University Faculty Sena= te. So we will have a handful of people from the campuses. We will probably try= to integrate some of the Gra= duate Center faculty, who= are not journalists but as specialists in obviously one field or another. There= are a lot of urban experts here among other things. And we will try to work them in. So three categories – full-time, adjuncts and= consortial. And before we’re fully rampe= d up, it’s hard to say how many full-time faculty we’ll have. Six for 50 students. I doubt we’ll have three ti= mes after 150 students but something in that direction. Stu= dents. We are recruiting. The admissions process has started. The deadline is later than it normally would be. It’s February 15th. I guess we = had a little bit of a late start. Applications have just started coming in. They will be handed by the Gra= duate Center and we have = an online application process. We will digitize all writing samples. It’s very rigorous admission standards. We’re asking for a 3.0 GPA, which = is the rule of the Graduate<= /st1:PlaceName> Center. We are part= of the Graduate Center. The GR= E exam, writing sample, faculty recommendations and all the rest.  When we come through the applicati= ons, there will be a second tier which is if you make the cut, we will ask peopl= e to come and take tests, which a lot of graduate schools in journalism do. A writing test, a current events text. Do you read the newspapers? Do you what Darfur is? And s= ome sort of grammar test as well, and there will be interviews. So anybody who passes the grammar test will be a miracle, I thi= nk. Doesn’t mean there aren’t enough writers with grammar. So it wi= ll be a rigorous admissions process. So we’re looking for 50 students. I have no idea how many applications we’ll get. A little more about facilities, which I hope you’ll come and see in the fall. That buildi= ng is now owned by Research Foundation of CUNY, so we’ll have 2 floors <= span class=3DSpellE>totalling 40,000 square feet with an internal stairca= se. It will have a broadcast studio in there, television and radio. We’ll ha= ve all the latest equipment – it’s team-designed in philosophy and= in the plumbing from the ground up to take advantage of all the new technology= . It will be a wireless environment so students can have their laptops and go anywhere on those two floors and be connected. / Chair O’Malley – Will you attempt to recruit CUNY students or give them in some way = some kind of scholarships? / Dean Shepard – What we are doing is recruiting. We are going out to all the CUNY campuses, a lot of those campu= ses, and we are looking for students who are interested in journalism and demonstrate some proficiency. We are finding out we know who all the student editors are and all the papers. I spent a lot of time up at City College, for example. They are reviving The = Campus, which was published since 1907, and it was there when I was there. I worked= on it for a while. It was defunct for a while when City College was going through bad times. They are now reviving it and there are wonderf= ul, wonderful students and they are doing a very good job and there is a lot of faculty support for it. A lot of colleges are renewing commitment to undergraduate journals. Baruch is stepping up its program. York College is stepping up its program. City College is. Queens = and Brooklyn are strong. Lehman has a multi-language journalism program, the only one I know of in the whole country. So I think there are going to be a number of CUNY students who want to come to this school. / Chair O’Malley – Tuition, scholarships? / D= ean Shepard – It’s what the tuition is for masters programs throughout the university. So it’s $6400 a year plus fees. So, I call= it $7500 a year compared to $35,000 at NYU or Columbia in their masters programs. So it’s one-fifth. You all know that for many students the choice is not between $7500 and $35,000. It’s between $7500 and nothing. So there a= re students who come to us and say, “Well, I need to work.” What d= oes that mean? You need a job on a Saturday afternoon. “Well, no, no I ne= ed to work full-time.” Well, what we say to them is, “Come and see= us and we will talk about what kind of financial aid we can make available,= 221; but this is not a program that can be done on a part-time basis. Maybe in t= he fullness of time, we will be able to do that but the faculty needs to be enormous then. With 50 students, you can’t do that. So you have to co= me in and take the five courses in the first semester, the next five, whatever tracks you choose and then five more. But the one thing you can’t do = at night is reporting. You can’t start calling people at nine o’ c= lock at night. You must do reporting in the day. It’s very hard for studen= ts who have full-time jobs so we’re very frank about it. But we’re saying we’re giving out all the need-based scholarships. We’re = not going to do what Northwestern and Columbia= and Berkeley and some= of the others do, which is to compete for the very best students for $40,000. We’re going to reserve the money so that we do have scholarships for people who can demonstrate need.

There is an outside Advisory Committee that we have set up with Howard Rubenstein. Journalists don’t usually like PR people, but Ho= wie is a PR man and he is just a wonderful, wonderful man and he runs an exceptionally good business. And we have between us put on Maude Zimmerman = who used to publish at the Daily News and the US News and Mark Whitaker w= ho is the Editor of Newsweek, Matt Wi= nkler who is the Editor-in-Chief of Bloom= berg, Roz Abrams of the WCBS, Rossano Rosado who is t= he publisher of El Diario, Anna Perez of NBC-Universal, David Weston who is the President of ABC News…people of that sort. In fact, we have a larger board meeting on Thursday with them. And they’re just very eager to take our interns a= nd hire people from the school partly because they know what the student body = is going to be like and all journalism organizations including the one I ran h= ave a problem with diversity. And we made a push for this and we will have a ve= ry diverse student body as well as a very high-quality student body. And IR= 17;m not a person who sees any conflict between the two, which is an issue that = has gone on at this university for way too long. We’re going to have qual= ity and diversity. / Chair O’Malley – I think that’s i= t. Any questions? / Dean Shepard – Linda Car= l from City = College, Sara Bartlett who has the Bloomberg chair, Wayne Svoboda who was from Queens College. He used to teach at Columbia and was at Time magazine and Economist.

Professor Bill Crain (Psychology, City College) – It sounds wonderful. I still am worried about how representative it’s going to be of low-income students of color if you have five courses. Lots of the poorer students do have to work. F= ive courses full-time. You can try to get as many scholarships as you can but we’ve had experiences with other master’s programs, where t= he tuition keeps going up in order to support the programs. Outside funding ne= ver can do it and then that sets up a cycle where it gets harder and harder for low-income students to get in based on scholarships. You get a percentage b= ut it’s sort of like the same thing I do and everybody else does. They h= ave scholarships but it ends up they are white upper middle class students. May= be we need some guarantee. / Dean Shepard – We’re saying to= the students…the lapse time of this program is 16 months. We will expect = some students to take out student loans. This is not medical school. They are not going to come out $75,000 in debt. That is not going to happen. We’re saying to you, we’re going to commit to you a very good faculty, a ve= ry good facility, a very good curriculum and we’re going to train you, mentor you and get you your first job as well as the internship. In turn, we expect commitment back, which is, you come to school full-time and thatR= 17;s what the program is. You can grill me again and I can give you data and we = can say you’re right, I’m right. I just don’t end up believing that we are going to end up with a student body that’s not diverse. W= hen I say diversity, I mean people of color plus immigrants; I mean this is the population, population of New York, popu= lation of City <= st1:PlaceType w:st=3D"on">University, and it’s okay by me if we have some white Eastern Europeans. That counts as diversit= y as far as I’m concerned. I just think we’re going to have a good student body that’s very diverse. Maybe some students of color who can’t afford to come full-time, that’s how it will be, but the people who’re going to be there are going to be very diverse. So that’s all I can say. I don’t know how to do this on a part-time basis. And I think we’ll all have a very high-quality education.  And I will promise you that we wil= l have a very diverse group of students.  Hold me to it. / Professor Crain – We will.<= /span>

Professor Eda Harris-Hastick (Social and Behavioral Sciences, Medgar Evers College) – Fi= rst of all, I’m not sure that you answered his question in terms of the stud= ent population that he was describing, number one, who are not Eastern European= s. They look like me. That’s number one.  So perhaps you can answer his ques= tion after.  My question is whether you’re aware that there is a BA in journalism at Medgar; and perhaps, some of those bright, energetic, willing-to-work, willing-to-take summers o= ff, etc. might just come from Medgar. / Dean Shepard - I would hope so. = / Professor Harris-Hastick – Thank you. / Dean Shepard – We will= be recruiting out there. / Chair O’Malley – Thank you so mu= ch.

D. Results of Faculty = Experience Survey:  Professor Dean Savage (Sociology, Queens College) – This is a preliminary draft report that is comprised primarily of tables that I will walk you through, so everybody should have a copy and I’m simply going to give an introduction to the Faculty Experience Survey. Then I’m going to talk for a while about where we = are going to be taking this next. If you remember, the UFS put out a survey last spring to 6200 people on a list that was provided to us and we got back abo= ut 2000. At Tolga’s insistence, we added adj= uncts at the end. We did 800 adjuncts at Brooklyn College and CLTs and I had distributed it to 200 people, part-timers at Queens College. For whatever reason, we got a very low response rate from the part-time fac= ulty members and so the results I’m going to be recording tonight are goin= g to be exclusively for full-time faculty. We’re not sure why we had a low response rate from the 1000 part-time faculty but it was possibly because s= ome of the very first questions on the survey asked about research facilities a= nd maybe a number of part-timer’s simply concluded seeing this questionn= aire appeared in their mailbox but was not actually intended for them. At some p= oint in the future, we’re going to have to do a survey that would concentr= ate specifically on part-time faculty, tailored for them. In the meantime, maybe the best thing to suggest is that Eric Marshall for PSC-CUNY did a pretty g= ood survey about 5 years ago. The Union has = that survey. I have it on my computer but it’s basically embargoed. I̵= 7;d love to turn a grad student loose on it. I think it’s got very good d= ata. We just have to get the okay from the Union to go ahead. So what I’m going to be reporting tonight is based upon the results for the full-time faculty, about 2000 full-time faculty that respon= ded to this survey, roughly a 33% response rate. Not terrific, but this is a one-shot survey and I think we have a large enough number of cases on a complete sample of the entire universe. So we’ve got enough cases per college to go ahead and get a pretty good idea. On the first table, numbered Table 1, we had a number of background questions, demographics. Rank, gender, years in place, race/ethnic, age. And we’re reporting the results for these variables on a single outcome factor which is how happy are you with your teaching position at CUNY? There are basically are no differences worth noting. While the demographics do not turn out to be a major explanatory factor for most of the items that we hav= e, when we get into the detailed analysis it will on a campus-by-campus basis = turn out to be something interesting. But for the purposes of this presentation, data for CUNY as a whole, background demographics basically don’t count. Going to the second table, Table no. 2, we get= an idea of 17 items, what CUNY faculty really like, what they really don’= ;t like. So we can see at the very top, faculty do = rule, I think they rule in terms of authority of what they actually do in the classroom. Where they don’t say they are very much satisfied is every= thing related to research. TA’s, research assistants, sabbaticals, research equipment, research laboratories, all those items are down at the bottom. <= span class=3DGramE>The items that are up at the top are the fairly traditional standard ones like voicemail, mail, mailroom services, secretarial support (interestingly enough!), fax, etc. Some of the computer-related thin= gs – after the Tech Fee – have turned out to be fairly high-rankin= g on a number of campuses although I still feel there are a number of rather striking campus–by-campus differences. And then we have a bunch of th= ings in the middle. But then the astonishing thing here is the range. Look at the range. Some things are 90% happy, other things a= re 6% happy. That is a questionnaire that is delivering the goods as opposed to o= ne where everybody pretty much said the same thing. You can say, back to the drawing board, this questionnaire does not differentiate, it does not discriminate. So this one shows there are some t= hings CUNY faculty are quite pleased with and there are things they really, really hate. Going on to the third table. If we took th= at previous table and we divided it down campus by campus – what you had= in Table 2 was a picture for CUNY as a whole – it’s a mythical creature that doesn’t really exist. We exist on campuses, we exist in particular local environments. So what I did is break it down campus by cam= pus and so I said okay, how many items on your campus are above the mythical CU= NY mean and how many are below the mythical CUNY mean? And then I did the rank= ing and here we have four distinct groups that emerge and one of them is the gr= oup at the top – Baruch with the $14 million in endowment and the new cam= pus and all of the perks and the incredible library facility, and all of those things that all of us now should really start to pay attention to a little = bit more. The people at Baruch are pretty happy. Or maybe it’s really nice administrators who are respectful toward faculty. I don’t know exactly what it is but this is very interesting because many of us would have assum= ed that the tradition hierarchy would be respected when faculty members talk a= bout how satisfied they are in comparison to other faculty members. If you’= ;re at the Grad Center, you’re going to feel great, right? And if you’re at an underserved two-year college that is starved for faculty and resources, you’re going to express your dissatisfaction in the survey. Not so. What we have here instead is a viola= tion of the standard hierarchy – Grad Center, four-year colleges, new senior colleges, two-year colleges= . We don’t have that. We have Queensborough and Kingsborough. Then we go d= own to the middle and then we have right at the middle, two fairly typical CUNY campuses – Queens and Lehman ̵= 1; right there at the middle point. And so then moving on down, we get…I’m just going to leave those middle campuses as sort of ok= ay, they are kind of undistinguished and they don’t stand out from the CU= NY norm, and then we go down to BMCC, Tech, John Jay, York and all those people say, “Yeah, we’ve got problems.” And then down at the bot= tom and this is a stunner for me -- Medgar. Medgar’s= been starved for a long time and they’re finally getting their buildi= ng. They hadn’t had resources forever and so that’s not a particular surprise. In fact, they take it as badge of honor in some sense. But City College. Thi= s is kind of interesting. This is our flagship institution. What’s going on here? Is it that finally their physical plant decayed to the point where th= ey simply couldn’t stand it anymore or does it have more to do with camp= us leadership, or does it have to do with a number of things that have been happening over the years? One of the things that’= s emerging from this is that in this unified system in which we’re all under the same Chancellery, we’re here as a body uniting the entire system, we’ve got the same rules of academic freedom, same rules on a whole bunch of things, and we’ve got incredible differences campus by campus. We have distinct campus cultures that are really different that per= haps those of us on individual campuses were not really aware of how different things were at other campuses. This served to highlight this and I can assu= re you that the Chancellery and many persons have already expressed a lively interest in this document. I’m getting requests for specific data runs that are going to go and find out exactly what is going on from certain administrators and, of course, we’ll be happy to comply. But this is actually turning out to be a project with legs. Going o= n to Table 4. What we are happy about. There’s no differential from= the top to the bottom here. We are faculty-ruled in terms of course content. You could have fooled us given this discussion on the SPS and how a full online degree is going forward without our approval. But in terms of what we think= we have control over on our local campuses, we think we have it and there is n= ot much differential between the top and the bottom. Table= 5. What we don’t have. Nobody thinks that they have research assistants = and this includes the Grad Center. The Grad Center is not happy with the research assistants. That’s pretty interesting. Just wanted to show that this was a not knee-jerk survey in which everybody said, “this place stinks” or “this place is great” = and everybody responded in exactly the same way. No big differences. Going on to Table 6. I’m just touching here on a= few things that I thought you’d all want to know about -What do faculty members really think about office space? In here, we see that the people at Baruch are happy again. We must get invited over sometime because it really must be pretty nice and they’re all pretty happy over there. When I d= id my follow-up study of 5300 CUNY PhDs, by turning my grad students and under= grad research assistants loose to look for CUNY PhDs and faculty listings on eve= ry college catalog in America, but we found that there was a range again and an astonishing range in placement rate in academic positions for CUNY PhDs all= the way from 70% of academic positions down to 4%. People s= trewn all the way along in between. Of course, the winner again in the end…you can think I’m a plant...the winner again was the Busine= ss PhD at Baruch. 70% placement rate. All you had t= o do was click your little finger; you can get an academic job coming out of CUNY whereas down at the bottom of the pool was German. Two placements out of all of them. German PhD is not a winning program. = And has since paid the price. So you’ve got the = whole range on that kind of thing. So I’m obviously a shill for Baruch that’s disguised as a Queens College faculty mem= ber. Office space – this was a big thing. These are physical plant-related things. Restrooms okay. For restrooms, Grad Center is the king. The Grad Center really has t= he finest restrooms. Baruch, I don’t know. People are satisfied, you kno= w, but they are more satisfied at the Grad Center. And CUNY La= w, best not to visit CUNY Law anytime soon. I want to direct your attention ov= er to columns 3 and 4. We’re adopting a somewhat lighter note here. Can’t resist directing your attention here. Ther= e are four people who have no opinion about restaurants. I cannot imagine people = who have no opinion about restrooms. Now just to show how quickly things can fl= ip, the next table, Table 8. Rating of PCs and local networ= ks. Grad Center might have good restrooms b= ut not feeling too well about PCs and local networks. Now some people told me that= the survey was administered during that three-week period at the Grad Center when all the networks were down for a sustained period of time. However lon= g it was, that was not a good deal. And if its true, = that will bias the outcome, that will make it seem really terrible. But again, it’s interesting, look at the reach. You’ve got…even if y= ou exclude the Grad Center<= span class=3DGramE>, you’ve got a forty percent differential there.= The difference of the campuses is the thing that again and again is leaping off= the page and we’re saying, “Wow, who knew that things were that different.” Now bearing in mind, these are opinions, these are faculty impressions of how satisfied they are, they do not represent actually going= and looking how good the network is, how fast it is, what the down time is. These are not actual measurements of behavior, these are faculty reports on how satisfied they are and I think what we’re real= ly going to see that if we look at the mixed table, Table 9, the level of resp= ect shown by administrators to faculty – we’re starting to get now = to something that is best measured by a faculty experience survey – and = here again the range is 60%. This is a lot. Susan keeps toying with the idea of calling in Karen Arenson. / Chair O’Ma= lley – She was going to come tonight, but she is on a deadline. / Profe= ssor Savage – I don’t think it’s a good idea to call Karen= in on this one. (Audience laughs). But in any case, she will look at it as may= be grist for her mill, I don’t know. But again you’ve got you know, Queensborough, Tech, Russ Hotzler, I mean that’s rough. That’s a vote of credit for us right there. And then you have down at the bottom, so= me of the campuses have a reputation for being a little more proletarian, some more faculty contribution to shared governance. This is the revenge of the faculty after all these many years and it’s probably going to get a little bit of press. This kind of thing like respect shown by administrator= s for faculty, I maintain, spills over into a lot of other areas. Next table, loo= k at shared governance. A lot of faculty, I don’t think they know about sh= ared governance because they are not really participating in it very much. The l= evel of respect is the kind of thing that causes people to have an idea on how shared governance works. And so we’re seeing the same kind of range h= ere. That record of collation is very similar. The collegiality, this is somethi= ng that CUNY faculty are pretty happy with, but whe= n you break it down campus by campus, you get this ranking again. 40% point differential in the level of respect shown by administration and this satisfaction with collegiality of the colleagues is something that is close= ly related. It kind of mirrors it and then we finally go into quality of department life. So my argument on this is that I think we’re having a situation here where there are campus cultures; a part of this is due to administrative leadership. The administrative leadership with the good or b= ad spills over into faculty evaluations of the success of the kinds of aspects= of campus life, and at some point we will be able to figure out a way of devis= ing a measure of what the costs are in terms of the effectiveness of all campus function. If I could convert this to student dropout rate, or if I could convert this to how quickly people graduate, student satisfaction or maybe = the donation rate or whatever, then we would have a better way of getting atten= tion here. The differences here are so great. You know, there is no reason why t= hey should be that great. This might be something that could be integrated into= the performance evaluations of all the colleges on an annual basis or on a tri-annual basis, depending on how often this gets redone. What if college presidents knew that the faculty were going to g= ive them a resounding vote of low satisfaction and then the Chancellor was goin= g to talk to them about it? That would be okay. And there are other ways of using this stuff. What I haven’t done so far? At the end of the questionnai= re, there are two questions. What’s the best thing about your institution? What’s the worst thing about your institution? I just finished enteri= ng those. I’m going to have grad students tab them and flag them and have them see if there are patterns. I was really looking for wonderful comments that would really summarize everything and I’m afraid we’re not going to get those.   I don’t know qu= ite why. The one comment that I love was, “The colleg= e is in a very bad section of town. It blends in rather nicely.” We’re going to figure out a way of working those in.  And they’re going to add some interpretive push to these bare bone tables. The danger of this kind of rep= ort is that it just kills you with tabular presentations, but it does make the point about campus-by-campus differentials. And the other thing that we not= yet done…because we’ve just not had time…is to go ahead and t= ake advantage of the fact that several of these questions were stolen from the National Study of Post-Secondary Faculty – a national survey that has= a representative sample of 16,000 faculty, a very high response rate. It serv= es us as a very reputable national baseline. There’s one every three yea= rs and the recent one is just in the field. What we want to do next is to get = the recent national baseline data for how happy the faculty is on other campus around the country. If they are, then we will go present the CUNY data in t= he national context so we get some kind of measure of the degree to which peop= le are happy or unhappy. Now the last thing, I have prepared tables…individual tables…campus-by-campus for you. And basicall= y it is Baruch= College faculty responses compared= to all. And I have five sets, one for each campus. / Chair O’Malley – You c= an pick them up right here. / Chair O’Malley – Questions!

Professor Julian Aronowitz (Math and Computer Science, Lehman College) – <= span style=3D'mso-bidi-font-style:italic'>Two possible things to consider within= the survey. First, to consider = the idea of the full-time equivalency aspect of students now. We now no = longer have day and evening and that could also contribute to how teachers have to deal with things as well as quality, etc. Then the last part is how students are being pushed to get through their education – whether teachers pushing them or advisors pushing them or they̵= 7;re pushing themselves – because I’m finding that in the class I’m teaching they are doing a lot worse and worse because they are do= ing too many courses, don’t have enough time and most of these people work full-time. Professor Savage – We have some very interesting responses in that section what’s the best thing and what’s the worst thing? The best thing is we have = all kinds of faculty saying the best thing about CUNY is the diverse, working-c= lass student body that is really trying hard. And then the worst thing is we’ve got tons of under-prepared students who are not motivated and don’t work hard. We’re getting both. <= /p>

Professor Esther Wilder (Sociology, Lehman College) – I was just wondering if you could comm= ent a little bit about the overall response to the survey. Looking at some of the= se tables, it seems to me that some of the colleges have really big response r= ates such as Queens College, whereas Medgar Evans College seems to have a very l= ow response rate, and I was wondering if you could comment on how you think th= at might have affected the results. / Professor Savage – <= span style=3D'mso-bidi-font-style:italic'>I meant to have prepared for this meet= ing a table campus-by-campus on response rate and I didn’t get around to it= and part of the reason I didn’t get around to it is that we have some problems that I’m just going to have to sit down and have to tough ou= t. For example, at Hunter College the listing= to which the questionnaires were sent included all the teachers at the Hunter Campus school. For others, I’m not quite s= ure exactly what happened. The range at the low end is about 20, high twenties.= The high end is in the mid-forties. You can’t look at these numbers and k= now anything about the response rate because the campuses have drastically different numbers of faculty. Medgar doesn’t have very many faculty. Brooklyn and Hunter and Queens have a lot of faculty. It so happens that the response rate at Queens was quite high because I was pushing it very= hard and I had a lot of help. But the response rate at other places was quite hi= gh and you would not see them simply from the raw numbers. These are raw respo= nse rates rather than a percentage who responded. I’m going to take a bre= ak for a little while.

Professor Nehru Che= rukupalli (Geology, Brooklyn College) – I have a two items to mention here. Nu= mber one, is there any breakdown in terms of senior colleges versus community colleges? / Professor Savage – I didn’t do that. That was going to be one of the variables. = That was going be for me a very big analytic variable and then I started to look= at the campus-by-campus breakdowns, and I didn’t find the senior college versus junior college breakdown to be very good in terms of explaining anything. Instead, we have some senior colleges where we have very happy faculty and senior colleges that have really angry faculty, and we have two-year campuses that are happy, happy, happy a= nd there are some two-year campuses that are unhappy. I don’t think this= is going to carry much analytic weight. It’s not going to do any lifting= . / Professor Cherukupalli – Thank you for that comment. I have one= other observation to just mention here. I’m not looking for any kind of ans= wer from anybody. On the second page, the Table 1, it’s very interesting = to see that the Asian ethic sub-type has the lowest percentage in terms of satisfaction. I’m an Asian, I’m an American citizen, and I̵= 7;ve put in more than 40 years in the CUNY system. Asians are the first ones to = be satisfied. They don’t complain. This is the normal type but on the ot= her hand, when it came to the numbering system here, they are the lowest by quite a f= ew points – 65. / Dean Savage – I can give you a response to that. I’ve done a number of surv= eys – undergraduates and graduates of Queens College – it’s one of the things I did, that’s why I got this job. And I had a lot of surveys where I paid special attention to racial-ethnic breakdowns and I always found out that my Asian respondents were my hard-no= se respondents. They were the ones that called a spade a spade and they’= re the ones that said, “No, this is not good. What you’re doing he= re is not a good job. You’re not really doing the kind of thing that you need to be doing.” And I was a little bit startled on this and I aske= d a couple of my Korean and Chinese colleagues and they said, “Oh, yeah,” and that this is something they don’t hold back on. Is t= hat an explanation? I don’t know if that’s an explanation or not? I’m choosing then to simply see less than a 10 to 12 point differenti= al there. And I’m just not going to bother with that when I have 60% dif= ferential in other areas. That’s where the real story of this survey is. / P= rofessor Cherukupalli – How close is the Asian response rate compared to the percentage of other ethnic people? / Professor Cherukupalli – Response rate. / Professor Savage – Actually, I do have a breakdown and I = can work on that. There is a breakdown and I can try to go ahead and see what t= hat is.

Professor Gail August (English, Hostos Community College) – I’m just wondering about Table 3 because I see Hostos wasn’t included. Was that just left out or was t= hat a low-response…? / Professor Savage – Oh, I’m so sorry. I have no idea= what happened. This is my error. I’m sorry. I’ll find out what Hostos is. / Professor August – Can I email you? Because I’d like to get a little summary…

Professor Savage: Why don’t we get it from Susan right no= w? Why don’t you get the Hostos table? And you’ll be able to count= the proportion above and the proportion below and you’ll be able to get t= he answer right away. What does it say at the very bottom line right there? 20% of Hostos. Hostos is down to the lower end of the distribution, and they would probably be with City and Medgar at the bottom= . / Professor August – That makes sense. / Professor Sa= vage - That’s the answer you want.

Professor Ma= nfred Philipp (Chemistry, Lehman College): I donR= 17;t have a question about the data. I just have a question about the fact that = you haven’t been thanked yet for all the hard work. We ought to thank you= …(Audience Clapping). / Professor Savage - We didn’t know how this was going to turn out. This was the idea of the Executive Committee and then I worked on getting the questionnaire out. Sus= an and Stasia did all the work getting the thing out the door, and Matt Goldst= ein paid for it, and then the results came in. And then you don’t expect = too much, but. And then all of a sudden you got these amazing differences. Well, this has been a lot of fun. You all realize we’re following the Chancellor’s here. What the Chancellor wants is for all of us to be p= art of the same institution, break down those campus boundaries, be part of that same encompassing environment, and we’re kind of playing along here.<= o:p>

Professor John Asim= akopoulas (Social Sciences, Bronx Community College) = – I would be interested to see co-relati= ons in terms of some of these questions, how they’re answered at all the campuses, and salaries. Would you be interested in seeing if some of these questions co-link with salary levels? / Professor Savage R= 11; The measure of salary would be rank an= d we saw in Table 1 that rank did not correlate with job satisfaction. That̵= 7;s an interesting thing, isn’t it? And I think that would be one way of getting a take on that. My guess is that there is not going to be that much= of a differential in terms of assistant professors, associate professors, or f= ull professors. But you have to think that maybe, maybe the fact that Baruch is= up there at the top, is partially a reflection of salary differentials. That c= ould be. I don’t know for sure. However, I won’t be able to answer t= hat because I have no salary data. All I’ve got is surrogate measures. The surrogate measure will be rank and then possibly even though it’s a v= ery bad surrogate.

Professor Terrence Martell (Weissman Center of International Business, B= aruch College) – Fo= r a small fee, I will be happy to offer advice on how to become happier. Well, let’s start off with…let’s put this in perspective…= what Baruch is relatively most happy with…bathrooms…and we at the Faculty Senate use this to our advantage. We gave the Vice President for Finance and Administration an award at the last meeting. We gave him the ‘King of the Commode’ award and he was truly speechless. Everybody’s got their priorities. Now here is something I would like = you to concentrate on between now and the next meeting. We’ll look at Bar= uch at 83% and we’ll look at City at 17% and if anyone who knows anything about the funding of this institution knows, on a per capita basis City gets more dollars than Baruch does. So why was it that we are happier? There’s obviously some reasons that have nothing= to do with money but there are some reasons that have something to do with money.= And I hear it from time to time and that has to do with the success we’ve= had in raising money. Now, it is my view to this group that we do not spend eno= ugh time holding our administrators’ feet to the fire to what is clearly = in my perspective the most important fact of the issue and that is incremental resources. Because if we wait for the Central Administr= ation to give us something, we’re going to be waiting a heck of a long time= . So if you take anything out of this, any smiley face out of this, you go ba= ck to your campus and you say, “What’s wrong with Queens, what’s wrong with Lehman? Their students graduate, their students do well, their students succeed, why not them?” Baruch’s endowment= is not huge. It’s a $100 million. Harvard’s is $22 billion. That c= an salve a lot of wounds…it pays for a lot of travel. So I would encourage you to take this as a call and ask ourselves, “What as a faculty can we do to get more resources to the faculty bec= ause we know it’s not going to come from 80th Street.” Than= k you. / Professor Savage - One of the things that I found quite interesting is th= at a large number of administrators are sensitive to this type of thing. This is about prestige, this is about looking good and it’s not as if it̵= 7;s going to be anything other than public embarrassment. Public embarrassment = has its uses and this is, I hope, a very public document. A few people have individual requests for tables. We’ll run it by and send you some additional information and try to give further clarifications, further specifications about what’s really working, what’s not working.=

Professor Sandi Cooper (History, College of Staten Island) <= /span>– Thanks again. This was great. And when= you come back for Round 2, and do it again in the future, we have to figure out= a way to include the Central Administration now that they’ve gotten into the business of curriculum development, and I’m trying to find out wh= ich faculty body has to evaluate the Central Administration for shared governan= ce and curriculum development. I mean, if these are people who plan on actively stirring the pot, then they have to be under the same microscope. / Prof= essor Savage – Ideall= y, it would be the Provosts and Presidents of individual campuses but I have no comment as to whether they are actually going to step up to the plate. They don’t get tenure. / Chair O’Malley – Thank you again.

Chair O’Malley -- I do want to say that the results of the survey are being used in the evaluation of President Gail Mellow, LaGuardia, and I expect th= ey will to be used in the evaluation of President Gregory Williams in the spri= ng and Jennifer Raab, Hunter, in the spring. They = will become part of the faculty evaluating Presidents. They will be used by the governance leaders in their discussions with outside evaluators. I couldn’t be more pleased. We are thinking in the spring our conference will be based on this survey. We would look at best practices. Why are some campuses doing so well? How could faculty on campuses that are not doing so well use the survey to improve conditions?

III. Reports:
       A.  Chair’s= Report (cont.):  Now I want to talk about the Perez Decision. The first thing we need to do is convene the Legal Affairs Commit= tee, perhaps with Ron McGuire, to determine what the lawsuit says about secret ballots and about quorum. We need to present this to the faculty governance leaders in the spring. We need to be educated about this decision. The Perez decision came down last week. It has to do with the Open Meeting Law and Hostos’ governance body. This decision, and it excites me, states that college senates, and the University Faculty Senate are major policy-making bodies and are not advisory. In the language= of Perez, a College Senate and its Executive Committee = are exercising a quintessential governmental function. Your College Senate, your local governance body and the University Faculty Senate, recommend policy to the Board. According to Perez, “the College Senate is explicitly imbued with the power to formulate = new policy recommendations and review existing policies, forwarding those recommendations to the Board of Trustees in areas as far-reaching as admissions, degree requirements, curriculum design, budget and finance. = 230; The College Senate is the sole legislative body on camp= us authorized to send proposals to the CUNY Board of Trustees, and although the policy proposals must first be approved and forwarded by the College Presid= ents they overwhelmingly are.” So it seems to me, Perez moves us from being an advisory to a policy-ma= king body. Sandi Cooper tells us that the Article 78 resulting lawsuit reaffirmed the by-laws 8.13 and 8.6. (The 8.13 concerns the University Faculty Senate.) These bylaws state that the faculty must “conduct the educational aff= airs customarily cared for by a college faculty” and our Charter agrees. B= ut we have not been acting that way. We have been acting in an advisory manner. Vice Chancellor Schaffer has told me that we are an advisory body. Well, th= at day is over. But we need to figure out together how to move us from being advisory to being the policy-making, the academic policy-making body of the university. It’s going to take a lot of shoving …, but, we̵= 7;ll figure out how to do it together. Stefan, do you want to say anything more? Then I’ll wish you Happy Holidays and see you in January. Stefan, you have the last word this year.

Professor Stefan Baumrin (Philosophy, Graduate School) – I just wanted to say a couple of thing= s about the Perez decision. Since the time that we init= iated student-faculty re-organization of governance in 1970 and ’71, this is the most significant event in the City University’s history because the Court of Appeals has changed the locus of power and it’s going to take the Central Administration an awfully long time to= get used to the fact that it’s changed. It may take us longer because we don’t really know how to exercise power any more. We’ve been ou= t of the loop for 35 years, and in that regard we have a lot of retraining of ourselves to do. Nothing that is done by the Central Administration that doesn’t include a legislative vote by the campus and the University Faculty Senate will pass the State Education department after this decision. You will hear from Rick Schaffer who is hard at work trying to accommodate = himself after losing two major lawsuits, accommodate h= imself to this. He’s working on it right now. The Provost at the Graduate School tried to stop me from discu= ssing this today in my own committee meeting and I assume we’ll have a repo= rt by …sometime within the next six weeks before the beginning of this n= ext semester. I will ask the Faculty Senate committee to forward my commentary = on that material after we’ve had a chance to review it and then you̵= 7;ll have some ideas for me. You need to get your own faculty governance body ge= ared up to revise your habits. You may not have to revise all the by-laws but you are going to have to revise the way you do business. The President is a conduit, not a source of law and nothing more than a veto of what the body = has passed. The President is no more, according to Judge Kaye, the chief academ= ic officer who decides this on his or her own or as he or she sees fit. / Chair O’Malley – Thank= you. I want to say that there were some concern about= a previous case -- Friedman ve= rsus Antonio Perez that occurred = after the Article 78 decision. I have met with lawyers at the PSC and discussed t= his case and the Perez case with them. Their belief is since= that case was not referred to in = Perez, that it may not have been filed. Their conclusion is we do not have to worry about that case. Friedman v. Antonio Perez has been haunting me for years. I was worried that it would change the Article 78 ruling. / Professor Cherukapalli – I was very much interested in hearing about the reorganization of t= he graduate programs that you alluded to earlier th= is evening and I have not heard anything about it after that. / Chair O’Malley – If Ma= nfred is willing, if he hasn’t gone home.

Professor Manfred Philipp (Chemistry, Lehman College) – Over the last few months, if not longer, the Chancellor has been speaking about the issue of the science doctoral programs in CUNY. It’= ;s actually been over the last two years. Under UFS auspices, he met with the science executive officers over a year ago and expressed concern about some= of the programs. He initiated and pursued a new central facility for the scien= ces at City <= st1:PlaceType w:st=3D"on">College, sometimes called the Adva= nced Science Research Facility, which is in the budget. It hasn’t been bui= lt yet. This was during the era of Vice Chancellor Mirrer. With Vice Chancellor Botman this thrust has continued. Yesterday, Vice Chancellor Botman had a meeting with selected science faculty. We had an Executive Committee meeting where we questioned this thrust. And as a result, the Vice Chancellor asked Susan to nominate two grant-funded research-active scientists to attend a retreat that she was holding. There were five Presidents invited to this retreat and they nominated several faculty. Susan wants me to help with this nomination process since I am in the Biochemistry program and it turned out that the first several people that we nominated had already been nominated = by Presidents and other people. So that we had to continue= the nomination process. This is not to say that those who were nominated were lesser in our eyes or anything like that, of course. And in the end, we nominated Edward J. Kennelly Chair of Biology at Lehman College and then Nan-Loh Yang of the College of Staten Island wh= o is a very distinguished research member of the Chemistry doctoral program. Kenne= lly is in the Biology doctoral program. They’re going to give us, the Executive Committee, a report on the retreat that took place. And I can describe what happened. Basically, Vice Chancellor Botman expressed the need for better sciences and said that her ideas and the Chancellor’s ideas are at an embryonic stage. The Chancellor did appear even though he was not= on the agenda and spoke off the cuff at the meeting. It was said that the City College Central Science Facility was partly seen as a core instrumentation facility for all the sciences at CUNY. According to Dean Gilliam Small, 50%= of that would be a core instrumentation facility and the other 50% was left op= en. I’m just reading my notes. I apologize, Susan, I’m a little disorganized because after all, I just got this about an hour ago. One of the thrusts was that the number of doctoral students is to be decreased while increasing the number of monetary supports available to each student. By decreasing the number, they will be able to get larger packages in support for the first t= wo years, after which the mentors will be expected to pick up the necessary support for the facility. It was said at the meeting that there is a need to empower campuses so that they, the campuses, could give PhD degrees in the sciences. The Graduate Center consortial model is a good model but they say it̵= 7;s not worked well for the sciences. Now, to get back to the Science Facility, there could be five central research areas for this facility. I wrote them = down to the fourth and then I didn’t catch the fifth one in that conversation  &#= 8211; Photonics, Nanotechnology, Biosciences, Neurosciences. After this presentat= ion by the Chancellor, by Gilliam Small and by Executive Vice Chancellor, the faculty present broke up into small groups to discuss these questions as to what they needed to include in the science doctoral programs and then at th= at point Chancellor Goldstein left. And in the presence of Dean Small and the Executive Vice Chancellor Botman, the Presidents…the five college Presidents questioned Executive Vice Chancellor Botman and Dean Small close= ly on the nature of the Science Facility. It was stated that they had not seen= any business plan for this facility, and how it was to be funded, and one of the responses by the administrators was that the business plan was on the University Faculty Senate website. I haven’t seen it there. Now, I ha= ve to emphasize that this was verbally transmitted to me recently, very recent= ly, in fact and I will be getting written reports that will be forwarded onto t= he University Faculty Senate. So we will see. This process has been going on f= or more than a year now, if not two years, and the intensity of it has increas= ed. The linkage of this process to change the nature of the doctoral programs, = the Science doctoral programs, with this facility at City College is more and more clear. You’re free to ask questions but I’m not sure I’ll be able to answer at this particular point. / Professor = Baumrin – Is there= any sense you can make out this sentence, “available at the University Faculty website?” / Professor Philipp – No, I cannot. I didn’t have time= after I heard this to actually investigate that and of course, I have to emphasize that this was verbally transmitted. / Professor Cooper –= ; There was something said to us which m= ay be in the minutes some years ago within the Senate, about raising money for th= at City College-based facility from a bunch of private corporations, there was= a document when Mirrer was around… / Chair O’Malley – It’s in the Master= Plan. / Professor Cooper – Okay, so that was the closest thing that ever came out regarding funding. Is the President aware of the possibility that the funding for this thing was for = SPS and everything else is going to come out of our of the campus budgets? / Professor Philipp – Of co= urse, they are aware. Especially since the Chancellor made it clear that capital budget for the science facilities on the campuses had been reduced in order= to fund this. On my campus alone the new science buildings have simply evapora= ted as soon as Advanced Science Facility was announced. / Professor Cooper - In your opinion, are these proposed changes in academic programs a university-wide concern which would throw them into our basket? / Professor Philipp – Of course. / Professor Cooper – A-ha. / Professor Baumrin – Also, as those people who are me= mbers of the Graduate Council of the Graduate Center will recall, I posited th= e idea that this is also a natural concern of the Senate of the Graduate Center. I didn’t get any dissent from the administrative structure although t= hey didn’t seem to be pleased about that statement. / Chair O’Malley – Thank= you, Manfred. One more comment: last night at the dinner for governance leaders = and Trustees, it was announced that graduate students are not going to have a tuition increase this year. They will not be included in the section of the proposed compact that raises tuition for undergraduates. Because I don’t see you until the end of January, Happy Holidays and Goodbye.=