THE TWO HUNDRED AND SEVENTY-FOURTH
PLENARY SESSION
OF THE UNIVERSITY FACULTY SENATE
OF THE CITY UNIVERSITY OF NEW YORK
Chair Sohmer called the session to order at
6:30 p.m. in the BMW Building at John Jay College of Criminal Justice. Present were Senators from the following
campuses:
Baruch:
McCall and Pollard; BMCC: Friedman, Herz, Neis, Price, Young, and Alternate
Martin; Bronx CC: Tanaka-Kuwashima and Alternate Brennan; Brooklyn: Antoniello, Bell,
Jacobson, Kahan, and Shapiro; CCNY: Connorton, Crain, Pearson, Sank, and Sohmer; CSI:
Cooper, L’Amoreaux, Levine, Yousef, and Alternate Petratos; CUNY Law School: none;
Graduate School: Baumrin and Philipp; Hostos CC: none;
Hunter: Doss, Steinberg, and Wallach; John Jay: Bohigian, Davenport, Kaplowitz, and
Alternates E. Davenport and Lanzone; Kingsborough CC: Farrell, Galvin, O’Malley,
Richter and Alternate Lin; LaGuardia CC: Beaky, Lerman,
Mettler, Reitano, and Alternate Davidson; Lehman: Feinerman; Medgar Evers: none; NYC
Technical: Cermele, Hounion, and Alternate Richardson; Queens: Frisz, Hemmes, and Savage; Queensborough CC: Barbanel,
and Weiss; York: Coleman, Cooper, and Alternates Majerovitz and Necol. Newly elected
Senator Manassah attended. Governance Leaders present: Baumrin (GSUC), Cooper and Cooley
(York), Feinerman (Lehman), Hemmes (Queens), Kaplowitz (John Jay), Levine (CSI), Mettler
(LaGuardia), O’Malley (Kingsborough), and Perlstein (BMCC). Excused were Senators Diamond, Foleno,
Harris-Hastick, King, Movasseghi, Rodriguez, Tobey, and Umolu. CUNY Faculty members: Dahbany-Miraglia (QCC) and Lefkoe (Queens) attended. Executive Director Phipps, Administrative
Assistant Pasela and Secretary Blanchard were present.
I.
Approval of the Agenda: The agenda was adopted as proposed.
II.
Approval of the Minutes of November 21, 2000: The Minutes were approved as
distributed.
III. Reports: [recorded in Reports & Deliberations].
a. Resolution on Distance Learning: Senator Davenport (John Jay) presented the following resolution on Distance Learning. It was approved without dissent.
Whereas, pursuant to the last
contract negotiated between the City University and the PSC, a joint committee was
convened of PSC representatives and CUNY administrators in 1998, to discuss issues
associated with distance learning, including intellectual property rights, and
Whereas, this period of
experimentation ends on December 31, 2000, without any permanent policy in place, and
Whereas, in its final report to the
PSC and the University, the Committee recommended
that these guidelines be allowed to continue until intellectual property and other
work-related issues involving distance learning be mutually resolved through collective
bargaining and other appropriate faculty governance bodies, and
b. Resolution to the New York State Public Higher Education Conference Board on Academic Excellence: Chair Sohmer presented the following resolution. It was approved without dissent.
(to meet January 4,
2001)
Academic excellence is threatened by the
unprecedented, politically driven intrusion into curricular policy by boards of trustees
and central administrations. System-wide
reviews to determine whether particular courses are appropriate to general education have
created an environment of censorship, a chilling effect on intellectual inquiry, and a
search for the lowest common denominator in general education.
There being no further business, the plenary was adjourned at 8:45 P.M.
Respectfully submitted,
Bill Phipps, Executive Director
Subject to Senate Approval
REPORTS & DELIBERATIONS
OF THE TWO HUNDRED AND SEVENTY-FOURTH PLENARY SESSION
OF THE UNIVERSITY FACULTY SENATE
OF THE CITY UNIVERSITY OF NEW YORK
a. Chair: Two Fridays ago, the Senate had a conference on general
education, which was very well attended. The
discussion was very wide ranging. There are
some very important conclusions about general education that everybody seems to care
about. The major thesis was that general
education is created by the faculty. People
came at it from different directions, but that is what they arrived at. We have the good fortune to have the maven of
general education with us, Ethyle Wolfe of Brooklyn College. She said some wise words, some of which were,
“Do not emulate Brooklyn College.” I
think all of us should take the advice that we do not have to emulate anyone in
particular, nor do we have to export. The
Proceedings of that meeting will be distributed to members of the Senate and probably put
on the Website in January.
The CUNY and SUNY Executive
Committees met last Friday. We talked about
various issues. One of the issues was the
core curriculum. As you know, the SUNY
trustees ignored a fairly elaborate document that came from a faculty study group. The trustees instead claimed what a real core
curriculum should be, and that everybody should have it.
Since the trustees of the State University are only the trustees of the
senior colleges, they finessed that problem. They
insisted that the transfer students from the community colleges should be involved with
the core curriculum that the senior colleges have. Therefore,
they are using that as a stick to cause the community colleges to fall in line with this.
The core that they created
was not by outcomes, but by fields. They left
it up to the individual campuses to make decisions. They
then formed a committee created by their Chancellor to approve whether a particular course
from a particular campus would satisfy the title that they had given to it and whether it
is acceptable as a general education course. The
committee was largely made up of administrators, and only a couple of faculty. The committee has insisted on receiving course
curricula, course outlines, and course text books. They
have been actively rejecting courses from the various campuses. If you have not yet guessed, the courses that have
actively been rejected are the ones outside the 1872 canon.
I picked 1872 arbitrarily, but it is equivalent to that. Therefore, all courses addressing either ethnicity
or gender have been rejected across the university. This
is something that I think we have to worry about.
All of our campuses have some
kind of curriculum committee. Some of our
campuses have a separate committee for general education, apart from the curriculum
committee. These committees report to the
faculty. There is a move among some
administrators, particularly presidential types, to have the general education committees
reporting to the Provost or the President. The
folks at SUNY felt very strongly about it. If
we were to enter into something like this, we would probably feel similarly. Core curriculum committees, whether they are for
general education, or for major education, are faculty endeavors. We have a resolution that was distributed about
this, Item IV.B, and it will appear in a short while.
The committees last Friday, I
believe by concurrence, agreed that it is a very serious academic freedom issue when the
Trustees intervene in curricula. I don’t
know if you’ve heard some of the statements by our Trustees, but I will repeat the
most egregious. I am sure that they will be
glad to repeat them for you as well. The
basic statement is that education is in the hands of the faculty. General education is to be done by the faculty. The Board of Trustees state that they will merely
enunciate principles. It turns out that one
of the principles is that there should be a course in economics. Another principle is that there should be a
calculus course. I believe that most of the
faculty would reject this, even if they would have incorporated an economics course in
their general education. We are keeping the
AUP apprised of the problems which are ensuing, and the problems which are on the horizon,
and the problems which have not yet been thought of.
I believe that they will join hands with us as soon as we work ourselves up
to enough steam. Are there any questions?
Professor Cooper (History, College of Staten Island) –
“One or two of the faculty on the SUNY Executive Committee pointed out that because
of the really rigid restrictions about what is acceptable for general education, and
because of the fact that no new resources were added to the SUNY budget to achieve this
new educational program, faculty who had been teaching in areas such as African American
History, Women’s History, Ethnic Studies, or Labor Studies, were constrained to drop
those courses that had been part of general education distribution requirements. In effect, their trustees established a corset-
like rigidity on the curriculum, and eliminated five or six of the newer areas of
knowledge. The faculty has not been able to
get a total list of which courses at which campuses have been rejected. The only way that these might be attained is by a
FOIL request. If anybody knows how to do
this, I would very much like to be instructed.”
b. Chancellor: I am going to defer making any comments. I would prefer taking questions, because I know
that’s what you are interested in.
Professor Wallach (Political Science, Hunter College) – “I wondered if you could say where your thinking is at this time about the notion of a flagship environment. I’ve come up against it in terms of launching new programs at Hunter. In response to my inquiry about launching special programs, I was told that this isn’t part of what could be associated with a flagship environment. I was told a flagship environment is something that involves a program at one college in association with other colleges. It is designed to build on the strengths of a college and associated colleges. My concern is that strengths might be built on, but budding programs might not be looked at as favorably. We might just be playing to existing strengths, and not actually looking creatively at new programs in new areas. I also want to ask you if there was a clear association in your mind between the notion of a flagship environment and cluster hiring.” /
Chancellor Goldstein – It is a good question, and a very
legitimate question. When I was interviewed
for this position, there were members of the Board who were very sympathetic to the notion
that we should identify one or two campuses and give them flagship status. Those of us who have been around research
universities understand what a flagship campus entails in a big university structure such
as the City University of New York. When I
heard of the idea, I said that I was not in favor of it.
I said it would be de minimus to those institutions that were not
included as flagship campuses.
I imagined there would be a considerable number of resources needed
to launch a flagship campus, and that this would pull away resources from other campuses. I thought that the University would lose and not
gain. I didn’t believe that all of a
sudden there would be a showering of dollars from Albany to support the notion of a
flagship campus. I thought that it was a
flawed, and a not well thought through model for what we hope to accomplish at the City
University -- to make the University as vibrant and exciting as possible, and at the
forefront of academic offerings.
I argued for the notion of a flagship environment. For me this means starting with a small number of
academic programs. At the end of the day, it
is all about generating resources. If you
don’t have the money, a flagship environment and flagship campuses don’t really
have any import. I came to this University
because I love this University. It is where I got started.
I wanted to do whatever I could to elevate its reputation in the community
of colleges and universities. I thought the
best way to do this was to strengthen our academic programs. I wanted to push this as far as we could over a
long and sustainable period of time. The
notion of a flagship environment basically says, we start where the action is. It starts at the department level, or at the
program level. Campuses could participate
with one another and build a very distinguished set of programs around a particular
area.
This entails the notion of an integrated university. It requires that Hunter participates with City
College and other campuses that are in the particular cluster of institutions that we
would anoint with sufficient resources over a period of time to develop collateral
strength. The faculty associated with these
programs would cooperate with one another. They
would say, “We need a couple of professors in this particular area. Let’s put our strength there, and the
following year, we will continue that process.”
Does it favor existing programs that have been around for a while; ones that have had an opportunity to develop? Yes and no. Some programs have been around, and they have generated a capacity to do very good work. It does not however preclude our taking a look at emerging areas. We can say, “This is an area where this University has the great potential to grow from very early seedlings, to something that can really bring great distinction. It is rethinking the way the University will evolve over a sustained number of years, all with the intention of building great strength across the University. That is the whole concept of the flagship environment.
Professor O’Malley (English, Kingsborough Community College)
– “Last week President McClenny of Kingsborough Community College told us that
he had to cut $2.5 million from the Kingsborough budget.
He was asked on Monday, and he had to give it in on Thursday. It was only an exercise, and it was the worse case
scenario, and it probably will not come to pass. However,
I was wondering what caused this. We met our
enrollment targets at Kingsborough. He said
that he thought it was a decrease in the City part of the budget, but maintenance of
effort makes it so that whatever the City contributed last year, they must contribute that
same amount this year. Were all community
colleges required to do this? What caused this exercise?” /
Chancellor Goldstein – It is an exercise. I received a letter from Adam Barsky, who is the Director of the Budget. This was a letter addressed to all agency heads. There is a sense that in the outer years in the City government, and in the outer years of State government, there are looming, large deficits. Why? Because of the actions taken by both the Giuliani administration and the Pataki administration in the early years of their first terms. They both enacted a series of tax cuts at not inconsequential levels. In the absence of a growing economy, their sense is that there is not going to be sufficient revenue developed, because of these tax cuts, to support all of the operations of the State and the City. So in the best way that they can through their crystal ball, they are saying that -- if no actions are taken, if no growth in the economy occurs -- this is what we may face, and this is what we may have to do.
Earlier in the year, I got a letter from Adam Barsky about a $5 million cut for this year. It is not a real cut, but an exercise. I protested quite vehemently and it went away, and that $5 million became a $1.6 million cut for this year. Quite frankly, I just don’t know what will happen. I can’t give you assurances. I don’t believe that this $1.6 million PEG reduction is ultimately going to be real for this year, but it might be. If we get relief, and I expect that we will, it will be distributed back to the campuses. For next year, the PEG reduction is $13.6 million. That $13.6 million required us, in your words, to go through a modeling of how we would distribute those cuts to the community colleges. I don’t remember what the numbers are for each of the individual campuses, but the order of magnitude is right for Kingsborough, of about $2.5 million. It is not for this year. It is an exercise for the next fiscal year, if the worst case scenario occurs of revenue not supporting fiscal budgets.
Professor O’Malley – “What about maintenance of effort?” / Chancellor Goldstein – Maintenance of effort has been written into the law. No good manager operates in the worst-case scenario. You use whatever experience, intellect, and good common sense you have in going through a planning exercise. This is really looking at the lower end of the distribution. I don’t think it is going to happen, but we have an obligation to the Mayor to come forward with the plan. That was all it was -- a plan.
Professor Manassah (Electrical Engineering, City College) – “If I may, I would like to ask you a two-part question. You talk about the idea of flagship. The last time that I looked at the budget guidelines of how money is allocated within the University, it is allocated on the basis of students, FTE’s, etc. This means that a flagship program cannot be divorced from any educational program at the University. This is because the budget is based on our educational programs. We do not have a research allotment budget, or whatever does exists is really minimal. Everything we get from the State is based on educational programs. It is very important any time we talk about a flagship program for it to be coupled with the educational programs that the University has. Any time we go further with that, we identify that what we are after is really research plus education. We shouldn’t talk about this until New York State decides to do what California did by creating three flagship programs in terms of money going to technology and research. We should insist at each instance that educational programs are part of that. When I looked at the five-year plan, I did not get that impression. It may have very well been in the back of your mind, and your cabinet’s mind, however it didn’t come through that way.” Chancellor Goldstein – I don’t have any issue with that. I agree with you.
Chancellor Goldstein – I think that is an important point. I know that it comes from the heart. We are a large, prominent organization that should be able to deal with all needs of learning. That is our great challenge. In any public statement and on radio and TV appearances, I talk about one of the great challenges that we have in this University, which is the challenge of variance. We have a very large variance in just about any level of indicator that we look at. You were talking about the great variance that exists in our students. We must be sensitive to those students. They do have access to good public education. The Honors College is going to be a very small entity here. Hopefully we can do both. We will be able to generate the money to do the Honors College.
Professor Kahan (Political Science, Brooklyn College) – “We note that a new dean of research was appointed recently, but without reference to the Faculty Advisory Council’s and Faculty Senate’s involvement. Is there any reason why we weren’t involved in that search or selection?” / Chancellor Goldstein – There was a search committee that was appointed. I wasn’t close enough to know who was on the committee. The man who we appointed, Dr. Spiro Alexandratos, is going to be a significant addition to our faculty. The first thing that he asked for was an affiliation with a particular campus. He wants to set up his lab and bring in money that he has developed through grants and contracts. He is going to bring a lot of wisdom and experience. He is highly skilled and very smart. I don’t remember who was on the search committee, but I’m sure that there were members of the faculty of this institution. Clearly there were people that would inform what we would need in developing a robust University-wide effort in research.
Chair Sohmer – Unfortunately, the appropriate body of representatives wasn’t consulted. Chancellor Goldstein – I am sorry about that. He is a good man. I know that it was a national search. We had a rich group of people, and the decision was made.
Chancellor Goldstein – Let me respond by sharing with you what I told a candidate I just interviewed, who is in play for the presidency of Hunter College. The individual wanted to know about the relationship between the positions of President and the Chancellor. He understood that the President reports to the Chancellor, but wanted to know, because he had heard in his travels around the University, that there is meddling. I told him that there is always tension in a system between the Chancellor, the Chancellor’s staff, and the President. It is a natural kind of tension. Perhaps it is a good kind of tension. It is similar to the tension between a legislative branch and an executive branch. They look after one another and try to keep each other in check. I said that I believe in a highly non-regulated environment with respect to how the Chancellor relates to the campus, and how the Board relates to the campus.
This is what I believe in, and this is what I practice. Nothing would suit me better than a president and the whole community the president presides over to be as successful as they possibly can be, however you want to define that. The only time that I would impose myself is if I believe that the actions taken by the president are ultimately destructive to the life of the campus. That’s a judgment that I will have to make.
I think that presidents need to be empowered to be strong academic leaders. They are not corporate executives. They are not worrying about quarterly earnings and satisfying the shareholders by maintaining dividends. This is an educational organization. It is about learning, creating knowledge, empowering students, and empowering faculty. That is what universities do. That is what I expect a president to do. I want those presidents to be as successful in doing all of that as they possibly can.
Professor Sank (Anthropology, City College) – “You know that City College has been without a permanent president for several years. I was wondering if you could give us some indication of when a permanent president will come on board. In order to attract a fine president, you have to have a campus that includes fine faculty, students and staff, and a good physical plant. I think we meet all of the criteria, except for the last. Our physical plant is in a stage of breakdown. The question is, can CUNY help us in this area? We are renting a facility on our campus to Structural Biology. I understand that we are charging $1 a year in rent. This astounds me. City College generates the most research grants of any unit, $27 million I believe. I don’t think we get back in overhead the amount that is produced by such grants. There is money that really could be available to us. Can you in any way help us?”
Chancellor Goldstein – Let me take the first part of the question. It is our intention to appoint a president that will be in office no later than the summer of 2001. When Stamford Roman was appointed, I made the decision that we would not do a search that first year. It is moving along, and I expect that we will make a good presidential appointment. That president will be in place well before the start of the academic year. Are there problems at City College? Yes, there are quite significant problems. Much of it has to do with its physical plant. It is an aged campus that has not been kept up. It does not satisfy the needs of the campus. There are issues about wiring and basic fundamentals of the structures of the buildings. It is a hard problem to deal with, given that there are campuses throughout the system that have needs. It is a hard problem that has no easy solution, and it is going to take time.
Professor Kaplowitz (English, John Jay College) – “I would like to ask you a question about the CUNY Campaign. I know that you are a great advocate of it. There was a department at one of the colleges whose faculty voted to ask that faculty and staff not contribute because the CUNY Campaign includes the Boy Scouts of America. I think I would like to ask instead, because I don’t think that is the most positive approach, that you ask that none of the monies that CUNY contributes to the United Way be directed to the Boy Scouts of America. I would like it if you could do this publicly, because we need as many voices against official policies of discrimination as possible. It would be good if you could emulate Chancellor Levy’s public statement against the discriminatory policies and the use of facilities.” / Chancellor Goldstein – It is an interesting recommendation. We are in discussions about that now, and there will be a statement about it.
Chairs have a lot of responsibility. If those responsibilities are not conducted in a way that will lead to a healthy institution, a president should take action. A president has an obligation to be informed before an action is taken. The only way I can see a president being informed is for information to be developed that would indicate what the performance is. Whether it is given to a dean or a provost, I don’t care. I just want to insure that the president is aware of what the chair is doing, and to take appropriate actions. There is nothing more involved, and the by-laws are very clear.
Professor Herz – “I am aware that a president can remove a department head, as I was in a department where that happened. The point is that the practice has always been, at our college, for there to be annual communication between a department head and the president. As I understand it, and saw in writing, there is a report form for each chair.” / Chancellor Goldstein – Let me just clarify that. When a letter was written, it may have come under my signature, a form was submitted. This was a form that was developed a couple of years ago through the Council of Presidents. Some of the presidents who were less experienced in such matters as this said that it would be easier for them if they had some kind of guidance on how to conduct such a thing. The presidents then asked if a form could be developed, and the chair was to sign the form. People objected, and they were right to object. I never saw the form, and it didn’t make sense to me. My action here is to give maximum degrees of freedom to the presidents on their campuses, and to do this in a way that is appropriate for the campus. If there is something written, fine. It can be an oral exchange, with notes taken. I don’t really care. I certainly don’t want to see this. However, I think it is an obligation that the president has to have.
Professor Bell (Educational Services, Brooklyn College) – “You’ve said a number of times at this body that data available to you is available to members of the faculty, as they request it. On Thursday we will finish the first round of giving the ACT Test in Reading and Writing to our students. I think that it is very important for the faculty to have the data on the norming of the test that occurred last spring. We requested it a number of times, and still don’t have it. It is also important to have the data that evolves from the new administration of this test, to incoming students, which won’t be finished until the start of the new semester. Also, we would like the data on the post-testing, which finishes this week, which should be available before the Christmas break.” / Chancellor Goldstein – I thought that Executive Vice Chancellor Mirrer has said that data is available. / Professor Bell – “We really want the raw data, the tapes. We want to analyze it.” / Chancellor Goldstein – Do you want the SAS routines to analyze them, too? / Professor Bell – “That would be fine, too. I really think that we can do it. We want to see the data. We want to be able to look at those tests in ways that will help us teach the students.” / Chancellor Goldstein – I have no problem with that.
Professor Baumrin (Philosophy, The Graduate Center) – “The two associate deans for research that are to be appointed with an application window of November 27 – December 27. We have a standing committee on Research as you know. They weren’t involved before, and I think they ought to be involved.” / Chancellor Goldstein – You have a group here tonight. Why don’t you make some recommendations to Executive Vice Chancellor Mirrer. We will entertain what we can to get those folks involved. / Professor Baumrin – “I came late. I heard that you were going to cover all of the things we didn’t ask by your closing remarks. Did you cover everything we didn’t ask?” / Chancellor Goldstein – Why don’t you finish your questions first and then I will say a few things.
Professor Cooley (Mathematics, York ) – “I am a new faculty member. I just got tenure. I don’t know whether York is better off than other campuses, or worse off. We have about 300 faculty, about half of them are full-time, and about half are adjuncts. In my experience in the last six years at CUNY as a new faculty member, I feel honestly that I am sacrificing my professional life by staying at CUNY. My teaching load is so heavy and, with all of the part-time faculty that we have, I am overwhelmed by committees and seeing students. It is not what I thought being a professor was going to be like. I feel like I am a grunt. I am physically exhausted. My salary for New York City is hard to get by on with paying student loans. I can’t live in a decent place. I live in New Jersey and commute to Queens. It has been hard. I love New York City and public universities. I believe in public education. I want to do this. I can’t go to any more conferences because all of the money is used up.”
Chancellor Goldstein – What is your field? / Professor Cooley – “Mathematics.” / Chancellor Goldstein – What are you working on? / Professor Cooley – “I study mathematics education.” / Chancellor Goldstein – I would like to respond in a very forthright way. I don’t find what you are saying humorous at all. I find it very sad. / Professor Cooley – “I think people are laughing because they can relate. I just wanted to ask one question. What is CUNY going to do to attract new faculty? When are they going to hire new faculty?”
There is engagement with Sheldon Silver, Joseph Bruno, Governor Pataki, and Mayor Giuliani. I wasn’t here for the last meeting, so I didn’t report that the Mayor wanted to have a press conference. The press conference took place. There were three people from the University who participated. Aside from myself, there was Herman Badillo and Benno Schmidt. I insisted that before the press conference took place that we have a sit-down with the Mayor. There was a cordial exchange, and at a point in the meeting I said to the Mayor, “Mr. Mayor, we need more resources in this University.” I reviewed our needs. There was truly a sympathetic response. We followed up within two days with a schedule. It is nothing different from what all of you have heard. It is consistent with the Master Plan, step-by-step getting the kind of resources we need.
I am meeting with the Governor on the 21st of this month. It will be the same kind of meeting. We have had discussions with the upper leadership of the Executive Office. We have had discussions with the upper leadership in the Assembly and in the Senate. I would like to believe that this is going to be a good year, but I can’t predict what is going to happen. I do know that the public statements that Bruno is making and Silver is making, and the Governor and Mayor are making, are very positive statements about the University. Whether that is going to translate into the kinds of resources we need, I just don’t know. I am going to try and get as much as we can.
I think that Karen asked a question about a campaign. I thought she meant a capital campaign. I am interested in a capital campaign for the City University. I have asked the presidents about their intentions about capital campaigns. I think the presidents of this University really have to start helping to generate resources. That has not been a defining principle in attracting presidents. I think it is very important that presidents get out as much as they can and garner resources that we are not getting from State and City government. Those are the kinds of things that I think a capital campaign would be derived from. Mini-campaigns on our campuses are something that we should be doing. The Honors College is taking some of our time. We are having a lot of meetings with top people in foundations to try to get more and more resources. The Math Commission is taking some of my time. All of our work with the Board of Education is being ratcheted up. Have a wonderful New Year, contentment, peace, health, think positive thoughts, and I will see you when you come back.
IV. New Business:
a. Resolution on Distance Learning
Chair Sohmer – This resolution was at the door. Senator Davenport?
Professor Davenport (Library, John Jay) – “I hope that you have all read it. I think that it is fairly self-explanatory. It refers to an earlier resolution. I think that if anybody has questions, I am going to defer to Tony Picciano, who is on our committee. Cecelia McCall (English, Baruch) – “I just want to make one statement on this. The PSC did have a labor management meeting with the Chancellor, and the Chancellor has agreed to extend the agreement. We asked for it in writing, but we haven’t gotten it in writing yet. As soon as we do, we are going to share it with you.”
Chair Sohmer – The Resolution is before you as a committee resolution. Is there any debate?
Professor Manassah (Electrical Engineering, City College)
– “The language here, I am not so sure about.
It says whether it was “specifically contracted.” How would you define a professor who has been
given release time to write a book? Would
that be considered now to become the property of the University? It says, “unless
those materials are specifically contracted.” I
am not sure what the words “specifically contracted” mean in this instance if a
faculty member being given release time to write a book.” / Chair Sohmer –
That is not our language, that is the language from the agreement. There are two committees that will be working on
intellectual property law, which this will then be referred back to. In the meantime, the only resolution that we are
talking about is the one at the foot. It says
that that agreement doesn’t expire. It
continues. / Professor Manassah – “But then whoever is going to look at that
would have to address that.” / Chair Sohmer – Absolutely. There are two intellectual property committees
floating.
Professor Picciano (Curriculum & Teaching, Hunter) – “We are not changing the original resolution that was passed two years ago. We are just asking to extend it. The word “contract” just means that if there was any contract between a faculty member and the administration, whether it was written or oral, that that would supersede, but it was up to the faculty member to enter into that contract. Absence of that contract, the faculty owns his or her own material.”
Chair Sohmer – Is there anyone who is still
uncomfortable about this resolution?
Professor Baumrin (Philosophy, The Graduate Center) –
“I am on one of these committees. The
resolution is that the Faculty Senate recommend the agreement of Spring 1999, as signed by
all parties. This agreement was
signed?”
Professor Picciano – “It was signed by the President of the
PSC and the Chancellor at the time. It was
put in the form of a letter addressed to all of the presidents, basically saying this is
our policy for a two-year period, and it expires at the end of this month.” /
Professor Baumrin – “Who is this being addressed to?” / Professor Picciano
– “The Chancellor and the PSC. There
would have to be agreement with both parties, because it was their committee that
developed the original resolution. It will go
to both parties, the Chancellor and the President of the PSC.” / Professor Baumrin
– “I would add to the resolve, ‘recommend to the parties.’”
Chair Sohmer – I presume you mean the previous
signators. / Professor Baumrin – “Those are the parties. What I was concerned with is, the resolution says,
“as signed by all parties.” I want
to know to whom it is going to, and the answer is, it is going to the PSC and the
Chancellor.” / Chair Sohmer – The amendment in the resolution is the
incorporation of the phrase, “that it be sent to all signators.”
Professor Bohigian (Mathematics, John Jay College) –
“At the end of the Resolved, after saying, “through collective bargaining,”
it adds the clause, “or other appropriate means.” I am not sure that I like leaving it open-ended
like that. I think that should be stricken,
that last clause. I think that it should be
exclusively through collective bargaining. I
don’t want it approved by any other means. If
you leave, “other appropriate means,” they could say, we set up a committee,
we’ve discussed it, and we have come to the following conclusions, take it or leave
it. I think the last clause should be
struck.”
Chair Sohmer – There is a motion. Is there a second to that motion to strike that
last clause. It is seconded.
Professor Picciano – “The committee considered that very
carefully, but there are a number of items within the original resolution that do not
relate to employment related practices, such as the approval of programs and curricula,
which the PSC does not typically approve. There
are other local governing bodies, such as curriculum committees, that would generally
refer to that. This is why we have, “or
other means.” There are also some
critical issues, such as intellectual property. It
is not clear where that is in the University, because it doesn’t exist, there is no
policy in terms of intellectual property, either in the collective bargaining contract, or
in some CUNY by-law. It could be that there
are some other kinds of mechanisms, such as a joint PSC management committee, that might
resolve some of these issues. It may not be
in the collective bargaining contract per se. It
may not be part of the negotiating initially. There
may be other bodies established.”
Chair Sohmer – From this language, would
“collective bargaining and other governance bodies, when appropriate,” be O.K.?
I would like to throw in “other appropriate governance bodies,” otherwise it is
too open ended. The amendment, as it now
reads is, “through collective bargaining and other appropriate faculty governance
bodies.” There is an amendment on the
floor at this moment. That is what we are
speaking about.
Professor Don Davidson (CISD, LaGuardia) – “I
would like to move the previous question on the amendment.”
Chair Sohmer – There is a motion to move the previous
question and the amendment, which is a legitimate motion.
Professor McCall – “What happened to the motion
that Stefan made?” / Chair Sohmer – We have yet to vote on Stefan’s
amendment. The amendment is before you that
the addition, “recommend to the parties.” That
was seconded, and it is now moved that it be voted on.
All those in favor please say aye, opposed no.
It is passed without dissent.
Professor Davidson –“I move the previous question
and the main resolution as amended.”
Chair Sohmer – You have before you the perfected motion to the signators, as well as the statement that the governance bodies be involved, and the union. All those in favor of voting on that motion please say aye, opposed no. O.K. The motions are now before you. All those in favor please say aye, opposed no. It is approved.
b. Resolution to the New York State Public Higher Education Conference Board on Academic Excellence
Chair Sohmer – The CUNY Executive Committee met with the SUNY Executive Committee, and there was a statement produced at that meeting. If you remember, we had joined something called the New York State Public Higher Education Conference Board. It will be meeting on January 4th. We wanted them to have a statement before them. The statement was distributed at the door. It is before you as a recommendation to go to that Board. I can read it.
“At their annual joint meeting on December 8th, the
Executive Committees of the Faculty Senate of SUNY and CUNY, with the concurrence of the
president of the SUNY Faculty Council of Community Colleges, recommend that the highest
priority on the agenda of the New York State Public Higher Education Conference Board be
the maintenance and strengthening of academic excellence on our campuses. Academic excellence is threatened by the
unprecedented politically driven intrusion into curricula policy by Boards of Trustees and
Central Administrations. System-wide reviews
to determine whether particular courses are appropriate to general education have created
an environment of censorship, a chilling effect on intellectual inquiry, and a search for
the lowest common denominator in general education.”
We would like this Board to consider this resolution. The Executive Committee is presenting it. We would like you to endorse it.
Professor Alfred Levine (Engineering Science & Physics, CSI)
– “I of course support the statements on academic excellence. However, I think there is an impossibility of
maintaining academic excellence without improvement in the budget. At the last budget go-around, SUNY requested
nothing. That is a statement of fact. Can we at least insist that that the agenda of the
New York State Public Higher Education Conference Board address this ridiculous position
that SUNY took last year?”
Chair Sohmer – That is nugatory.
The resolution before you has certain substance, and it doesn’t refer to
budget. If you want another resolution on
budget, I would be glad to talk about it. It
is not related to this. The question is
before you to recommend this to the Conference Board.
All those in favor of calling the question please say aye, opposed no. The question is therefore called. All those in favor of this recommendation please
say aye, opposed no. It is
passed.”
Professor Levine – “I am not sure that it requires
a resolution. I think the people who are
attending this Higher Education Conference Board can on their own judgment raise the
appropriate issues. Do not let the discussion
be only on academic excellence.”
Professor S. Cooper – “The New York State
Public Higher Education Conference Board, which was founded by unions and senates, and the
NEA, and the Friends of CUNY, and a batch of others, have two of us representing various
groups on it. The next meeting is January 4th. There is something of a full agenda. I think the issue you are raising is crucial. It is going to be pushed by the SUNY Executive
Committee and the UUP. I have no problem with
it, obviously. There is a spillover effect
from one system to another. I believe the
other issue on the agenda, unless it has changed, is going to be the beginning of a
proposal for legislation to recreate what existed about a half century ago. It is a review panel for vetting recommendations
for trustees of public education systems. It
is my understanding that this has the support of Carl McCall’s office.” /
Chair Sohmer – The reason for her understanding is that he said so.
c. Additional New Business
Professor Alan Cooper (English, York) – “The
Chancellor is very busy, and he can’t always remember everything that he has done or
said. He told us that in the matter of
evaluations of chairs by presidents, he might have said something, it might have been oral
or written, he wasn’t sure. This is the
October 6th memorandum to the presidents.
Just in part it says, “in particular presidents recommend that all
colleges use the same evaluation tool.” He
alludes to a memo from Brenda Malone, which requires the annual evaluation of chairpersons
and concludes, “pursuant to this memorandum, department chairpersons are to be
evaluated as chairpersons, and not as faculty members.
The purpose of these evaluations is to assist in measuring the success of
individuals as chairpersons to help them to improve their performance or, where necessary,
to provide support for the decision to remove them. I
expect that the presidents will evaluate department chairpersons annually, using the form
that is attached to Vice Chancellor Malone’s memorandum. Your cooperation in this effort will be
appreciated.”
Professor Crain (Psychology, City College) – “A couple
resolutions that we were working with tonight feel like they have some power. One of them is the Resolution on Distance
Learning. I think that that has some power,
because when that resolution began, the union called for a moratorium on distance
learning. The faculty around the University
respected that moratorium. Therefore we were
in a position to bargain with CUNY Central, because nobody was participating in distance
learning. We got to the bargaining table and
created a committee. The Resolution on
Presidential Review of Chairs, I think has some power, because a number of chairs were
saying that they weren’t going to participate in this action. In most cases, however, our resolutions strike me
and a lot of people, as something we work hard on, but we don’t know where they go. They seem to evaporate into thin air. We don’t get any responses. I think we need to think of a way to demand
responses to these resolutions. I have all
kinds of ideas, but I think that we could go en masse to a Board meeting, and demand
responses. We would let people know that we
are going to go to a Board meeting and demand a response.
This is no way to treat the highest faculty governance body.”
Chair Sohmer – We do in fact get responses to roughly half, probably not the tough half.
Professor Baumrin (Philosophy, The Graduate Center) –
“Seven-percent of the faculty are chairs, 2,000 of the 5,600 faculty are on
P&B’s. That’s all.”
Professor Phillip (Biology & Chemistry, The Graduate Center) – “I would just like to ask that the Executive Committee perhaps think of formulating a motion or a resolution that asks the University to give to the Executive Committee, each central line opening. When there are University deans appointed, as a matter of course, we should receive notification of the pending appointment and some information about the search committee in formation. This should be standard.” / Chair Sohmer – As a matter of fact, it is, and it has gotten past us. We will notify them by xeroxing a resolution of maybe a half a dozen years ago, with a cover note.
Professor McCall – “I think that is very powerful. I think that we can use that in many ways to help us in what we are trying to do in distance learning. I just wanted to follow up on Bill’s comments on resolutions. Part of the question period for subsequent meetings should be questions about resolutions that were passed at previous sessions. That would be one way to get on record what the Chancellor’s disposition is of the resolutions that we make. I think that maybe we should routinely have questions at each meeting that refer to the previous resolutions.” / Chair Sohmer – We can formalize that. We will keep score, and write the Chancellor a memo, asking him to address that as part of his report for each meeting.
Professor Bohigian – “If we send him a written memo, we would like a written response.” / Chair Sohmer – O.K.