February 23, 1999

Chair Sohmer called the session to order at 6:30 p.m. in Proshansky Auditorium of the Graduate School and University Center of the City University of New York. Present were Senators from the following campuses: Baruch: Hill, McCall, Otte and Pollard. BMCC: Friedman, Price and Vozick. Bronx CC: Beligne, Cummins, Fuld. Brooklyn: Bell, Jacobson, Shapiro and Tobey. City: Connorton, Crain, Grossman and Sank. CSI: Cooper S., Levine and Petratos. CUNY Law: James. GSUC: Baumrin, King and Klarfeld. Hostos CC: Canate, Cardona and Vasillov. Hunter: Kurzman, Neville, Sherrill, Steinberg, Wonsek and Alternate Casco. John Jay: Bohigian, Davenport, Kaplowitz, Rodriguez and Alternate Davenport. Kingsborough CC: Galvin, O’Malley and Richter. LaGuardia CC: Beaky, Mettler and Reitano. Lehman: Feinerman, Knobloch and Mineka. Medgar Evers: Harris-Hastick and Alternate Sigler. NYCTC: Cermele, Deraney, Norton, Walter, Hounion and Alternate Richardson. Queens: Diamond, Franco, Frisz, Kulkarni, Savage and Alternate Hemmes. Queensborough CC: Barbanel, Dahbany-Miraglia, Gellman and Greenbaum. York: Cooper A. and Doss. Newly elected Senators and Alternates: Read, Bronx CC. Governance Leaders present: Cooper A. (York), Davidson (LaGuardia CC), Errico (Hostos CC), Hemmes (Queens), Kaplowitz (John Jay), Kurzman (Hunter), Levine (CSI), O'Malley (Kingsborough CC) and Perlstein (BMCC). Executive Director Phipps and Administrative Assistant Pasela were also present.

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

II. Approval of the Minutes of the 258th Plenary, January 26, 1999: The Minutes were corrected to reflect the attendance of Professor Davidson, Governance Leader from LaGuardia Community College. The minutes were then adopted as amended.

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

a. Chair (oral and written).

b. Interim Chancellor Christoph Kimmich (oral).

c. Faculty Members of Board of Trustees Committees (written).

d.     State and City Budget Outlook - Acting Vice Chancellor Sherry Brabham (oral)

IV. New Business:

Two items were addressed by the plenary.

First, the following resolution was adopted unanimously after discussion and editing.

RESOLUTION TO THE BOARD OF TRUSTEES CAPPR COMMITTEE

Whereas, the attached resolution (see below) was brought to the February CAPPR meeting by Trustee John J. Calandra, and it may be considered in March, and

Whereas, the resolution is contrary to studies showing the educational benefits to students who concurrently take skills and content courses, and

Whereas, in contradiction to the announced rationale of Trustee actions on September 29, 1997 (Resolution Concerning Use of the Freshman Skills Assessment Tests at CUNY) and November 23, 1998 (Resolution on a University Proficiency Exam), the resolution calls for the use of the FSATs as exit exams from remediation, and

Whereas, it is educationally unsound to use the FSATs as both placement and exit exams, and

Whereas, the proposed remediation limitation would prevent students from qualifying for full-time status and thus disqualify them from receiving financial aid, and

Whereas, the determination of the curriculum and its implementation, as well as the assessment of student performance, are the responsibility of the faculty as laid out in Section 8.6 of the Board By-Laws and the State Education Act,

Therefore, Be It Resolved, that the University Faculty Senate opposes Trustee Calandra’s resolution, opposes its consideration by the full Board, opposes any resolution embodying the assumptions upon which it rests, and opposes any policy it promulgates.

DRAFT RESOLUTION OF TRUSTEE JOHN J. CALANDRA

RESOLVED, that upon the successful completion of a remedial course or sequence of courses within a discipline, a student must immediately take the Freshman Skills Assessment Test applicable to that discipline;

RESOLVED, that no CUNY student may exit from remediation in Reading or Writing until he/she has passed the appropriate Freshman Skills Assessment test; a passing grade on the CWAT shall continue to be a score of an "8" on that exam;

RESOLVED, that students who have not exited from remediation are required to continue with remedial courses until they pass the Skills Test pertinent to the discipline in question; they shall not be allowed to take college-level, credit-bearing courses in that discipline until they pass the Skills Tests associated with that discipline;

RESOLVED, that notwithstanding the fact that a student has not yet exited from remedial English, a student who obtains a score of a "6" after re-taking the CWAT, shall be allowed to take one semester of Freshman composition in addition to his/her continuing with remedial English classes. Immediately following the successful completion of said composition course, however, the student must re-take the CWAT; a student who again fails to obtain a score of an "8" on the CWAT, may not continue further with any college-level, credit-bearing English course and must continue with remedial English courses until such tests have been passed.

RESOLVED, that nothing in this Resolution shall be construed so as to allow the admittance of students who otherwise fail to meet the admission standards of the University, and particularly, those standards set forth in the Board's January 1999 Resolution on remediation, nor shall anything herein be construed to effect [sic] in any way the limitations placed on remediation pursuant to the Board's May 1995 Resolution.

February 1, 1999

The second item of new business was a discussion concerning the Performance Excellence Awards Program. It is recorded in the Reports & Deliberations.

There being no further business the meeting was adjourned at 8:45 p.m.

Respectfully submitted,

William Phipps, Executive Director

a. Chair: Let me tell you about two important dates: Friday February 26—The Assembly Higher Education Committee (assemblyman Ed Sullivan’s committee) is having a budget hearing at BMCC at 10 AM—to appear call Mark at 518-455-4881.  On the same day Helen Marshal’s Higher Education Committee is having a hearing on immigration and student needs at City Hall.

Several of us were in Albany, once for the joint hearings of the fiscal committees of the Senate and the Assembly, and then for the Black & Puerto Rican/Hispanic Caucus. The first was a hearing on the Governor’s proposed budget, which included the Draconian suggestions from the director of HESC—15 credits (rather than 12) for eligibility; 25% co-pay (rather than 10%); and on-time graduation (8 semesters for baccalaureate; 4 semesters for associate) -- all verbally demolished by Assemblyman Sullivan. The second included many committees and hearings—the most dramatic an analysis by Regent Harold Levy of the inequitable funding of New York City public schools. There are promised lawsuits; it is something we can agree with the Mayor about.

The Board of Trustees met last night, and I found it necessary to amend the minutes of the previous meeting (the meeting to outlaw remediation at the senior colleges) to ensure that the statement of Trustee Curtis (which asserted that the resolution applied to neither ESL nor SEEK) appeared—it was so ordered.

b. Interim Chancellor Christoph Kimmich [In the event, these remarks were delivered after Vice Chancellor Brabham’s] - Good evening, everybody. My apologies for being late. But I’m glad I was late so I could hear the presentation from the Vice Chancellor. You can see why we are lucky to have her. The good news that was alluded to just now is a bright star in an often cloudy sky. Our efforts, last September, to budge the Mayor’s Office into releasing funds that we believed should be ours, have finally succeeded. It really is good news for all of us because all of us participated in this. On Friday morning we had a call from the Division of the Office of Management and Budget (OMB), saying that the requested $4.3 million that we had talked about repeatedly here in this gathering, and that we had pressing for as late as 5:00 p.m. Thursday evening was officially released to us. It is now on its way to the community colleges. I should say, better late than never. It can make up for some of the programmatic needs and some of the changes that had been stalled. Also, for the programs that have been raided to cover more pressing needs having to do with the collective bargaining agreement. In any event, we are very pleased.

You can thank a whole host of people, including members of the Board of Trustees, the community college presidents, members of the Professional Staff Congress, and our friends in the City Council. If I were to speculate why this and why now, I would venture a comment about the ongoing negotiations between the City Council and the Mayor’s Office as they go through the twice-yearly budget modification. The Mayor puts on the table a number of requests requiring City Council approval. City Council then uses the opportunity to press some of its own interests. We are very pleased to be able to bail out the community colleges at this late stage.

You’ve already heard a lot about the budget from the Vice Chancellor -- both about the numbers and about our general strategy. The things that are foremost in our minds are the four issues that were identified. Number one is our programmatic interests -- the ones we put on the table, the ones we want funded. Number two is the burden being imposed on our students by financial aid cuts. Number three is the question of the $5 million, which is symbolic but also important because we have made a commitment to our collaborative programs. As long as that money is in our budget, it becomes a priority for us. We don’t know how the Board of Education would spend the $5 million, but we have a stake in making these collaborative programs work. And last, there are the mandatory costs which are not funded.

We are concerned about these issues. We made the case for the mandatory costs, for the financial aid issue, for the $5 million, and for the programmatic priorities in what has been a very flat budget. The strategy doesn’t differ a great deal from previous years. However we have added a few things that the Vice Chancellor has already alluded to. There are hearings in Albany, with the City Council, the borough presidents, and Assemblyman Sullivan’s committee. We also scheduled a series of what we call Legislative Breakfasts in the boroughs. We get together with the borough legislators and presidents and explain the impact of the budget on the borough and the colleges in the borough. We have also scheduled an Albany trip with the Trustees, joined by presidents and some members of the Chancellory. We tried it last year and were well received, so we will try it again this year. We work with the campuses to devise strategies that will emanate from the campus legislative action groups. They work together on letters, visits, and the like, and we are going full gear into our usual spring exercise. The question is, how effective can we be? And here again I will appeal to all of you to see what you can do to help with your campuses, on your campuses, with your students, and individually to make our case.

Clearly when you talk about the budget in Albany it is in a context. The context this year is the extensive vetoes the Governor levied last year on a large number of budgetary proposals the legislature had adopted, including ours. The challenge facing the legislature, both the Senate and the Assembly, is how to make your budget proposals relatively veto proof? That is squaring the circle, finding ways in which you can create enough connections and linkages. The legislature is under no delusion about the present state of the State coffers. They are full, we all know that. The Governor’s argument is that, yes, they may be full this year, but what about next year when the tax cuts come into play. He would like to save the reserves. That’s his argument. Whether the argument can withstand legislative scrutiny and the interest of the legislators to make up for some of the deficits in the Governor’s Budget remains to be seen. The good news is that this is the beginning of the process, not the end.

Let me shift to a couple of other things I want to talk about. The first one relates to the activities of the Board of Trustees. I think when we last met we were in the process of constructing broadly based, flexible, implementation guidelines for the remediation resolution. Since the resolution is now policy, the campuses need to know how they should proceed. For the last three weeks we have been trying to work in consultation with the presidents on guidelines that would give them the kind of flexibility and leeway they need in order to make sense of the resolution and to deal with some of the things that have not been addressed in the Resolution. We talked about SEEK issues, ESL issues, and the alternatives to the tests, such as the SAT equivalencies we have adopted. All of those things need to be brought together into one instructive set of guidelines which I hope will go out this week. The campuses will be working on these implementation plans which are due in early May.

Another related subject are the various resolutions that are turning up at CAPPR issuing not from the Chancellory, but from members of the Board. The most recent one has to do with the CWAT test, once again being used for purposes that we thought we had put behind us -- as an exit test to English 1 for students who had been admitted into English 1 with a 6 rather than an 8. Now we are finding that what is a laudable kind of way of dealing with students at that level of preparation might be undermined by a set of exit exams in which the students are once again held to the traditional requirement that we had tried to move away from. That will come back to us I suspect in the next CAPPR meeting.

The other issue that’s going to come back to that committee is the question of core curricula -- and why are we not like SUNY? When you look closely, of course, SUNY is not as thorough as we are on that score. This issue does not particularly concern me. Unless of course, once again, we discover that there is a particular twist we might not have anticipated. The question of whether we have a core like the SUNY core is one that is easily answered -- with one or two exceptions, we do a lot better.

Finally, another favorite subject, the Schmidt Commission. When I talked to Mr. Schmidt on Friday he said he expected the report to be available on the 15th of March. That’s the latest date. I am planning next week to go on a retreat with the presidents to discuss a number of large issues. I thought that if the report were out, it would be a useful opportunity for us to talk to Mr. Schmidt directly to let him know what we thought about it.

The retreat is really an attempt to get at some of the questions that we have been dealing with on the margins. Since I came into this office, a lot of time has been spent with the presidents discussing mission differentiation -- how we differ from each other. We all know how we differ from the other, but we never really talk about it. What does this mean for individual campuses as they think of themselves and their futures? A lot has happened since we last addressed this subject -- about twenty years, in fact. A lot of things have happened around us in disciplines, pedagogies, and technology. We have not had a chance to come together and address what this really means for the University.

Part of my intention at the retreat is to deal with these issues. Another part of the retreat will be devoted to what presidents have talked to me about, that is, clarifying the relations between the campuses and the Central Office. This of course is the favorite topic. But I’m certainly willing to see what we can do with it. Those relations have, as you know, been burdened in the past. They needn’t be. Clearly there are ways in which we can improve them or clarify what we are doing together and what we are doing separately. My position has been that the individual campuses ought to have as much autonomy as possible. On the other hand, as all of you know, the Central Office is being held accountable for what the University does by our political sponsors and by the budget makers in Albany. Therefore the Central Office is put into its own unique position. So how one deals with these pieces of the puzzle become part of the discussion. Let me stop at this point. If there are questions, both the Vice Chancellor and I are prepared to respond.

Professor Greenbaum (History, Queensborough Community College) - "When you spoke about the Board and the core, it is clear that most of the colleges have in their cores pretty much what the SUNY Board was driving at. I think what’s more important than that, if I could comment on that, is the very fact that the Board wants to interfere. That for me is where the problem is." / Interim Chancellor Kimmich - I’m not quite sure I would have quite chosen that verb. But the question stands. The Board has taken upon itself an activist role in trying not only to impose its own vision, but also in some ways to take the measure of other institutions, particularly SUNY, and apply them to CUNY. That they do so, they believe to be their right -- though that right has not gone unchallenged. What we can do to clarify the relationship between the Board and the University and to clarify the exact role of the Board, I think is all to the good. I think that’s probably going to be one of the issues addressed in the Schmidt Report when it comes out. I think you are very much on target there.

Professor Levine (Engineering Science & Physics, College of Staten Island) - "We are all very pleased that the City has finally given us the money that they owe us. Assuming that the Legislature passes a maintenance of effort bill identical to last year’s, would that mean that for next year’s budget the City would be obliged to include that $4.3 million. And number two, if the wording were exactly the same as last year’s, would this preclude for profit, private pirates from trying to raid the public money?" / Interim Chancellor Kimmich - The answer to your first question is yes. As to the second, we will probably have to wait until the smoke clears before we can answer that.

Professor Kulkarni (Math, Queens College) - "Chancellor, I’m very glad you talked about the responsibilities of different campuses on getting together. I wish to ask you about the interpretation of the particular group of faculty with Graduate Center appointments. That is, the faculty with lines at the Graduate Center. In the present interpretation, they do not have a formal connection with the colleges. And they are lifetime appointments. This has led to some particular problems, especially considering the consortium nature of the doctoral education. For example, in order to fulfill the workload of these faculty members, the programs have been giving them credits, essentially for the work not done. At the same time, severely restrict or deny the credits to the college where the work is actually performed. So these are complex issues and I do not wish to go through them here at this time. I only wish to know whether you have any feeling on these problems." / Interim Chancellor Kimmich - The consortia arrangement of our doctoral programs is unique, though I gather that other institutions are looking at us to see whether it is a system that might work for them as well. We believe two things. One, we believe that institutions are autonomous. In the case of the Graduate Center we also believe that they have very close connections to all of the individual doctoral-supporting campuses. Those two things are sometimes hard to reconcile. The University in its wisdom made decisions to provide doctoral lines to the Graduate Center and subject to its terms of their appointment, which, as you know, are not necessarily the same as those that apply to campuses. My own sense of this is, and I’ve spoken to the President of the Graduate Center on this subject, that we need to make the consortia system work better for us. Surely if a campus makes a commitment to doctoral teaching at the Graduate Center, sends faculty there, deals with the workload issues involved, then it should have more than just a small voice in the fortunes of the Graduate Center. My strategy has been to see whether we couldn’t make the existing system work for us. The issue you raised would be comprehended in that kind of change. / Professor Kulkarni - "I would appreciate it if I could have a talk with you sometime." / Interim Chancellor Kimmich - Certainly.

Professor Bell (SEEK, Brooklyn College) - "I was wondering, Chancellor Kimmich, if you could talk to us a little bit about admissions for the Fall. Since we had early admissions and we moved up the cycle somewhat, and early testing, do we have any figures on how we compare to last year in admissions at the senior and community colleges?" / Interim Chancellor Kimmich - We have figures for the first two phases. I’m pleased to report that they are up -- about 2%. The people who apply in the first two phases are the traditional high school students. They’re the students who are going to have choices and it is going to be up to us to convert those applications and enrollments. So let me leave you with that thought. Here is an opportunity for us to in fact turn what seems to be a vote of confidence in some ways into something that really makes a difference.

Professor O’Malley (English, Kingsborough Community College) - "I wasn’t going to ask this question, but in terms of Martha’s question, you can’t break it down in terms of senior and community at colleges at this point." / Interim Chancellor Kimmich – No, I can’t. / Professor O’Malley - "My question was going to be, in your testimony you talked about increased need for part-time aid. You mentioned a pilot program. Given the changes in TAP, if they go though, even if they don’t go through, the need for increased part-time aid is enormous. Do you think there is any hope? Do you have any suggestions how we could help you with this effort?" / Interim Chancellor Kimmich - Most of you know the way TAP is structured, and you know it is very difficult for somebody to be part-time. So many of our students register full-time to be eligible and they are probably carrying more than they want to carry. It is probably in no one’s interest to promote this sort of thing. There are students who would be perfectly content taking one or two courses, the minimum they have to take. I did suggest to the State that we explore the possibility with one or two colleges and see if you couldn’t do a better job managing TAP. They thought this an interesting idea. They had all along thought that if they veered away from the basic minimum required number of courses, they would go broke because there would be so many students pouring in as part-timers. I have been saying they might be wrong. We might gain, on our students behalf, terrific benefits in academic progress. That’s where we are on this. We talked about it with the legislature. We’ve also talked about it with the Division of Budget, which is going to be the arbiter in this matter. We have raised it with HESC (The Higher Education Services Corporation), which administers TAP. If we can persuade them in the next two or three months to try one or two colleges to see how it would work, that would be a plus.

Professor Crain (Psychology, City College of New York) - "Tonight we are going to adopt or discuss the Calandra Resolution, the one on having to take exit exams. However, there is an 8 and a 6 option, then there is this course and that course. According to their own bylaws, these are really local faculty governance issues. You could easily argue that admissions and curriculum are the responsibility of the college faculties subject to broad guidelines. The Board of Trustees doesn’t have any business getting into numbers like 8s and 6s. That is such micromanaging. They don’t even know what they mean, but aside from that, to come in and tell me how many papers to give in my classes...Is there any limit to this?" / Interim Chancellor Kimmich - That is a question we ask ourselves daily, Professor Crain. / Professor Crain - "Can you tell them that this isn’t their business." / Interim Chancellor Kimmich - It’s not for want of trying. There is not enough sentiment on the receiving end saying, "yes, you’re right." Not enough to overcome some very consistent, persistent sentiment that "we are the Board and the ones who make those final decisions." No one I have yet seen has stood up and said, "no, there are some things that we do and some things that somebody else does." / Professor Crain - "Do you think that we should do more of that?" / Interim Chancellor Kimmich - I guess that’s for us to think about. The question that I would put to you would be, how do we find the best allies in this cause?

Professor Cooper (History, College of Staten Island) - "Could you give us a broad outline of the future in terms of the remediation resolution? I understand that by the middle of May there are going to be some presumed guidelines for how to do this. Do you plan, for example, to send them to the Regents? Assuming the Regents hold a meeting in the Fall and the first batch of affected students is to enter in the winter of next January, how do we square this with the information distributed to high schools and other counselors who help people get into college? Has anybody figured out the potential financial impact of this as well as the ethnic impact? We did such studies last year in order to derail some of this. Have they been done again? Has there been an effort to assess the financial impact? The legal issue of using public money for private remediation strikes me as something, for example, which would have to go to the State Legislature for approval. These are the sorts of shaping questions that come to mind." /

Interim Chancellor Kimmich - Doesn’t anybody have any questions for the Vice Chancellor? / Professor Cooper - "She can answer these as well." / Interim Chancellor Kimmich - Let me go through the present situation with the remediation resolution. First of all, there is always a possibility of the resolution and its implementation being enjoined. That apart, the Chancellory’s responsibility at this point is to send to the campuses some broad guidelines for their implementation plans. Those implementation plans are due in the middle of May. They are likely to be submitted first to the Board of Trustees, who will approve them. Then they will be incorporated in the larger, regularly scheduled, Master Plan update that goes to the Board of Regents. The Board of Regents has indicated to me, through the Commissioner, that they would move fairly expeditiously, so as not to delay the implementation of the resolution unduly. The Commissioner has indicated that the Board of Regents would like, in his words, to match our pace. I’ve had to say to him, the pace is the timetable set forth in the remediation resolution. That is to say, January 2000, Fall 2000, and Fall 2001. Part of the implementation plans will include such things as financial impact, impact on enrollment, impact on demographic profile, as anticipated by the individual colleges. The figures that you alluded to from last year, of course, were global figures. They were broad and, as you know, subject to considerable attack. These will be more specific figures, and I think probably based on more careful analysis on the individual campuses. Did I answer all of your questions or did I leave some out? What do we do about students admitted in the fall? We are going to have to do two tracks. It is the only solution that we have. We are going to have to prepare for the implementation as if it were going to happen. We have to bear in mind that if it doesn’t happen, if the Regents do not approve it, if there is a delay, if it is enjoined, then we stay with our present procedures. / Professor Cooper - "The Regents, for example, have nothing to say about the fact that assessment tests are going to be used as admissions criteria?" / Interim Chancellor Kimmich - I’m not sure I can foretell what they will do. In our submission to them we will clearly outline all the implications of this. / Professor Cooper - "But if you wait to do a whole Master Plan and send it in as that, as opposed to a separate amendment to the current Master Plan, there is no way they are going to get it by September. Only if you work day and night all summer on a new Master Plan. If I recall, the last one took two years to put together." / Interim Chancellor Kimmich - I think the last one was actually a bit faster. We’ve begun working on it.

Professor Reitano (History, LaGuardia Community College) - "This issue of mission differentiation is a very serious one and fraught with possibilities as well as problems, potentially, for us -- from my perspective, particularly for the community colleges, in the light of everything that the Board has been doing. I was wondering whether as one possible outcome of your retreat with the presidents, you might consider recommending that they bring the question back to their faculties so that the discussion can be broadened. Maybe we can take a proactive position rather than always being reactive and engage in a dialog on that." / Interim Chancellor Kimmich - I very much appreciate that last point. I think we’ve been reactive for much too long. I’ve always favored taking the offensive on this matter. As to your specific question, what I hope will happen at the retreat is that we come up with some concrete outcomes, things that we will do. One of the things that I would hope would come out of this discussion on missions is a clear sense among the presidents that a discussion in the appropriate forum at their institution is a useful step forward. Remember that some colleges feel that they have just done this and they feel no need for it. Others probably need to do more of it. What I’d like to get out is some kind of timetable of certain concrete actions that we will take following the retreat. / Professor Reitano - "Because the actions of the Board, by definition or by default, redefine the missions of the institutions." / Interim Chancellor Kimmich - I would like to anticipate that by putting something on the table earlier rather than later.

Professor Kaplowitz (English, John Jay College) - "My question is in the context of the tragic death of Amadou Diallo -- the fact that we at CUNY had a wonderful program, the Police Cadet Program, which is no longer funded and no longer exists. At one point when the funding was being cut, I brought a resolution to this body calling on Mayor Dinkins to restore the funding, and it was unanimously supported by this body with faculty from college after college, speaking in support because of their experiences with students from their colleges, who were in the Cadet Program. In light of not only Mr. Diallo’s death, but other issues having to do with the police and the community, many of us, especially at John Jay, think it is time to recreate the CUNY Cadet Program. First of all, it is a way of addressing the residency requirements, since the cadets become officers who have to have residency in New York City. They have to have an associate degree. We attracted a large number of students of color, and therefore there are large numbers of police officers of color who graduated and became police officers, one of whom spoke eloquently at a town meeting we had a few days ago at John Jay on this issue. I know there is some talk about it. It requires funding. I’d like to know if you are in support of this. If there is any way that this body can help in getting it recreated. There was an issue of the funding between the police department and CUNY at one point. And then the funding disappeared." / Interim Chancellor Kimmich - Karen, I’ve only heard something very peripherally about this. There clearly is an interest in doing something. I don’t want to get trapped into accepting even a wonderful program if it is additional burden on the existing operating budget or on the existing intellectual resources of the institution, that is to say, the faculty. I would be very much interested in moving forward on looking at and reviving this program. And to take advantage of the current relative openness in the Mayor’s office to such discussions. But I think we are at a very preliminary stage. If you and your colleagues here could be helpful, I would like to know.

d. State and City Budget Outlook - Acting Vice Chancellor Sherry Brabham [In the event, these remarks were delivered before Chancellor Kimmich’s]

Chair Sohmer - One of our guests this evening is the Interim Vice Chancellor for Budget, Sherry Brabham. She has extensive experience in the area of budget and finance having served as Vice President for Finance and Business at Queens College for the past two years. Queens College has a student body of 17,000, and an annual operating budget of $116 million. From 1990-1995 she was the University’s Budget Director. Her responsibilities included the development and implementation of the University’s Operating Budget and development of the University’s Annual Budget for the City and State of New York, articulating University priorities, needs, and initiatives. She also forecast the monitoring and collection of revenue of the University’s then 21 constituent colleges and schools and developed the University’s Annual Financial Plan. As Interim Vice Chancellor, she will be the Chief Fiscal Officer of CUNY. Two of our committees have had meetings with her already. I think that everybody agrees that the meetings were salubrious. Let’s hope that this relationship continues.

Interim Vice Chancellor Sherry Brabham - Good evening. I thank you all for inviting me here this evening. I was reminded as Dr. Sohmer was doing the introduction that my title is Interim Vice Chancellor. When I arrived at the Office at 80th Street, one of the people in the office showed me a cartoon. In the cartoon there is someone standing behind the desk and someone standing in front of the desk. The person in front of the desk is saying to the person behind the desk, "you have to understand that around here the titles ‘Acting’ and ‘Interim’ are honorific." I got a good chuckle. I’ve been Acting before at this University, so you would think I should be able to do this; we’ll all see, I guess. I am glad to be here this evening. I am encouraged by many familiar faces in the audience and with my friends from Queens and some of my friends from other days at the University. Also some folks I’m getting to know a little better on the Faculty Senate Budget Advisory Committee.

I’m hoping that we will have a very good working relationship between the University Faculty Senate and the Office of the Vice Chancellor. I believe that the work that we all do is important for the students who we serve and for the employees we serve in my office as well. My office does payroll and purchasing. All of those things that are important for you people from another perspective, as well as what we do to serve students. I am looking forward to working with the Budget Advisory Committee. This Committee actually came into its own when I was the University Budget Director. I have some past with the Committee. At that point in time, David Speidel was chair of the Committee. I just had the privilege since going to Queens of continuing a good working relationship with him. Not only the current leadership, but the past leadership of that Committee has been very talented and has given us, on the administrative side, good questions and important ideas to work with. I’m also thankful to have the opportunity to work with Trustee Sohmer. I know him from my prior days in the Budget Office. This is also a good continuation of a prior relationship.

I also am glad that we are all on the same team when it comes to working for the University, whether it is in Albany or at City Hall. As a consequence of being on the same side on these issues, we are able to accomplish more for the University. I know that sometimes some of the ideas and some of the approaches that we have may differ. I think that even in those differences, what is most important is the business we are about and the work we do. As I said before, I think this is important work, so I am looking forward to doing that.

My understanding is one of the primary reasons that I am here tonight is to provide an update on the State and City Budgets. Let me just give you a very brief overview of where we are on those two items. I had expected that I would be able to go after Chancellor Kimmich, who is going to give you the broad strokes. I’m going to do the numbers. So we’ll do the numbers first and then the broad strokes, if that’s OK. Some of these numbers are probably very familiar to all of you already. You’ve seen the documents that have been produced by the University or you’ve read the information in the paper.

In a simple phrase, the budget at the senior colleges proposed by the Executive is a stand-still budget. The total senior college budget goes from $979 million to $974 million as proposed for fiscal year 1999-2000. That $5 million difference is a consequence of a transfer that the Executive Budget proposes of the funding for collaborative programs which historically have been in the senior college budget, to the budget of the Board of Education. There have been many questions raised about why this transfer was made. We are not totally sure. One speculation is that there was an effort in that transfer to show more State aid going to public schools. We’re concerned about the transfer. Many of you who are institutions where these collaborative programs run, know that the work we are doing through College Now, and many of the collaborative programs, has been very successful. We think that one of the reasons is because we have our fingers in it -- because we are involved in it, because we pay attention to it, and because we have been able to provide the expertise of the faculty and the environment of our colleges there. So we are really concerned about having that transfer reversed. That is a priority of the University.

Beneath the stand-still appropriation which might sound like good news, we are also concerned about that bottom line in the senior college budget. The reason we are concerned is because basic mandatory needs, including the funding for next year’s collective bargaining, have not been included in the funds that are coming from the State. The University’s Budget Request, the amount that was requested above last year’s operating budget, was almost $87 million. About $35 million of that was for what we described as mandatory needs which included collective bargaining and basic OTPS inflation, rental money, funding for the Graduate School to operate at its new facility at 34th Street. Those things were not funded in the Executive Budget. In addition, we had asked for a 5% increase to the operating budget to do the kinds of programmatic things that were important to the University. We proposed that 5% increase as a five year plan, five percent each year over the next five years, in order to provide the University the opportunity to begin to recover from some of the fiscal problems of the past decade.

The other request that had been important to us in the Executive Budget at the University was the $150 per FTE increase for the community colleges. That was not included either. As many of you know, that’s not really out of step with what has been the history of the Executive Budget process. Usually what happens is that the Executive straightlines the community colleges and then the Senate really has been the one that has carried in budget negotiations the community colleges. We are very hopeful that there will be some attention paid to the community colleges during the legislative session.

That was the news on the budget for the senior colleges and for the community colleges. As Professor Sohmer has addressed before, other concerns that we had in the Executive Budget when it was presented last month were the proposals in financial aid. There were many changes proposed for the financial aid programs -- the on-time graduation issue that President Sohmer just spoke about. One of the concerns is that "on-time" is sort of a capricious definition. Not only here at CUNY, but throughout the country, "on-time" is not four years at a senior college, or two years at a community college. That is one of the things that we will raise during the legislative session. There was also the proposal that the maximum amount of award be reduced from 90% to 75%. The 15 credit definition has a punitive component. If you signed up for 15 credits and therefore got your TAP, if in the second semester you didn’t get grades in all 15 credits then there is a reduction in your award in the second semester. I see many of you nodding. These are things that you are familiar with and probably quite articulate about.

Let me tell you what the University has done so far in response to the Executive Budget presentation. There is, as you know, traditionally what is called the "30 day period." It is usually used for making technical amendments to the budget documents that the Governor proposes. We do use the 30-day period to surface some of the things that are of greatest concern in the Executive Budget. There were three things that we surfaced to the Division of the Budget and to the Governor during the 30-day period. One is the restoration for collaborative programs. We asked for the $5 million to be returned to the University for collaborative programs. We asked for a $150 base aid increase for the community colleges. We asked for a 1.8% increase in the University Senior College Budget, about $18 million. The reason we used 1.8% is because the Governor’s Budget has been lauded in the papers, as you may know, for keeping spending at 1.8%. The argument was that technically he didn’t increase spending by 1.8% at City University of New York. Technically, he might want to make that adjustment. We asked that the 1.8%, the $18 million be used to fund the collective bargaining increases at the University. Also that it be used to fund the building opening costs at the Graduate Center and some rental costs associated with John Jay and Medgar Evers College. During the 30-day period the Governor did not choose to address the items that we had proposed. That was our starting point in terms of meeting and working with the legislature.

A week ago we were in Albany, and Chancellor Kimmich provided testimony before the Assembly Ways and Means Committee and the Senate Finance Committee on the Budget. He made the case for funding for the University at the Budget Request amount. We are asking for $86.7 million. He made the case for a $150 base aid increase for the community colleges. He registered our complaints about the changes in the TAP program. He also asked for the restoration of collaborative programs. We are currently engaged in conversations with the legislature. We appreciate all the help that comes throughout the University, from all sections of the University, continuing that conversation. At this stage of the game we believe the budget is not over.

On the City side, for the community colleges -- as you know, the Mayor proposes a financial plan in January that often anticipates what he will produce in his executive budget later in the Spring. It usually comes out in late April or in mid-May. In the Mayor’s budget the proposal was for basically a stand-still budget at the community colleges. Some of the things that the Council added last summer, he did not support in his budget. The scholarship program that had been championed by Speaker Vallone was not included in the Mayor’s financial plan. Neither was funding for College Now. There had been a proposal for expansion of College Now throughout the University and that was not in the Mayor’s Budget. Those will certainly be priority issues for us. The Chancellor will have opportunity in the coming weeks to speak before the borough presidents, before the City Council, and also before Chairman Sullivan at his hearing this Friday. I’m sure he will tell you more about his efforts there. That is where we stand at this point on the budget. There is other news on the community college side which the Chancellor will share with you. I’m happy to answer any questions that you have. Thank you.

IV. New Business

Professor Feinerman (Math & Computer Science, Lehman College) - "I have in front of me a memorandum from Vice Chancellor Malone on the Performance Excellence Awards. There are a number of things in there, but one item says, "because of its newness, the provision establishing Performance Excellence Awards will sunset at the end of the contract unless the parties agree to renew it. It is therefore imperative that we all work together to make this program a success." She then goes on to describe how many each college would have, roughly the outline of what process would be followed. What she doesn’t seem to say is that the money for it will be coming out of each individual colleges’ budget. Eightieth Street is not providing any of the money for it. At a specific college faculty senate, there was a resolution opposing this college’s participation in this, some of the people saying it would be divisive, create artificial rivalry, jealously, and strife among faculty. Supposedly some groups at BMCC have opposed it. At Lehman I brought it up at the faculty P&B meeting today, and I was urged to put it on the agenda, and it will be put on the agenda of the General Faculty Meeting this coming Thursday. I was wondering what other colleges have been doing about this. Basically I am asking a question. What are other colleges doing about this, I’d like to know."

Professor Perlstein (Governance Leader, Borough of Manhattan Community College) - "I unfortunately didn’t anticipate that this was going to come up. I didn’t bring the resolutions that have been passed at BMCC, but I can give you a rough idea. Two departments have passed resolutions, urging their members to refrain from participating either as nominators or as nominees. The BMCC Chapter of the Professional Staff Congress has passed a resolution urging its members and colleagues to refrain from participating either as nominators or nominees, and urging the union to remove this from the next contract. Tomorrow I will introduce a similar resolution to the Faculty Council. We will see what happens tomorrow afternoon. That is the situation at BMCC."

Professor Feinerman - "I should point out that if individual departments don’t participate, the people who do participate will get the money. It will still be as divisive as ever, but just the people who fink out will get the money."

Professor Alan Cooper (York) - "We are not arguing the merits or demerits of a clause in the union contract. You were just trying to get information, I thought."

[UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER] - Is there anyone else who can contribute any information?

Professor Alan Cooper - "I just want to make sure we are not going to take action on the contract revision."

[UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER] - No, it is a contract revision, and...

Professor McCall (English, Baruch College) - "This award was announced at Baruch College only at the Faculty Senate Meeting on February 4th. It was also announced that the first deadline was February 16th, which was the following week when we were going to have the long holiday on Presidents’ weekend. I made the request that the deadline be extended. I was told that Brenda Malone had rigid requirements on this and the dates could not be altered. However, after that meeting I later found out that each campus could establish its own dates. I called the Provost and told him that. Upon which he told me then, the real reason he couldn’t change the dates was because the dates he established in the schedule had to conform to the P&B dates that had already been established on campus. The announcement of the award and the procedure was sent to the campuses. It was not put in at least the English Department’s boxes until February 11th, which was one day, I think, before the vacation was to begin, and two days before the deadline. Which means that the Department Chairs had control of this and insider faculty could nominate and not the general faculty. The only assumption that we can have now at Baruch, is that the thing was rigged at Baruch."

Professor Baumrin (Philosophy, The Graduate Center) - "I heard a remark, I wish I hadn’t heard, that somebody hoped that we would not take an action on a union matter. This is a matter of academic performance and academic freedom. Even though the union has something to say about it, it doesn’t have everything to say about it."

Professor Sherrill (Political Science, Hunter College) - "I just want to report that at Hunter, the entire faculty was circularized about this several weeks ago. The deadline for departmental P& B recommendations is tomorrow. It appears that a fairly significant number of faculty members have nominated themselves."

Professor Bohigian (Mathematics, John Jay College) - "I see the laughter just now. Unfortunately you’re in a situation where you are discussing something where you don’t have the document in front of you. It clearly says in the document that self-nomination is OK. Be careful about that. It is, regardless of the fact whether it is an academic issue or not, it was negotiated by the union. It is a union issue. The Brenda Malone deadline of February 15th does not apply. She herself withdrew it. Your Provost should be notified." / Professor McCall - "He was, and he wouldn’t change the date." / Professor Bohigian - "Then you should file a grievance. Even though the matter itself is not grievable. That’s the way it was negotiated. The situation was, we were given this amount of money; it was earmarked for this function. It would not have gone to any other procedure. It was either, take this, or not get it at all. So you should understand the background involved. Secondly, if it is done correctly, and I hope it is being done correctly at John Jay, the process is such that you can self nominate. The P & B’s at the department will nominate, and they will forward it to a select committee of nine or ten at the college. They will make their recommendations, it will go to the college personnel committee of the college, and they will vote on the recommendations. Then of course, as always, the president has the final decision as to what happens."

Chair Sohmer - "No, the president only has the decision on not awarding it." / Professor Bohigian - "That’s not what it says, Bernie, in the statement." / Chair Sohmer - "Yes, it does. The contract says specifically that the president may turn it down, but may not add a name." / Professor Bohigian - "I did not say ‘add a name.’ I said he will accept or decline from the list." / Chair Sohmer - "OK." / Professor Bohigian - "There is also a provision in there for non-teaching faculty. That issue has to be decided on, on the local campuses as to what the breakdown is. For example, John Jay has seven, and the college decided that five of those awards will go to teaching faculty and two to non-teaching faculty. There will be a separate committee composed of three members chosen by the PSC of non-teaching and three from the president. That committee of six will make the equivalent decisions that the academic bodies make for the teaching position. There are more details, but this is pretty much spelled out. The procedures are there. We have three shots at it. It is a one time, pensionable, $5,000 item. You can’t get it repeated. Adjuncts are eligible. There is no provision that Distinguished Professors can’t get it. We hope that they will not apply or will not be rewarded because they are already remunerated. But technically they would be eligible as well."

UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER - Just a point of clarification. Does this money come out of the operating budget? Or, is extra money given from 80th Street ? Could someone clarify this?

[UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER] - To the best of my knowledge, the money comes out of the college’s budget.

[UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER] - That’s offensive. There is no money in the local budget.

Professor Mettler (Humanities, LaGuardia Community College) - "I just wanted to tell you about our experience. We held a meeting sponsored by Faculty Council and the PSC Chapter, to which the President was invited. The principal item on the agenda was the merit pay provision. When he arrived with the Vice President for Academic Affairs, he said he was definitely compelled to go through with naming candidates. He had a very elaborate procedure worked out for selection, going through department P & B’s. We had a very well attended meeting, and there was such a hue and cry, with nobody speaking in favor of the proposal. So many people spoke against it that the President agreed to write to the Central Union to ask for a deferral. We didn’t know anything about change of deadlines at that time. He was going to write this in conjunction with the chapter chair of the PSC. We all felt very good about it. We felt this was a meeting that had really accomplished something and given the faculty a chance for wider discussion. The President was showing a receptivity. A week later we found in our mailboxes, the very same letter he had sent out to everybody requesting applications. In other words, the event was completely ignored. It later turned out that people have been submitting their own nominations and people have been nominated. One department reported already a good deal of hard feeling in the department because two members of the department did nominate themselves, knowing that many other members were opposed to merit pay. Therefore they felt very self-conscious about their self nomination. Already the ill effects were beginning to be felt. But as far as I know, I’m not updated, the selection procedure is continuing."

Professor Levine – "Let me attempt, as much as possible, to clarify the money. There is a line in the Budget Request that reads, "collective bargaining, these amounts represent undistributed centrally-managed funds for contractual obligations." It lists in the 98-99 adjusted budget, $1.7 million. I do not know if the $1 million for the Performance Evaluation Awards is included in that $1.7 million, but it is possible. I do know that in the State Executive Budget for 1999-2000, this amount is zeroed out. There is nothing in the State’s Budget for next year at the moment, comparable to the item. I don’t know if this helped in the discussion, but these are the numbers."

Chair Sohmer - Anyone else on this subject?

Professor Kaplowitz - "At the Chair’s Meeting at John Jay which I attend as Chair of Governance, there was much dismay on the part of the Chairs: the divisiveness that immediately was created, the additional work for the Chairs as members of the P & B, and department P & B, the suggestion that everyone be nominated, and the suggestion from a Chair of a very tiny department that small departments get two nominations and big departments get three nominations to limit the number of nominees, to limit the amount of work. Nothing has been agreed on, except the President and the Provost decided that there is to be a subcommittee of the P & B, made up of the P & B members, appointed by the president, not elected by the P & B. They will consider the nominations from departments and then choose the ones to forward to the president. Most of the people at the college don’t know about this, having not received Vice Chancellor Malone’s memo. A lot of Chairs don’t have the duplicating budget to make copies of the memo to give to the faculty of the departments. That is the best reading of why people haven’t got copies of it."

Chair Sohmer - Professor Feinerman, do you feel informed?

Professor Feinerman - "If I can respond about the budget thing. I asked the Vice President for Administration at Lehman today if there was money in his budget for this, and he said, "no." He is going to have to take it from either supplies or something else." / Chair Sohmer – "That’s the answer I’ve received at every campus I’ve made inquiry of."

[UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER] – "This is a further complication. In discussion after the Board meeting last night, I was told that a campus that doesn’t use this money this term, will have that added to next year’s second year of the contract. So that a distinction between ordinary operating budget, is that the operating budget that isn’t spent by June 30th is gone. This money will not be gone if what I heard last night is true. That is, it is conceivable that a campus, because of confusion or principle, decides not to spend it this year, it would have that amount added to next year’s and could award the additional number next year."

[UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER] – "I don’t know the source of your information."

[UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER] – "Karen and I were talking to the Vice President of the Union. That question was posed and he said, yes that is true."

[UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER] – "No. The union contract says that if the money is not used this year, there will be available a comparable amount next year. But it doesn’t say what the source is."

Professor Richter (English, Kingsborough Community College) - "If that money is returned to the colleges next year, will it be for the same purpose? Or will it be put back..."

[UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER] – "The college is putting aside, let’s say for eight awards. You’re asking if the $40,000 isn’t spent, what happens to it. It is $40,000 of your colleges’ Operating Budget."

Professor Richter - "I would like to propose that if there is general opposition to this whole incentive award here, we might possibly come up with a resolution against it. Just a statement in which we recommend that whatever allocations are made, are in fact not made, and that there should be no such award."

Chair Sohmer - I would suggest that the timing is irrelevant at this point. If it is going to be decided on campuses, it has already been decided. And if it is not going to be decided on the campus, it is not going to be decided and we can save this for the next… Such a resolution should be from the Executive Committee. Anything more?

Professor Kaplowitz - "I want to thank Professor Feinerman for bringing this as New Business because the information has been very helpful so far. One of the things that Alan Cooper and I were also told by the Vice President and the Union yesterday was that if people were really opposed to this, the thing to do is to decline nomination. If everyone declines nomination, then the president cannot give the award to anyone. That’s fulfilling the contract. As both you and Haig agreed, the president cannot give it to anyone who has not been nominated through the process. So if no one is nominated then the award can’t be given. We could call on our colleagues and ourselves not to accept nomination. Or if we are nominated to withdraw. One of the procedures it says in the memo from Vice Chancellor Malone, is that upon being nominated, the nominee has to provide the backup material. So if you don’t provide it, you refuse to be nominated, just as a person could be nominated for Distinguished Professorship and could decline that nomination. That’s one way to go."

Professor Frisz (Student Personnel, Queens) - "I am changing the subject. I gave my microphone up about twelve times and now I am going to ask a question. Do we have any recourse as a senate to write to any authority to demand that the Board of Trustees adhere to their own Bylaws that they passed?" / Chair Sohmer - There are two answers to your question. The only authority to oversee the Board of Trustees is possibly the State Education Department and I have written to them some time ago about their violating their own Bylaws. Unfortunately, there is a second answer which is the Bylaws of this Board of Trustees are the most bizarre governance document in higher education. One clause is that any element in the Board of Trustees’ Bylaws may be waived at any meeting by a majority of the Board of Trustees at that meeting which makes it very difficult to sue them. The response is we essentially waived the Bylaw. [responding to an off-mic comment] Yes. They have to do it affirmatively.

Professor Frisz - "And you have never received a response from the SED?"/Chair Sohmer - I received two responses. One was from the Commissioner who said we can’t do anything for public institutions only for private institutions. The second, from two of the Regents saying of course we can. I used as a paradigm the Adelphi problem—and the Commissioner said that the SED is really the supervisory engine in the State of New York only for institutions chartered by the State and public institutions are not chartered by the State nor is Columbia University. Professor Frisz - "So I stand here and hear you say that there is no real answer. I am hearing that we don’t have any recourse and I guess that is where the frustration lies unless we want to take a legal test case on this which I know becomes very problematic in terms of expense and so on. It seems to me as this continues this thing is mushrooming to the point where they can go back on every single provision where they have given the colleges and the faculty authority, and I guess the only way unless we can get something more affirmative with the State Education Department—whether we meet with them rather than a letter or some of their legal representatives— is through a formal lawsuit. I don’t know what the possibilities of that are, but this is terribly frustrating." / Chair Sohmer — Incorporated in the union contract are the Bylaws of the BHE. It is explicitly the case. Therefore, it is conceivable that if we find their actions are egregious enough we can have a class grievance which may be the only route we can take. I am not sure. Professor Frisz — "I am asking if the Executive Committee could discuss it a little further and see what other options we have. This is a real big issue that is not going away. As far as the information about the faculty merit awards, Bernie and I both go the Executive Committee of the union and I think, next week, we can bring up some of these issues that were raised here at least to let the central union leadership know the concerns that came up at today’s meeting."

Professor Crain (Psychology, City) - "Those are good points just on the violating their own Bylaws. As I recall what the Executive Committee has addressed the Regents on this matter is that this is part of an overall set of irresponsible behaviors that include becoming appointees on the Trustees when you work for the people who appointed you and taking orders from them and violating their own Bylaws and running intensely over-security at meetings. They are just acting irresponsibly on so many counts that I think it may carry weight on a number of irresponsible behaviors that require investigation. At City College we did adopt a resolution. The main thrust was that the Performance Excellence Awards are divisive and will create artificial competition and undermine faculty morale and solidarity. It was unanimously approved and it felt very good to be part of the faculty at that time. I would encourage other faculties to take it before their governance bodies. I think that is the most powerful way — if we could have a series of resolutions from all the campuses and then they could come back here."

Professor Sank (Anthropology, City College) - "I endorse what Bill (Crain) said and I want to bring up the same issue about the merit pay. Just for the nature of the discussion tonight and the fact that it is imminent or even going into effect I think should not stop us from passing a resolution. I don’t know do we follow the college in terms of resolutions or do we lead the colleges in terms of resolutions. In terms of the union situation I would include in the resolution and appeal to the union to modify or ask for modification or elimination of that part of the contract. I think it is very divisive from the conversation just here and it is harmful to the morale of the faculty which is already so lowered. I really think we should have a resolution as soon as possible from this body." / Chair Sohmer — I would strongly suggest that such a resolution be written for the next meeting to appear on the floor of the body. There is difficulty as we are not replete as this moment.

Professor Vozick (Science, BMCC) - "I just want to follow up on Ruth Frisz’s point. Perhaps this has been done but deserves mentioning. There are a number of groups, the NAACP Legal Defense Fund, Puerto Rican Legal Defense Fund, The American Jewish Congress, that are considering civil rights lawsuits against the Board. I wonder if someone from the Executive Committee could make contact with them and raise this point about the Bylaws as possible violation."/ Chair Sohmer — It is already done.

Professor Sank (Anthropology, City) - "I would just like to make a resolution tonight that we feel that the merit proposal is deleterious, harmful to faculty in terms of individual morale, in terms of the budget of the college which are going to be hit by this action and that we also appeal to the Union to join us in this effort." / Chair Sohmer - It is in the Union contract. Professor Sank - "So what. Things can be changed. Then we can certainly express our feeling and I would like this as a resolution tonight. To wait till next month I think it will become passe. The wheels will start turning and the next thing we will hear is that it is too late, some people have already gotten the money and so forth. I think now is the time to indicate that we are opposed to it and it is just very harmful. It is a management type of thing. It is an employer type of tactic and it really is non-academic in all aspects."

Professor Greenbaum (History, Queensborough) - "I suggest an absence of a quorum." [Comment is followed by several off-mic comments.]

Professor Sherrill (Political Science, Hunter) - "I would suggest the hour is late, the attendance is minimal, this is a serious issue. If it were a quorum present I would suggest that it be referred to the Executive Committee to report at the next meeting."

Professor Petratos (Political Science, CSI) - "The quorum issue should have been raised. Muzzle the colleague. We talk about democracy in this body; practice it."

Chair Sohmer - We stand adjourned.