MINUTES OF THE TWO HUNDRED FIFTY FOURTH PLENARY SESSION

OF THE CITY UNIVERSITY FACULTY SENATE

OF THE CITY UNIVERSITY OF NEW YORK

June 16, 1998

Chair Sohmer called the session to order at 6:30 p.m. in the Harold Proshansky Auditorium of the Graduate School and University Center. Present were Senators from the following campuses: Baruch: Hill, McCall, Otte and Pollard. BMCC: Friedman, Vozick and Young. Bronx CC: Fuld. Brooklyn: Bell, Hager, London, Shapiro and Tobey. CCNY: Grossman and Pearson. CSI: Cooper, Levine, Petratos, and Yousef. CUNY Law: James. GSUC: Rothman. Hunter: Krishnamachari, Kurzman, Matthews, Sherrill, Steinberg and Wonsek. John Jay: Kaplowitz. Kingsborough CC: Galvin, Goodkin, O’Malley and Richter. LaGuardia CC: Beaky, Gallagher, Mettler and Reitano. Lehman: Feinerman, Knobloch, Mineka and Nathanson. Medgar: Harris-Hastick and Sigler. NYCTC: Cermele, Deraney, Donoghue, Norton, Walter and Alternate Hounion. Queens: Diamond and Frisz. Queensboro CC: Gellman, Greenbaum and Alternate Specht. York: Doss. Professors Kumar and Vozick were excused. Governance Leaders present: Perlstein (BMCC) Hemmes (Queens) Kaplowitz (JJ) Levine (CSI) Mettler (LaGuardia) O’Malley (KCC) and Specht (QCC). Interim Chancellor Kimmich attended with Dr. Pulliam. Professor Shirley Beheshti attended the session. The Parliamentarian was Professor Staum (KCC). Executive Director and Administrative Assistant Pasela were present.

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

II. Approval of the Minutes of the 253rd Plenary Session (May 19,1998): The Minutes were approved as distributed.

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

a. Chair (oral and written).

b. The Interim Chancellor (oral).

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

IV. New Business:

a. Resolution on the Board’s Action to Phase out Remediation in the Senior Colleges
(enclosed)

b. Resolution on the Implementation of the Board’s May 26 Resolution (enclosed).

There being no new business the meeting was adjourned at 8:15 p.m.

Respectfully submitted,

William Phipps

June 16, 1998

a. Chair:

Just a few things. You realize that the Board acted precipitately and in a strange way a couple of weeks ago. The Governance Leaders met and produced several resolutions that will be for you to consider at this meeting. Since the last time we met, the Board has created a situation where the senior colleges will be in desperate straits beginning in at least September 1999, probably earlier than that because the information in the newspapers is such that many students are just not applying and will not appear. They don’t want to be disappointed about not getting into senior colleges of their choice. The net effect on enrollment for the Fall given this year is probably close to disaster, and certainly by 1999 it will be disastrous. By 2000 I’m not sure how much business we’ll be doing at CUNY.

There have been some actions taken as a result. At least, the State Education Commissioner and some of the Regents are convinced that the Board action is a modification of the CUNY Master Plan. Therefore an amendment is needed to the Master Plan, and the process for amendment was never done. So the Regents are going to take up whether CUNY acted in the proper way and possibly nullify the action. It doesn’t mean it will be nullified, it just means that it will be sent back for them to do it right. Then they’ll do it right, I suppose.

The other action that some of you may have heard about or know about is that a document appeared a couple of days ago calling for the University at Queens. It is to be essentially a beginning of a disintegration of CUNY. It’s conceivable that’s even better than not, but it’s something that obviously needs more discussion than the existence of a piece of paper from President Sessoms and President Schmeller. The document was distributed to the faculty at Queensborough last Friday and probably the faculty at Queens today. The document is a separatist document without particular principles involved, except that it accrues great glory to the College of Queens. It would be merely something to consider. But the story has it that at least part of this action emanated from the Governor’s mansion. Which means it’s not merely an action about Queens College, but it’s also an action about the rest of the University. Such an operation would require an amendment of the State Education Law. If the Governor is participating, it is quite clear that this is a possibility that would occur and could occur sometime before September of 1999.

It is a thing which obviously has to be thought about, and thought about carefully. What does it mean for the various institutions? Is it good? Is it bad? The only saving grace that that document produces is that it would certainly involve the diminution of the size of 80th Street and its power, and that can’t be all bad. But there may be other things it involves that are unforeseen. Also, clearly in Queens, coordinates only Queens College with Queensborough. There are some other institutions in Queens which seem to have gone unmentioned. Not unnoticed, but unmentioned.

The net effect would be clearly a diminution of what is now called the Graduate School. Again, since its inception, the Graduate School has been something which people have considered ambivalently in various ways. So it will not be clear what the reaction of the faculty should or would be, were this to be considered by the faculty. Those are the two major things that have occurred since our last meeting.

There have been hearings at various legislative bodies. Various offices of the University have appeared at them and said things. They are now on the record and the Chancellor will be here and you can query him about some of those things. It is quite clear that if the Badillo/Calandra Resolution is put into effect without any attempt at diminishing the impact, there will be great dislocation to CUNY, of students, of faculty, and curriculum. These are things that we all have to worry about, the most favorite or the least favorite of institutions have to concern themselves with this. The Vice Chancellor and various Board members have, in particular, made statements about the College Discovery and SEEK programs which are not in writing and have some interesting effects. It is clear that given seven Vice Chancellors, there are approximately eight opinions being expressed on the various important issues. Therefore, we are all free to accept those resolutions that appeal to us most. At some point or another these things have to be ascribed on paper. Let me let it go at that for the moment.

b. Chancellor:

Good evening friends. Thank you, Bernie, and congratulations to you and to the colleagues who were elected to the Executive Committee. I know it was a hard fought battle. We obviously want to spend time this evening talking about life after May 26th. Let me therefore start with a couple of information items and get them out of the way. First of all, and this is a perennial, an update on budgets.

The City Council passed a budget over and above what the mayor had recommended of about $8.3 million for the City University. $7 million of that was in response to a plan that Speaker Vallone had first articulated back in January to provide a tuition break for students who had gotten a B in high school and maintained a B average in college. The largest portion of that approximately $8 million, was set aside for that. In addition to that sum there was money set aside for College Now, $1.2 million. As you know, that is a program that reaches out to the high schools. It was a budget item that the State had not funded, and we hoped the City Council would fund, and they did. A third item consisted of a list of member items for individual colleges in response to requests from community colleges. Finally, there was some money on the side for programs at the Hunter College High School.

Everything except the Hunter College High School was vetoed by the Mayor so that the Vallone Tuition Rebate Stipend, College Now, and the member items got lost in the veto. I was not there this afternoon, but there clearly was a plan to override. I do hope that some of these things re-emerge in our budget. If it didn’t happen this afternoon, it will happen shortly.

More on the good news side is that the Governor, in an unprecedented action, informed us that he would reverse himself on one of the things that he had vetoed, the $150.00 per FTE base aid increase to the community colleges. It is not entirely clear how he’s going to do that. The legislature will go out of business, at least for the moment, as of Thursday. And it will not reconvene until December/January. So there is no chance for producing a supplementary budget bill or anything like that. It would seem that the Governor believes that he can take some administrative action in order to effect this particular allocation. The good news is, that we of course did not budget for that amount, since we didn’t know if we were going to get it, and it is now coming to us. That gives the community colleges a great deal of flexibility which they did not think they had, and I’m very glad for them.

A third budget news item is that today we sent out, and this is probably unprecedentedly early, budget allocations to the individual colleges. Usually that happened on the 31st of August. This time we have managed to get our act together by the middle of June. Partly because the Assembly, the Senate, and the Governor got their act together. Colleges now know what they will be dealing with this coming year. Some of the items in there are, of course, monies that were freed up by the early retirements. They vary from college to college so that in some cases it is quite substantial. There are the usual formula-based allocations for adjuncts, equipment or computer replacement and the like. All of that went out at noon today, so that your Presidents will now be in possession of the budget for this coming year. I have indicated to all of them in my cover note, that the future is unpredictable, so they should be prudent in spending and not spend it all at once. They cannot do that in any case because Albany will only release 50% of it at this point. So that we’re dealing with only half our budget, but that’s the norm.

Finally, I have begun, again very early in May, the process for the Budget Request for the year 1999-2000. I started with a special meeting of the Council of Presidents late in May. I wanted to hear from them what they saw as their main priorities, budgetarily and programmatically. Also, to see whether we could find some common themes that would enable us to put together a draft budget request that we could present to the Trustees. The Trustees would approve it, and then with considerable consultation between the campuses and the central office, we could submit it in October/November to the Governor. So with that budget request process under way, I specifically asked the Presidents early in May, to start the process while there was still faculty on campus; to start some kind of consultation process, to reach out to the appropriate governance bodies, planning committees, and budget committees, to have some discussion, some sense of campus priorities. In fact, the discussion that took place at the Council of Presidents at the end of May was informed by these discussions, to the extent that they took place. I would say, however, that if I was hoping for common themes, it was not always easy to find them. But the process is not over.

The second item I wanted to tell you about is that we are about to have a new Trustee, Kathleen Pesile, a graduate of Baruch and the College of Staten Island. We expect her to be approved this week in one of the last actions the Legislature will take before it disbands on Thursday. So as of this coming Board meeting we will have a new Trustee replacing Susan Mouner from Staten Island. Kathleen Pesile is also representing Staten Island.

I want to take some time to talk to you about remediation and remediation issues that have surfaced, now that the Board has taken its position on this. I know that you have some resolutions on your agenda today, and they will engender some discussion on your part. I voiced my reservations in many fora before the policy was actually adopted. Both to the trustees in public and to the trustees in private. But now this is Board policy.

Let me focus on four issues. First of all, the much debated question: what is the impact of this policy? Very hard to tell. When you try to forecast the impact of a policy which is phased in over three years, at different institutions, with different demographics, with different student bodies, in a system that is as varied as ours, you are doing an awful lot of guess work. There are some projections for CUNY based on data that we had from 1996, 1997, enrollment data, and budget data. In some cases it was relatively simple. You multiplied numbers of students by revenues. Although both, numbers of students and the revenues implied certain assumptions. Just to give you one example. If you are considering Year II of the Resolution, you would have to calculate the losses to these institutions that came on-line in the first year. Then the students who went from those first cohort institutions to the second year cohort institutions. Then you would have to calculate what impact that policy would have on the second year cohort on incoming students, on continuing students, on transfer students. In any event, we made a number of assumptions. We made the assumption for example that the State Budget would not change. Your reaction indicates that that is an assumption that is a little bit weak. We made an assumption that a good number of the students could take their summer programs and either succeed, and if they didn’t succeed find an alternative way to the senior colleges via a community college.

So we made a number of assumptions which perhaps were somewhat hopeful. We tried not to be accused of always presenting the worse case. But in any case, even the best scenario suggested that the impact was going to be on individual students, on the budget, on individual colleges, and on the system as a whole. It was clear that there would be a negative impact. We tried to make that clear in all of our discussions with the Trustees, both in public and in private. But I have to tell you, it is very difficult. And this morning, those of you who were at the City Council hearing, know that I was being pinned to the wall on the subject. I have to tell you, all of these impact studies, or impact reports, are just enormously tentative, we just don’t know. We can make some guesses, semi-educated guesses, using 1997 figures. We would not know for example, how many people are going to be scared off by this whole to-do about the University.

In 1976, when we imposed tuition, we discovered that more people left because they were worried about the future of the University than about tuition. How do we know this kind of thing will not come in 1999. These are totally unpredictable figures. So we are starting in our calculations, our impact studies, such as they are, from a very difficult baseline with very difficult calculations. I am being asked for very specific figures. What will this do to College X or College Y in Year I and Year II. I’m being asked for that figure by the City Council, by the Trustees, and by my staff. What I can tell you is that clearly this will have a negative impact, which we would hope to minimize. Impact there will be.

The language itself of the Resolution is clear; the meaning is anything but. One of the things that we are all looking for is clarification. There are some major issues, such as who is included, SEEK being an obvious example. There is the question what exactly do we mean by the ESL population. Are we talking about the ESL population using the term of art, or are we using something more unique to CUNY? When I hear some trustees say, well we’re going to include in the ESL population, that is exempt from the Resolution, all those who have spent some time in high school abroad. Does that mean a week in 9th grade in Bogota? We say that the SEEK is not included here, and we’ve heard it many times. I heard Bernie talking about it when I came in. And yet the resolution says, no remedial courses at senior colleges. If SEEK students who are often in need of remediation are admitted to senior colleges, does it mean that we have remedial courses at senior colleges? What about students who are admitted to CUNY in the Spring. It is not a big number, but it is a substantial number. Do they have to wait until the summer to do their remediation, or can we do something in intersession?

What do we do now? At the meeting with the presidents the first week of June, subsequent to my budget meeting with them, we talked about modalities. What was possible, what kind of brainstorming should we do? How should we deal with this? Now I fully understand, and this has to be a context for us, that there is widespread opinion about this Resolution which is not positive. The problem for me, of course, is that it exists. But I think I need to say to you, this is the position I find myself in, that thwarting Board Policy is never a good idea. In this case, of course, it will simply give further support to the opinion of those who think the worst of the campuses, of the presidents, of the faculties. It will confirm for them, that they’ve been right. I don’t want that to happen. My position is that we need to think creatively how to minimize the impact of this particular resolution on our students, and on our campuses. We’ve talked a lot about this in the Council of Presidents, and we’ve talked a lot about this among staff. I came back last week from a very long, extended meeting with Chancellor Crew and his senior staff, where we talked about the kinds of things we could do jointly in the high schools.

It essentially boils down into three broad categories. What can we do, and what does the Resolution allow? It allows, number one, summer programs, and I assume, intersession programs at the senior colleges. If we have them, I think they clearly could be expanded, and they could be re-thought. I think that there could be new approaches to them. Number two, there clearly is recourse to the community colleges and their remedial programs. How do they link to the senior colleges, can they be linked to the senior colleges, is there a way of administering community college based remediation on site at the senior colleges? I don’t know. But I think that we should not leave those questions unexamined. The answer may be no, the answer may be yes. I certainly know that there are some community colleges that are talking to some senior colleges in trying to establish a modality in which they offer remediation on the senior college campus, providing potential senior college students, at least with the psychological sense that they have an affiliation with that campus. But we need to explore that. Clearly community colleges have their own lives. They shouldn’t just be seen as serving senior colleges. So there has to be some discussion here about the role of the two institutions. About how they see themselves, and how they fit into the larger context which we call the CUNY, and living with this particular May Resolution.

And number three, we need to explore more carefully what we do with the high schools so that we can in fact expect students to be better prepared. What can we do to contribute to that expectation? By 2002, I understand that the Regents requirements will be in place for writing and for math, and by 2004, for social science and the rest. We would be getting graduates from the high school for whom remediation may be less of a concern than it is now. With that transition period, we need to find ways to make it possible to bridge the period between deficiencies that students bring with them from high school and the enrollment in the senior colleges. How to do that? We’ve discussed with Chancellor Crew how to reach back into the high schools, even more than we have now, for early warning systems. We’ve talked about expanding the College Now Program. It provides students with support, information about college, and with courses while they’re in high school. To do as much as we can, in other words, to work with the school system, to look at those students, and to help those students who will eventually apply and come to the University. There are lots more ideas: intersession programs at the senior colleges, community colleges, community college-senior college collaboration, and working with the high schools. I think there are a lot more ideas than we have spelled out so far. I am really counting on the help of the campuses to start brain storming to see what we can do, what is feasible, what would work.

Another area that I think needs very close faculty scrutiny is the question of tests. The present placement tests, which are going to be re-engineered into admissions tests, clearly could stand another look. There is the possibility of using SAT scores for those who have them to exempt them from the tests. There is the possibility of doing the same thing for the Regents standards. We have to look at that to see whether that satisfies us. I think we ought to look at the possibility of doing some kind of test preparation. I know that this immediately brings to mind the phrase, "teaching to the test," which we all detest. But clearly test preparation seems to work in many circumstances. There is no reason why we might not check whether it might not work for us, and whether it’s something we want to look at more carefully.

So I see three areas of process on the campuses, and I see the larger issue of faculty and the central office looking at the testing question. How do we proceed? I have met with the Presidents on the subject, Vice Chancellor Mirrer has met with the Provosts on this subject, and she has also met separately with the community college presidents. Vice Chancellor Mirrer and I are thinking about holding a retreat -- unfortunate word in this case. A retreat with the representatives from those campuses that are due for September, 1999 and with some representatives of the subsequent cohorts to see the kind of impact it might have on Year I, Year II, and Year III. I have asked the presidents and the provosts to have as much discussion on the campuses as possible. As I said earlier, unless we take the initiative here, unless we seize our destiny in this particular case, it might well be imposed upon us. That is the last thing I think any of us wants.

Deadlines. The Board Resolution talks about September 1998, without specifying a particular date. My reading, therefore, is that it means late September. This is an administrative interpretation, not a Board Resolution. I would like to see some drafts earlier than that. It comes at the worst possible time, when nobody is around and when colleges are closing for vacation, except for summer programs and summer sessions. But I would like to see something earlier than late September, so that we have a better sense of coordination. There are some things, it seems to me, that can be University-wide. Clearly, when we are talking about test preparation, or the administration of tests, that’s a University-wide issue. There are also issues that are very local.

This summer we might create, and I hesitate to suggest this, a number of small task forces or committees to look at particular issues. We might use existing discipline councils to do some work on this. We might seek some advice from people who have gone through this. California, in fact, has made decisions that aren’t quite as drastic as ours, but has taken the first step down this road. We also know about the Florida system in which there is no remediation in the senior colleges. There is some experience, there is some expertise out there, and it might behoove us to draw on that experience. Which is not to minimize that we are probably the best known and best equipped on these issues in the country. It is we who are usually cited for having written the book on these matters. But others have gotten there slightly ahead of us and it might be worth finding out what their experience might be able to tell us. So we are working with a very tight timetable. The timetable is the summer plus essentially a month. We are going to have to live within that framework.

That’s what I can tell you. I do want you to know that my personal goal in this as Interim Chancellor, for whatever time is left in me in this position, is that I do not want the University to lose a single student with a high school degree and the ability to benefit from a college education and to get a college degree. I think that should be our goal. I think we should provide the opportunity to our students. They do not deserve what might be the negative consequences of this Resolution. It seems to me that it is up to us to make sure that we in fact help them.

Professor Levine (Applied Science, College of Staten Island) - "You have of course heard many horror stories. Let me tell you one more, but there will be a question at the end. Last week I advised a student coming to our baccalaureate program in engineering from Bronx High School of Science. The student had a SAT verbal score of 730. Your staff made the student take the exams. The student had no trouble with the math test, no trouble with the reading test, but failed the writing test. Received the letter that said he must take a summer immersion program. The father came in irate and was told by numerous bureaucrats that nothing that can be done. What do you mean? The student has a 730 on the verbal SAT. We don’t care. The question, what can you do to make your staff obey your policies?" / Interim Chancellor Kimmich - Which ones? / Professor Levine - "Well, if there is an exemption on SAT’s, how do we put it into effect?" / Interim Chancellor Kimmich - The exemption was voted by the Board of Trustees in September 1997, to be worked out by the Office of Academic Affairs, and to be approved by me. I approved it about a month ago. So that at this point it ought to be in place. / Professor Levine - "It is not. Worse, when we tried to get someone to change it, we were told it was impossible. I will tell you how I handled it, because I have a follow-up question. The way I handled it was to find someone with authorization to cheat, change the computer records, go in and change the score. The most immoral part of our policy is that we are reduced to judging students’ backgrounds on the basis of scores on three invalid tests, instead of looking at a portfolio of the student’s record. No college in the United States of America bases admissions solely on SAT’s or on the results of the tests. You look at the entire student background. I intend to look at the entire background of every student, and, if necessary, cheat to let students in who belong." / Interim Chancellor Kimmich - That’s not really a question, but I’ll address it. What I will say is that I certainly will see where that policy is about the SATs, because I had approved that about five weeks ago. So it should have reached the campus by now. But I will check and pursue that.

Professor O’Malley (English, Kingsborough Community College) - "At the hearing this morning, you spoke about the Benno Schmidt Committee. What was amazing to me was the scope of the committee. You had a long list of things that this committee was investigating, from graduation rates, to employability, students, the finances, a possible audit, there was a long list. And you said that the committee had already met twice. I was wondering if you could elaborate on this, because it sounds quite like a hunting expedition." / Interim Chancellor Kimmich - Daunting. They are looking for information that even those of us who have been for twenty year don’t easily command, and in a timeframe that is very tight. All of you are familiar with the Benno Schmidt Task Force established by the Mayor to look at CUNY. The charge that was given the committee was, first of all, to clarify for itself, and for the Mayor, the way in which the University spends its money. Does it have a plan for strategic expenditures? Does it have a tracking mechanism for how monies are spent? Are the results of that tracking mechanism justified in light of the original budget request and allocation? For that purpose, the Schmidt Committee will hire an audit firm. Number two, there is an equally large question dealing with academic programs. Are they appropriate to the University and the role and mission it plays in NYC? Do its students benefit, are they employable, and can they benefit from different programs? Have we as a University given sufficient strategic thought to how these programs should be implemented, changed, revised, cut-back, or enlarged. For that purpose, the Schmidt Committee is going to hire a think tank that deals with strategic higher education issues. / Professor O’Malley - "Which one?" / Interim chancellor Kimmich - The word that I heard, and this was very tentative, was the Rand Corporation. But don’t hold me to that. Because that was very early on. Third, they of course came back to many of the Mayor’s themes: graduation rates, standards, and remediation -- where was it best done, how was it best done. Dr. Schmidt and I have met twice so far and plan to meet a few more times this summer for two hour one-on-one meetings. The first time we met, he said very engagingly, I know nothing about the University. I said, you’ve come to the right place. So we will talk about various issues ranging from the quality of the faculty, the mission of the institution, the quality of our programs, the nature of our student body, to the question of remediation, graduation rates, and standards. I’ve also arranged for him to meet with the Presidents in a special meeting later this month so they can ask him questions that you are asking me. That is a full-dress affair, and everyone is going to be there. He is going to come by himself, so he is not being protected by his group. In addition to hiring both the audit firm and the strategic think tank, he is to hire a staff with an executive director. They will work closely with us, looking at our materials, looking at our books, looking at the materials we share with them. I have in fact already asked my staff to pull together a number of things the task force should be aware of. I think we are all skeptical about this task force, but it is here. I would like very much for us to do as much as we can to have him understand us. And if not understand us, at least to be as fair to our position as he possibly can. I said to him very clearly, we are all skeptical of this task force. We know who the members are, we know who you are, we believe that the report has been written. He flinched a little. But he does want, if I am to take him at his word, to do a job that is credible and creditable. The last thing he said to me was that the Mayor had said to him, is that he is giving him a timeline of early Fall, because he wanted the task force to prepare recommendations for the next Chancellor. / Professor O’Malley - "And who is funding this?" / Interim Chancellor Kimmich - Presumably the Mayor.

Professor Cooper (History, College of Staten Island) - "I am curious about two things. As far as I know, since 1976, the major funding of the City University of New York comes from the State and from the students. The City’s contribution of $110 million is a drop in the bucket. By what authority does this Mayor have the right to investigate how we spend our money? Has anyone challenged that?" / Interim Chancellor Kimmich - I don’t think quite as directly as you just did. But you all know, the Mayor’s position is that, whatever is in the confines of the five boroughs, at least for the next three years, is under his control, and if it isn’t, he wants it there. I must say to you, when we raise that question with the people upstate, they did not demur. / Professor Cooper - "They did not demur, they agreed in other words with the position that I articulated, or with the Mayor’s position?" / Interim Chancellor Kimmich - With the Mayor’s position. / Professor Cooper - "I understood from a discussion I had with a couple of faculty that high school principals will be held responsible for graduation rates in a very short order by all these new standards changes being imposed, without any addition of resources. The principals themselves are trying to be, as we say, creative. They are trying to find ways to minimize the failure rate. Which means, among other possibilities, a significant chunk of students in their junior year of high school will be diverted from the senior year -- and encouraged to believe they will not graduate, because they won’t -- into something called 13th and 14th year programs, which have no plans, no faculty, no curriculum, and no idea what to do with these warm bodies, except hope that they will evaporate. Because they will get so old and so sick and tired of showing up in the building, they won’t come. I just don’t see any graduating classes of any size and significance. Has this come up at all in any of the discussions with Rudy Crew or with any of his people? Or is it just another rumor?" / Interim Chancellor Kimmich - It has come up peripherally, Sandi. First of all, let me say that clearly the pressure that principals feel is also shared at 110 Livingston. So that makes them more receptive to our collaborative overtures. The thing that you mentioned has a name. It’s called Plus 5. It is too soon to call it a vision. It has clearly preoccupied the bureaucracy in the school system that is very sensitive to the fact that students reaching 12th grade are not up to 12th grade work. They believe that students who come from abroad and have not had the benefit of the rest of the New York City School experience, might not succeed without some additional help. It is not the 13th and 14th grades. It is one additional year -- Plus 5. It was expressed really as a matter of concern which now had a name.

Professor Gallagher (English, LaGuardia Community College) - "I have two very closely related questions. As you said, any estimates of the number of students who will be turned away in September from the various four year branches is enormously tentative. Let me just sketch out my best guess and see your reaction. I have a particular concern with community colleges. I would estimate, approximately 50% of students will not get into senior colleges. Let’s say about half of those will either go through summer immersion programs, decide not to come, or go to private universities. About half of them will still need remediation. You send that 25% of the population that now goes to senior colleges to community colleges, and community colleges will have to increase in size 50%. They can’t do it. My own branch could accommodate at most 200 students, perhaps none. What plans are in the works to handle that situation if it arises?" / Interim Chancellor Kimmich – Clearly, one of the things that we are looking at very carefully came up this morning at the City Council hearing, and that is the matter of space. Where can one accommodate students? And what does it mean budgetarily, even if space were available? Space may have to be made available elsewhere other than the campus. It is not a thought that I cherish. But I fear the same sort of potential nightmare that you’re sketching out. Not all community colleges are bursting at the seams. BMCC, as those of you who are there know, is, but there is some room, there is some flexibility in others. They may not be in the right place. But in any event we would very carefully try to look at what’s available and try to see whether it can be done elsewhere. I think that doing things off shore has never been a plus for us. One of the things that has come up, is to see whether we shouldn’t utilize space which is available in the senior colleges. / Professor Gallagher - "It’s not simply space; it’s faculty. If we had an increase in my department in the number of courses we taught by 50% -- we already have a department of about 30 full-time and 78 adjuncts -- it would lead to a department of 30 full-timers and 140 adjuncts, which is totally unmanageable. I assume we are not going to be getting any more full-time lines out of this." / Interim Chancellor Kimmich - The budget that the Governor passed, and let’s hope it survives by whatever mechanism he will use, will give us flexibility to do some of those things. / Professor Gallagher - "My second question related to this. You talked about what is being done in the high schools, which certainly will benefit us. But how do we handle the fact that there is enormous time lapse. We’re not getting students directly from high school. At my branch we get fewer than 15% of students directly from high school. The average age of entering students now is 27. If you could miraculously fix the high schools in five years, it might be ten years after that before it is in fact felt at the University in terms of the number of remedial courses students need." / Interim Chancellor Kimmich - That’s a problem that is not immediately upon us, Professor Gallagher. When you think of the admissions criteria and the students who apply to the senior colleges, even for September 1999, you are talking about students who have done quite well in high school. That is what the data suggests. That will give us sometime to worry about Year II and Year III. This is where I think this issue that you raised will kick in for those senior colleges. Some of those senior colleges, as you know, have associate programs. So that they can, and we hope they can, accommodate those students who come to those senior college campuses into their programs. So you raise a very important, but very difficult question. What are we going to do with the students for whom there is no home? Who have been kept out of one, can’t find a home in another senior college, even if there is an associate degree program, and now they are being encouraged and transferred to community colleges. At this point I don’t think we have an answer. But I think its worth asking the question and many more questions like that.

Professor London (Political Science, Brooklyn College) - "I have several questions, but they don’t require long answers. Regarding the information which you are going to provide to the Schmidt Commission. Will your office make that information available to the faculty and to the public?"/ Interim Chancellor Kimmich - Sure. / Professor London - "So all one has to do is make a request to your office?" / Interim Chancellor Kimmich - These are mostly the publications that most of you have. / Professor London - "Second question, some time ago there was a legal settlement of a law suit which the University signed off on, which requires faculty consultation on curriculum matters, admissions, and the like. It reaffirmed, I think section 8.6 of the By-laws. I want to know how you reconcile what you said about your plans for developing plans over the summer with your obligation to abide by the University’s commitment." / Interim Chancellor Kimmich - The deadline is at the end of September. Clearly my commitment is to have the Presidents and the campuses submit plans that have faculty input, that are generated by faculty, and that have come under faculty endorsement. That will require a presence on the campus of faculty to work on things over the summer. And secondly, an early meeting of the relevant governance bodies. I certainly don’t want these to be purely presidents or administrative plans. / Professor London - "I remind you what you said earlier. That is, the officers of the University have to follow University policy. This is University policy. So it certainly would not be a problem, I think, for you to point out to the Trustees, that this is University policy, and you are following University policy. Realistically, that means that the faculty bodies cannot convene before September and it would require an orderly consideration of any plans." / Interim Chancellor Kimmich - I’ve done that.

Professor Grossman (Education, City College) - "At our April 28th meeting I asked you a question, and you expressed your constructive response. To my horror, the next day in the Daily News you were quoted as saying, ‘the schools of education at the City University are abysmal, and the most abysmal of all is City College School of Education.’ My question is, one, you’ve never been to the City College School of Education, and we are a little concerned about the leadership that would characterize us in such a fashion in print. Secondly, students in the various colleges have had problems with the ATSW, and have had more serious problems with the LSAT scores. And yet, nobody says, liberal arts departments and science departments are abysmal. I would not want to characterize them as such. But it’s only the School of Education that’s castigated, not those responsible for the LSAT. Can you explain what that was all about. And also, what you can do to be more constructive in your leadership for the schools of education." / Interim Chancellor Kimmich - Let me answer a question you didn’t ask. The question you should have asked is, did you say that? / Professor Grossman - "I would expect you to respond to that." / Interim Chancellor Kimmich - The answer is no. / Professor Grossman - "How did that get into print?" / Interim Chancellor Kimmich - Do you want to hear the story of my meeting with the editorial board of the Daily News? / Professor Grossman - "I would appreciate then if you could give some kind of response." / Interim Chancellor Kimmich - The hour after it appeared, I faxed to every president, and especially to Yolanda, an explanation of the facts of the case and asked them to share with anybody who raised it on their campus. This was pure invention on the part of the Daily News. / Professor Grossman - "I appreciate that."

Professor Young (Borough of Manhattan Community College) - "I want to plug my school by reminding everybody to look at New York Magazine this week. We have an article about the chess club and our wonderful efforts. Something good about CUNY for a change. I would like to comment or ask you about your comment that we do not want to lose one student in the wake of this holocaust. I’m wondering whether you can comment to us about what you think the vision of those who are controlling the current Board of Trustees is about our losing those wonderful students. Would you say that they are trying to lose a lot of students and if we are too successful in our efforts to scurry around making sure that doesn’t happen, that they will find some other draconian way to make sure that we lose half of our students? In other words, downsize, as so many corporations seem to want to do these days." / Interim Chancellor Kimmich - You are asking me to enter into the minds of people who make decisions which we don’t all necessarily agree with. I’m not sure that I can actually answer that. We can all speculate. We can all guess about downsizing, about changing the University’s profile, about changing the image of the University. / Professor Young - "Well, what do you think?" / Interim Chancellor Kimmich - What do I think about what they think? / Professor Young - "No, what do you think about what their motives are? Really and truly." / Interim Chancellor Kimmich - I think I’ll pass on that one.

Professor Beaky (English, LaGuardia Community College) - "I want to follow up on Professor Gallagher’s question. Because I too am thinking very concretely now about us having huge waves of students who really wanted to go to Hunter and Brooklyn. Now stuck at LaGuardia and anxious to leave as soon as possible, as soon as they can get through with their remediation, they will either go up or they’ll go out if they don’t make it in the possible limits that the Board leaves. To be replaced by another wave of students similarly motivated or not motivated. I see the atrophy of all the other things that we do at LaGuardia. I think it will be incredibly destructive if amalgamation doesn’t make us disappear altogether. Another question I have is on the issue of resources. Even having to deal with this in your discussions with the Presidents and at 80th Street. Are you discussing how we’ll get the resources to hire the people to teach the students and acquire the space we need to teach the students. Just money questions." / Interim Chancellor Kimmich – Yes, we are talking about that. One of the most important items clearly of our budget thinking for the next two or three years has to do with this particular resolution. There is no way around that. One of the arguments that we need to make and must make is that this is a resolution that was passed by the Board of Trustees acting presumably with the concurrence of its principals. Let me come back to something you said a minute ago about the hoards of students descending on community colleges. I don’t think we should underestimate what we might be able to do for students in summer programs in the high schools. I don’t see this as simply a one way street you apply to Hunter College and end up at LaGuardia or elsewhere. I don’t see it that way. Nor do I see the community colleges giving up their sense of identity or sense of self. They are about more than remediation. / Professor Beaky - "Thank you."

Professor Friedman (Developmental Skills, Borough of Manhattan Community College) - "This might seem like a kind of trivial question given the magnitude of the issues that we are discussing. But as a developmental education specialist I feel compelled to ask this. I flinched when I thought I heard you say, in talking about working with the high schools, the phrase "the deficiencies that our students bring with them to the four year colleges." ‘Deficiencies’ is not really a state of the art term that we use in developmental education. I was wondering if you might consider using a more magnanimous phrase such as gaps in education, or something that doesn’t place the blame on the students. Because it’s really not the students, and they are not deficient. I know it sounds trivial, but it really is not trivial to the us who work day in and day out with those students." / Interim Chancellor Kimmich - I stand corrected, thank you, Anne.

Professor Kurzman (Social Work, Hunter College) - "One of the moral issues for faculty during these times has to do with the fact that we’ve been working without a contract. I was wondering if you could give us an update on the current status of the PSC contract negotiations with the City and the State." / Interim Chancellor Kimmich - I find myself in the odd situation as being cast as the employer or the management. Yet not having the power of the employer or management. I say that because what we believed six months ago when I first came into this office as an agreed draft contract was rejected by the City and the State, who have ever since been very slow to come to the table, number one. And to come up with creative solutions, number two. Where we left it last week, we have on board the State, but we don’t have on board the City. What troubles me is that time is running out. If the Legislature, which has to vote on this, disbands for the second half of the year then it cannot take any action on a contract. That doesn’t mean that we can’t have a contract, and that it can’t be acted on subsequently. But I would have preferred if we could pin down the Legislature at this stage. At this point it is very much a matter of the City’s agreeing to what it has agreed to in other contracts. Why it doesn’t do so raises of course speculations about motives once again. Why single us out on this or on anything else? We are just about there, to answer your question.

Professor Reitano (History, LaGuardia) - "You’ve mentioned several times the Board’s request that senior colleges submit plans for the implementation of the Board Resolution by September 1998. Since what happens to the senior colleges directly affects the community colleges, I was wondering what plans are there for the participation of the community colleges in formulating their projections for the future? Or will the plan simply be conceptualized by the senior colleges?" / Interim Chancellor Kimmich - No, I would hope that they would be system-wide. I think there is a system piece to them. If we are going to do something collectively about tests, it has to be a system-wide piece. / Professor Reitano - "Is there some formal procedure by which the community colleges will be involved in the plans?" / Interim Chancellor Kimmich - The formal procedure at this point is working with all the Presidents and working with all of the chief academic officers. Breaking up into smaller groups that in fact are related in one form or other, if possible. We have not put anything down on paper about this. The community colleges have met among themselves already. But at this stage, I do not see this as simply a senior college issue. I see this as a University issue. I’d be happy to have suggestions. / Professor Reitano - "Is that policy?" / Interim Chancellor Kimmich - No, I think that’s preference. / Professor Reitano - " Is it unlikely that it might become policy?"

Professor Greenbaum (History, Queensborough Community College) - "I waited to come up because I wanted to change the subject. I came downstate after a very rainy long weekend and found an item in my mail about a proposal coming from the two presidents from Queens and Queensborough about forming a University at Queens, leaving out half the Queens colleges. I just wondered, is that going anywhere? Is that something we have to worry about?" / Interim Chancellor Kimmich - Isn’t that a question I should ask you, Professor Greenbaum? The proposal surfaced in the central office last week. So it’s not as if we’ve been given early warning or that we had plotted to do this, or in other ways been involved. It is clearly a situation of two presidents seeing an opportunity here for implementing a plan that seems to suit their particular geographical location and their interests. Let me say just one small short word by way of background. And that is, at the meeting of the Council of Presidents we discussed the impact of the resolution and how to proceed. President Sessoms asked how radical do you want our ideas to be? Dr. Paolucci, who happened to be at the meeting at that time, said whatever the imagination will bear. To some extent I see this particular proposal to be in that larger context. Whether it will go anywhere, it is hard to say. I don’t see it on the agenda of the Board meeting. I don’t see it, contrary to rumors, calling for a special Legislative meeting in September. So we ourselves are somewhat puzzled by where this came from and what it means.

Professor Vozick (Biology, Borough of Manhattan Community College) - "The news that’s been publicly put out about CUNY, not only the Board decision, but the whole panoply of news that we’ve been facing. It seems that it is having the potential for having a strong chilling effect on students’ feeling welcomed or capable of actually coming to CUNY, prospective students or potential returning students. The messages put out are contradictory. CUNY is no good on the one hand, and on the other, CUNY is too hard for you, you can’t make it at CUNY. Since the media release, there is a need for a very high visibility message to go out on behalf of our students. On the behalf of the value of their work, and the importance of their earning their degrees, and public encouragement for them. While a number of us believe this and many people have spoken about it in a variety of different settings, it seems that the organization to produce that kind of a message in a real way is the media. I’m not talking about advertisements, but I’m talking about a carefully thought out way about how to get the message out in the media. It seems to me a problem that we’re not meeting. It is really an educational leadership problem. It’s a matter of a voice on behalf of the students actually being out there. An image, a personality being out there. I wonder what your thoughts are about it, and I would especially like you to think it over in your next report to us, and show us what you are doing in this area. Thank you."

Professor Shapiro (Mathematics, Brooklyn College) - "You said earlier that the Board Resolution is now policy, and we have to live with it. But I think it’s not quite true in that we have the communication from Commissioner Mills to the Board of Regents saying the Board Resolution really represents a Master Plan amendment. So it needs approval of the Board of Regents among other people. I’m wondering two things. When you think the Board of Regents will act on it, and what plans we have in case they don’t approve it?" / Interim Chancellor Kimmich - There are really three answers to that. The first answer is that the Board of Regents has to pass on any significant change in the Master Plan of a university, CUNY or SUNY. It is not necessarily agreed whether this particular policy constitutes such. Number two, Commissioner Mills said to me directly that he does not, nor do the Board of Regents, quarrel with the idea that the CUNY Board of Trustees can make decisions like this. The question is, has it been done legally? Does it essentially stay consistent with previous policy. And we have of course the 1995 policies in place. And will the Board of Regents accept that? He is looking at it from a narrowly defined legal perspective. As to when the University, having adopted the implementation plans formally, submits a proposal to the Board of Regents for approval, I would guess that might happen sometime in the Fall.

III. New Business:

Professor Bell (Educational Services, Brooklyn College) - I’ve been asked by the Council of SEEK and College Discovery Directors to read a motion that was passed at the last meeting of the SEEK and College Discovery Directors, and it is as follows:

Whereas, Sandi Cooper has been a friend to opportunity programs in the City University and in all of New York State, and

Whereas, Sandi Cooper has fought courageously on behalf of SEEK and College Discovery students, and

Whereas, Sandi Cooper has championed access to the City University of New York, on behalf of the entire community of New York City, and

Whereas, she has provided extraordinary leadership in her roles as Chair of the University Faculty Senate and Trustee of the City University of New York,

Be It Resolved, that the Councils of SEEK and College Discovery Directors thank her for her magnificent efforts on behalf of all of the current students participating in the SEEK and College Discovery Programs, and the future students the programs hope to serve.

Professor Cooper (History, College of Staten Island) - Thank you very much.

a. Resolution on the Board’s Action to Phase Out Remediation in the Senior Colleges:

Chair Sohmer - You have before you two resolutions which were submitted from the Council of Governance leaders for this body’s receipt and approbation. The first Resolution is:

The Council of Faculty Governance leaders and the University Faculty Senate condemn the Board of Trustees action and express no confidence in the Board of Trustees and calls on the Regents of the State of New York and the State Education Department to investigate the legitimacy of the actions of the Board of Trustees and the effects of these actions including unilaterally altering the mission of the City University of New York.

That is the Resolution before you from the Council of Faculty Governance Leaders. Do we have any discussion?

Chair Sohmer - There is a motion that it be approved by acclamation. All those agreeing? Opposed? It is passed unanimously.

b. Resolution on the Implementation of the Board’s May 26 Resolution

Chair Sohmer - The second Resolution is:

That the CUNY Council of Faculty Governance Leaders and the University Faculty Senate, in response to the Board Resolution of May 26 phasing out remediation in the senior colleges, call on college Presidents to refrain from any action that infringes on faculty rights and responsibilities as defined in the CUNY By-laws, Section 8.6, including any matters of curriculum, admissions, or testing.

This has been referred to earlier when the Chancellor was here. But it is now before you as a formal motion to explain to the Presidents that they have responsibilities.

Professor Cooper (History, College of Staten Island) - I have no problem with voting this, but I think we should be aware of the fact that there are people at 80th Street who are going to call on us at some point to implement a resolution which I can’t remember a single faculty member speaking in favor of in the last four months of public hearings. Task forces, discipline councils, and so on, will be organized in order to fulfill 8.6 of the By-laws. That is, to fulfill the requirement that faculty be consulted and participate in developing the ways in which this Board Resolution can be implemented. The implications of non-participation are rather clear. I am afraid, however, if we do participate, it will seriously undermine whatever legal efforts may be under way, about which I am not free to talk about at the moment.

Professor Reitano (Social Sciences, LaGuardia Community College)- "I think I should be recognized after the resolutions are passed. I have an omnibus type of thing from the community college caucus." / Chair Sohmer - But it’s not related to this resolution? / Professor Reitano – It’s about all of the resolutions. I can read it into the record if you like." / Chair Sohmer - O.K.

Professor Reitano (Social Sciences, LaGuardia Community College) - The University Faculty Senate Community College Caucus endorses the resolutions proposed by the Council of Faculty Governance Leaders and the UFS Executive Committee. In addition, the Caucus calls for full UFS discussion of how impending changes, such as the implementation of the Board’s Resolution, possible amalgamation, and the privatization of remediation will affect the community colleges in terms of funding, staffing, class size, and transfer. At issue is the overall role of CUNY’s community colleges as comprehensive, academic, open admission institutions.

Professor Sherrill (Political Science, Hunter College) - I had not realized this until Sandi spoke. The Resolution makes no specific reference to the institutions of College Governance. It is conceivable to me that we are going to run into a problem. There is consultation this summer with Discipline Councils or whatever. And that is taken successfully by the Board as evidence of faculty participation in the process. We’ve established a precedent that the Central Administration can pick and choose with which faculty it consults. I think that this resolution might be more narrowly crafted to insist on consultation with governance bodies at the colleges and at the university-wide level.

Chair Sohmer - It’s clear to me, as a big time lawyer, that it says that the Presidents should not take any action that infringes on faculty rights. Faculty rights are expressed in governance.

Professor Sherrill (Political Science, Hunter College) - I agree with you in the abstract, but I’m afraid that there are some people who won’t agree with us. And every now and then they prevail in courts of law. I’m just constructing a scenario against which we have no defense unless we more thoughtfully craft this resolution to be specific. To say, in particular, that formal institutions of college governance must be consulted.

Chair Sohmer - So you are proposing an amendment to this which will include that in particular. Second to that? Any discussion on the amendment? It infringes on faculty rights in particular in absence of...

Professor Sherrill (Political Science, Hunter College) - …the necessity of consultation with appropriate college and university governance bodies.

Professor Reitano (Social Sciences, LaGuardia Community College) - Could we just say without consultation with the appropriate faculty governance bodies?

Chair Sohmer - I think that’s the gist of it. The amendment is before you. It’s just to make sure that it is understood that faculty rights includes the reference to the appropriate governance bodies on the campuses. That’s an amendment before you for that motion. Is there any discussion? There seems to be no discussion so the question is called. All those in favor of the amendment? Against? The amended resolution is before you.

Professor Otte (English, Baruch College) - I feel terribly conflicted. I think we have to understand not just our dilemma, but also the dilemma of the administration. The timetable for this is very short. In order for them to move on the implementation of the Board Resolution, things have to be in place no later than January. I don’t think people understand that. Or September 1999. Given the way tests run, everything has to be in place by that point in time. Any drafted plan that would be put forward in September, even late September, would have to be pretty much a final draft. It is of enormous concern to me that the administration would do something like this without consulting faculty. Even if it’s faculty that happen to be around. And especially faculty who are willing to participate in Discipline Council meetings and so on. At the same time, this is not an issue of semantics. It is a far deeper issue of consultation versus collaboration. Especially with the connotations ‘collaboration’ has. I just want people to think about that. I think that somehow, and I think this is something maybe Ken was driving at, if we can understand or conceive of a process of faculty consultation that is not general over the summer but has to be general as soon as governance bodies are again meeting. It becomes a general discussion very quickly in the academic year. It has to happen because the administration has their backs against the wall, so there is very little time.

Chair Sohmer - I think that what is being said with this resolution is that immediately in September there will be consultation before anything is put into concrete.

Professor Mettler (Humanities, LaGuardia Community College) - I had a very brief statement. Because we are still in session, our Faculty Council met today, specifically to consider this resolution. I just wanted to go on record for the minutes. At its meeting of June 16th, the Faculty Council of LaGuardia unanimously endorsed the resolutions proposed by the Council of Faculty Governance Leaders and the UFS.

Chair Sohmer – There is a motion to call the question. All of those in favor of calling the question. The question is now being called as amended with the understanding that it implies that there will be ample consultation in the earliest possible time in the Fall. All of those in favor of this resolution with that understanding? Against? It is passed.

Professor Frisz (Student Personnel, Queens College) - My question goes in a completely different direction. It is for information. Chair Sohmer, as somebody who is serving on the committee looking for a new Chancellor, I was wondering if you can give us a brief update, without abridging your confidentiality. I had originally heard that there would not be a presentation of a candidate at the Board June meeting because they hadn’t really finished the process, and there were still candidates. And then I heard another rumor today that there had been a candidate narrowed down that might be presented to the Board. I was wondering if there was anything you can give us that might update us on a search for Chancellor.

Chair Sohmer - I haven’t attended the last several meetings. I would be astounded if anyone would be witless enough to attempt to make a final resolution in that committee at this juncture. The Board meeting is next Monday. There is another Search Committee Meeting on the 24th and the likelihood of anything even coming out of that, which is sometime after the Board Meeting, is small. It is certainly not going to happen at this point.

Now, in case emergency meetings become necessary over the summer, would you please leave with Bill Phipps either your schedule as a member of the Senate or somebody from the Senate delegation you know will be around. We’ll have on call a serious collection of Senators and Faculty Governance Leaders as well, for whatever purpose.

This summer the Executive Committee will meet with the Chancellor, we plan to meet with Benno Schmidt to get a public statement by him of what the charge to his committee is. It would be nice if there were a piece of paper, but there seems not to be.

We stand adjourned.