Chair Sohmer called the session to order at 7:00 p.m. in Room 630T, at John Jay College of Criminal Justice. Present were Senators from the following campuses:

Baruch: Hill and McCall; and Alternate Freedman; BMCC: Friedman, Price, Vozick, and Young; Bronx CC: Alternate Skinner; Brooklyn: Bell, Haggerty, Jacobson, and Shapiro; CCNY: Connorton, Crain, Pearson, Sank, and Sohmer; CSI: S. Cooper and Foleno; CUNY Law School: none; Graduate School: Baumrin and Alternate Burr; Hostos CC: Vasillov; Hunter: Doss, Hampton, Kurzman, Sherrill, and Steinberg; John Jay: Bohigian, Kaplowitz, and Rodriquez; Kingsborough CC: Farrell, Galvin, O’Malley, Richter, and Alternate Barnhart; LaGuardia CC: Beaky, Mettler, and Reitano; Lehman: none; Medgar Evers: Harris-Hastick and Umolu; NYC Technical: Hounion, Walter, and Alternate Richardson; Queens: Diamond, Kulkarni, and Marshall; Queensborough CC: Dahbany-Miraglia and Greenbaum; York: A. Cooper, Kirkpatrick, and Alternate Majerovitz. Excused were Deraney (NYCTC), Harrison (Brooklyn), and Reid (BMCC). Newly elected senators present were Doss (Hunter), Lanzone (John Jay), and Martin (BMCC). Governance Leaders present: Cooper (York), Kaplowitz (John Jay), Mettler (LaGuardia), O’Malley (Kingsborough), Perlstein (BMCC), and Taharally (Hunter). Excused was Harrison (Brooklyn). Executive Director Phipps and Administrative Assistant Pasela were present.

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

II. Approval of the Minutes of March 28, 2000: The Minutes were approved pending corrections in the attendance list.

III. Reports: [recorded in Reports & Deliberations]

a. Chair (oral and written).

b. Representatives to Board Committees (written).

IV. Nominations for Officers and Members-at-Large of the Executive Committee: [recorded in Reports & Deliberations]

V.  New Business:

a. Panel on New Tests and Their Probable Consequences: [recorded in Reports & Deliberations]

b. Resolution on Testing:

Whereas, in the past three years there has been rapid turnover among the Board and Chancellory, and

Whereas, such turnover has understandably disrupted coordinated and deliberate policy making, and

Whereas, the Board moreover has succumbed to political pressure in the course of its deliberations on certain of the tests at the expense of sound academic judgment, and

Whereas, the current hasty implementation of several Board resolutions on testing indicates that the initiatives run at cross purposes and that minor adjustments will not overcome this problem, and

Whereas, faculty believe the above circumstances have prevented CUNY from accepting and heeding the advice that the faculty has rightfully and in good faith offered, and

Whereas, testing programs, even when ideal, tend to drive curricula in academically unsound ways, and

Whereas, entering, continuing and transfer students will suffer great harm as a result of this set of tests,

Therefore, Be It Resolved, that the University Faculty Senate calls on the Board of Trustees immediately to suspend the piloting and implementation of all new tests until the Board can review and revise the policy in order to arrive at a thorough and rational plan for student assessment.

Whereas, the attached list* shows the particulars in which the final form of the ACT tests was at odds with the prior understanding of the faculty advisory committees,

Therefore, Be It Resolved, that under §8.6 of the CUNY Bylaws a faculty committee, appointed with the advice of the UFS, be formed with the authority to develop and approve the new assessments in conjunction with ACT.

c. Resolutions to Amend CUNY Master Plan.

RESOLUTION I

RESOLVED, that the University Faculty Senate propose the following to the Board of Trustees for inclusion in the Master Plan now being updated:

Teaching as CUNY’s Mission

A consultant was hired last year to review CUNY’s salary range for top administrators to determine whether that range was competitive. As a result of that study, the Board of Trustees voted to redraw the ranges. Salary increases for this group are likely to amount to 30% within a few years, as salaries grow toward the mid-line. At the same time, however, the shortage of full-time faculty lines has grown critical and threatens to severely undermine departments and curricula, raising the question of CUNY’s priorities.

The Board employed a strategy in 1995, at that time in the face of looming retrenchment, of setting a goal of reducing the number of administrators in the Executive Pay Plan (EPP).

In reaffirming that goal now, a follow-up step to the salary review will be the hiring of a consultant within the next 18 months to survey all CUNY campuses and at least three urban non-residential university systems in order to determine the CUNY campuses which could function with fewer EPP administrators. Any net savings will be earmarked for new faculty positions.

RESOLUTION II

RESOLVED, that the University Faculty Senate propose the following to the Board of Trustees for inclusion in the Master Plan now being updated:

Support for successful student transition from the lower to the upper division (45-70 credits) is of growing importance for the City University. At the senior colleges this transition includes selecting a major, beginning to take advanced courses, and passing the new Writing Proficiency Exam. As students move into their junior year, they are required to perform at a more sophisticated academic level. Students in the community colleges are completing liberal arts requirements and majors, deciding whether or not to pursue education at the senior colleges, and also preparing for the Proficiency Exam.

To enrich student support during these transitions, the following initiatives geared at student retention in the fourth, fifth, and sixth semesters are planned:

a. enhanced resources for counseling in the majors in all departments to enable members of the faculty to serve as mentors,

b. a two-year cycle of upper-division courses needed to complete majors so that students can make long range plans for their programs and their lives,

c. focused counseling for community college students who plan to

transfer to senior colleges including general academic counseling, academic major counseling, and transfer fairs,

d. availability of Writing Proficiency Exam preparation including early warning diagnostic tests, test preparation workshops, tutoring, peer study groups, and writing centers on every campus as well as an expanded Writing Across the Curriculum program,

e. expanded career advisement services,

f. better publicity about the CUNY policy of last 15 credits tuition-free for students who graduate from same senior college they entered.

Such efforts will be aimed at retaining students at this critical juncture in their college careers.

d. Request for faculty to serve on PSC CUNY Research Award Program [recorded in Reports & Deliberations].

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

Respectfully submitted,

William Phipps

Subject to Senate approval

a. Chair: We would like to say thank you and farewell to a number of Senators. At Baruch, Professors Bird and Martinez. At BMCC, Professors Reid, Garely, and Wei. At Brooklyn, Professors Fedulo, Rosenthal, and Verbit. At CCNY, Professors de Jongh and Grossman. At CSI, Professor Jayatilleke. At KCC, Professor Bellu. LaGuardia, Professors Blaine and Ladden. Lehman, Professors Knobloch, Kincaid, and Maldonado. Medgar Evers, Professors Bennett, Donohue, and Sigler. At York, Professor Chirico.

The following campus election results have not yet been received by the office. Bronx Community, the Graduate School, Hostos Community, New York City Tech, Queens, and Queensborough. It would be good if the elections took place before the election of the Executive Committee of the Senate, which is the next meeting of this body. The Senators who have not been actually re-elected continue until the day after the first meeting of the new Senate, which takes place in May. Therefore, they are eligible to vote.

Chancellor Goldstein will not be here because something came up. The May 16^th meeting will be held at the Graduate School.

The faculty at the University of California have voted a complex procedure to arrange for the removal of incompetent faculty -- with or without tenure, with or without continuing service documents. It is very complex, and there are many protections. But it is now a fact of life. Their definition of incompetence is much more encompassing than we have. As a matter of fact, a major statement in their document is that someone of professorial rank, who has for some lengthy period produced no research in his field, is essentially well on his way of being defined as incompetent.

Professor McCall and I were at a meeting yesterday in Albany of public university union leaders and public university heads of governance. We are in the process of trying to create a group that will speak for public higher education in New York. We agreed to come back to our bodies with a structure. It will be on the agenda of the May meeting. There were lengthy discussions, and there will even be some monetary support. Unfortunately since the only deep pockets involved are the unions, the monies will mostly come from the unions.

IV. Nominations for Officers and Members-at-Large of the Executive Committee: Professor Rodriguez (SEEK/Speech & Theater, John Jay) - First I want to thank my committee members, George Hill, Carolyn Kirkpatrick, Bill Phipps, the liaison, and the backbone, Stasia. Without her, everything would crumble as I stand here. Everyone is eligible for re-election. There are three ways you can nominate or be nominated for any of the positions on the Executive Committee. One is a nomination this evening from the floor. You may nominate or be nominated at the May 16^th Plenary. You can send in a biographical statement to be received by May 1^st. If you are running for a member-at-large, provide a 250-word statement. Otherwise, a 350-word statement. At the May Plenary, all of the candidates will speak to introduce themselves. There will be a variety of new senators. We will get a chance to hear what plans they have for the Senate.

Having said that, I guess we should start with the position of Chair. Are there nominations for Chair of the Faculty Senate? / Chair Sohmer – I will stand again. / Professor Rodriguez – Professor Sohmer has been nominated, are there any other nominations?

Nominations for Vice Chair. Professor McCall is currently serving as Vice Chair? / [Unidentified Speaker] – I nominate Cecelia McCall. / [Unidentified Speaker] – Cecelia McCall has been nominated. Are there any other nominations for Vice Chair?

The position of Secretary is currently held by Professor O’Malley. Do we have any nominations for the position of Secretary? / [Unidentified Speaker] – I nominate Susan O’Malley for Secretary. / Professor Rodriguez – Susan O’Malley has been nominated. Are there any other nominations?

The position of Treasurer is currently held by Professor Kaplowitz. Nominations? / [Unidentified Speaker] – I nominate Professor Kaplowitz. / Professor Rodriguez – Professor Kaplowitz has been nominated. Are there any other nominations?

Members-at-large. There are five positions. Members at-large currently are, Professors Sherrill, Greenbaum, Friedman, Bell, and Beaky. They are all eligible for re-election. Nominations? / [Unidentified Speaker] – I nominate Professor Greenbaum. / [Unidentified Speaker] – I nominate Professor Ken Sherrill. / [Unidentified Speaker] – I nominate Stefan Baumrin. / [Unidentified Speaker] – I nominate Professor Bell. / [Unidentified Speaker] – I nominate Sandi Cooper. / [Unidentified Speaker] – I nominate Michael Kahan. / [Unidentified Speaker] – I nominate Anne Friedman. / [Unidentified Speaker] – I nominate Professor Bill Crain. / [Unidentified Speaker] – I nominate Professor Beaky. / Professor Rodriguez – Are there any other nominations?

V. New Business

a. Panel on New Tests and Their Probable Consequences (Professors Bell, Sherrill, and Levinson): Professor Bell (Educational Services, Brooklyn College) – As many of you know, we served on the Chancellor’s Advisory Committee on Testing. Ken Levinson and I served on the subcommittee on testing. Ken Sherrill joined us on the full committee. When the committee finished its work, I thought we would have better tests. I now retract that. In the past two weeks we’ve gotten some more information on what’s happening with the ACT tests. I’d like to talk a little bit about what I thought was happening as a result of that committee, and what I think is happening now.

The subcommittee was told it was selecting the best vendor to develop the tests for CUNY. My understanding is now we are using off-the-shelf tests -- packaged tests -- at least for the reading test and writing test. The test would be developed on nationally normed standards, not a normed test. Yesterday, the Reading Discipline Council met. We were told, no, it was a nationally normed test we would have. We were told that the Schmidt Report said a nationally normed test. I pointed out that the Schmidt Report was not Board policy.

We were told that there would be separate reading and writing tests, and that there could be separate entrance and exit tests from reading and writing. In essence we were purchasing the development of four tests. We now have been told it’s either one or two tests, depending on which way you read your inflected endings. Either there is one test with three parts, or there are two tests, one of which has two parts. We seem not to be developing four tests. We are certainly going to have the same test for entrance and exit.

We were told that a faculty committee would be appointed. This committee would have reading, writing, and ESL faculty representation, as well as representation from faculty in other disciplines. This was responding to a request of Ken Sherrill. That committee hasn’t been formed. We were told that there is a writing committee that has met once to look at prompts. We were told yesterday that there would be a committee that would consist of reading, writing, ESL, and discipline faculty, that would set the cut-off points, after the test had been normed. This would be working with a statistician, and that would be their role. The test would be developed in consultation with this committee. The test seems to be developing with no consultation of any committee. There would be a second committee formed to deal with logistics, mainly of testing directors. That does seem to have been formed.

The reading test, according to the requests of the Reading Discipline Council when we went in, would have the following characteristics: extended passages from actual academic texts in different disciplines; both multiple choice and written responses; multiple choice questions would not tap vocabulary or literal level comprehension; the test will tap higher level comprehension skills; it will not test students on timed reading abilities; it will have sufficient length and tap students’ higher level comprehension; and that the faculty could use it for diagnosis and placement purposes.

The reading test now has, as we can best figure out, the following characteristics: extended passages from actual text books; only multiple choice items; vocabulary and literal level comprehension questions. The faculty has not selected from the pool of questions. The test is a 25-minute, 24-item timed test. The test does not have enough items to do any sort of diagnostic, other than raw placement.

We understood that the writing test would have the following characteristics: faculty would help develop the test; extended prompts developed especially for CUNY; prompts would not be in the for of the traditional "agree/disagree"; that there would be multiple formats for the prompts that would vary; there would be a usage section, but it would have very small weight, perhaps 10%. The writing test by contrast seems to have the following characteristics: the faculty has had no role in the test development; there has been one meeting of a committee chaired by Michael Southwell, that has selected eight prompts from an existing 16 that they were offered; all prompts seem to require a letter writing format; the usage section has not been developed with faculty input. The weight of it will be determined by this June committee. The prompts committee chaired by Southwell, we are now told, will develop 16 prompts unique to CUNY that will be piloted over the next year at 40 additional colleges around the country. Then it will take two years to develop CUNY’s specific prompts.

A "prompt" is a reading passage that the student has to respond to, in terms of what they will write back. It will define the situation, and then ask a question. The students will then write their responses. The students at other tests will take the test, and then it will be normed on the students at other colleges that they claim are equivalent to our colleges. ACT gives their tests all over the country. They will use some group of their colleges to norm new questions and new prompts.

The ESL faculty has had no more input than the reading or the writing faculty. We were promised that the ESL faculty would have input into the process, to determine whether the test met the needs of ESL students. We were told that constantly. We were told that the faculty would be involved in all aspects of the test. ACT staff were hired to work with the faculty to develop the test. The position now is that the faculty are not involved in the test, except in the norm setting with the statistician, and in the selection of prompts. We were told yesterday that we would use multiple measures to do the cut-off. Multiple measures did not seem to me what I thought initially. I thought multiple measures meant that we could bring in other outside information, such as portfolios or teacher-made tests. Instead it seems to mean that there are three parts to this test!

We thought we had a process where we were hiring somebody to be involved. An attorney and an RFP guaranteed this. It could have worked if faculty were involved. Instead we were told at the Discipline Chairs Meeting that the committee was being formed, and that the letters were ready to go. As far as I know, the letters were never sent, and the committee was never formed. The game has changed. The purpose of the test that we gave has been subverted. We are now told that the purpose of the test is for entrance to English Composition I. Given my seat as Reading Discipline Council Chair, we thought the purpose of the reading courses was not so much preparing students for English I, but for the other disciplines – Sociology, Psychology, all of the disciplines that require reading. We were told "no." I was essentially told that I have been doing the wrong thing for 23 years, preparing students for other courses.

Professor Levinson (ESL Discipline Council) – Martha covered most of the bases. The only clarification I might make is that we were promised different tests. My understanding was that we had a lot of discussion about it, and we kept being reminded that, for equity purposes, you couldn’t place people differently than the way you could test them going out. You couldn’t say that there is a different bar on the way out. You do have different bars when you have a 480 on the SAT, and a 75 on the Regents. It’s true that we did meet to select prompts. We were given a number of prompts to select from. We were in pretty good agreement on what would be the better ones. I don’t know if that speaks to how good the prompts were, or how bad the ones that we rejected were. We did feel that they didn’t seem very CUNY-centered, or urban-centered. Yet, you do see the list of other colleges that ACT has worked with. It would seem that they would be a little more focused on what we do. I’m sure a lot of you have got a chance to see the draft of the brochure, explaining the test. In our discussions, both at BMCC with our faculty, and with the ESL Discipline Council, we had a sense that it would not work very well with ESL students. The test seemed to have a lot of cultural bias. Especially in the usage passage -- there was a whole business about jogging up the hill in New England and being bedraggled. It did seem rather off.

We met last night with the ESL Discipline Council, and one of the issues that seemed to come up, which was not a mandate from the Board, was the question of ESL placement. If this doesn’t really work to place on particular ESL levels. The piloting is going on, and then there will be cut-off scores being set. I think everybody is very concerned as to where those cut-off scores will be. Will they be the same? Will they allow suddenly a mainstreaming of students? The other disturbing fact is this notion about a composite score, if we are looking at reading and writing as being different sub-tests. If it is a composite score, what does that mean for the breakdown of courses?

The ESL Discipline Council got very disturbed when we started to hear rumors that there were other tests coming along to place ESL students. Our response was, there is no mandate on this, so this shouldn’t even be on the table. We are not looking for a test to drive our curriculum. We have a curriculum, we have courses, we seem to be doing a pretty good job on figuring out who belongs in them, and who should place into the next level. We didn’t really want to add any tests to the pile we already seem to be accumulating.

Professor Bell (Educational Services, Brooklyn College) – I do want to tell you the recommendations of the Reading Discipline Council preliminarily last night. We were very concerned that we would be able to have representation, and work with the test. We thought that we could go in and help change the multiple choice test, working with particular items, passages, and the question pool. We thought we should be allowed to do it, as originally asked. The ACT advertised that they had a score report that did counseling and sent students to various places. Also, that there was room in their profile to add some item that came from the campus or the college. We wanted to use a portion of the test that we were working on and developing, after the Proficiency Exam was through. Louise Mirrer promised us that we could go ahead and do this. We want our test to be part of that composite score, if we go ahead with this test. The Reading Discipline Council is working towards trying to see if we could do that.

Professor Levinson (ESL Discipline Council) – I’m sure you all remember that we spoke about portfolios. There was a notion of having a slot. It was sort of open-ended when it came to what represented assessing writing.

Professor Sherrill (Political Science, Hunter) – I’m a political scientist, let me first say. In terms of the substance, what Martha and Ken said absolutely corresponds to what I experienced. However, what I experienced is somewhat limited, since all but one of the committee meetings was scheduled for times when I couldn’t go there. I was at the final meeting where virtually every one of these points was made. We came out thinking that a lot of us had taken a lot of heat for agreeing to serve on that committee but that we had in fact, in a model of processes, really done something good. It is very clear that the contributions of the Reading and Writing Discipline Councils, the ESL Discipline Council, and various faculty experts, had much to do with the construction of what we all agreed was a much better alternative to what we have today, and to what we have had in the past.

I want to talk a little bit about the politics of this. Listening to this, I was reminded of a Board Committee that I sat on for a while with some of the other members of this body. Before one of the meetings, a senior administrator no longer at CUNY looked at me and said, I can’t tell you how much of my time I spend preventing faculty from making fools of themselves. That keeps coming back to me. I think that structures much of the University’s notion of consultation. To me, consultation is more than being given the opportunity to acquiesce in somebody else’s preferences. Consultation is a process of dialog. It is a democratic process where people come to understand one another’s points of view, form mutual respect, and out of this they find the best possible solution. Intelligent people of good will, working together, can solve problems. Even if many of them are a bunch of faculty who tend to make fools of themselves.

Unfortunately, what has transpired since that last committee meeting is that it became apparent that we were fig leaves for somebody else’s preferences. At that point you ask the question, what’s the point? What’s the point of agreeing to participate in a process if, in fact, all you are doing is being mislead and being used to legitimize somebody else’s decisions? What’s the point of agreeing to serve, if people who organize a committee don’t keep their word. And if they feel free to make policy decisions after the committee stops meeting, without consulting the membership of the committee. Are they then going to point and say, this is done in consultation with the faculty. Faculty members served on this committee. At our final meeting, they said this was a better product than we ever had before. Now look at them, they’re complaining again, just like faculty members. We all know that there is a crisis of confidence in this University.

I don’t understand how the Central Administration can expect the faculty to have confidence in them, if they abuse process in this fashion. If they invite us to consult, and we agree, and we work, and we do things of a caliber that everyone should be proud of, and then we are not even dismissed. We are simply treated as an irrelevancy. Yes, you did your work; you made the appropriate statement. Now we are going to go ahead and do what we were going to do anyway. Well, no thank you. At that point, it seems to me that we have very few alternatives, none of which are desirable to the administration of this University. It seems to me that they have to reconsider dramatically the way in which they are going to expect faculty participation and consultation in a process. This is a major academic decision, over which the faculty should have a good deal, if not exclusive, control. Instead, people who are not experts are making political decisions and imposing them as academic decisions, which they are not. We should not be a part of it.

b. Resolutions on Testing: Chair Sohmer – The Executive Committee brought this to you for evident reasons. We have a Resolution which is obviously open to be modified. It is specific to this. Maybe we should incorporate a couple of paragraphs which carry the burden of what Ken just said. It is related to this test, and it is also related to the relationship between faculty and administration, which is obviously in the process of being torn.

Chair Sohmer – You have before you a Resolution, which I think Martha would like to modify. The Resolution is from the Executive Committee, and it is the Resolution on the new ACT Proficiency Test. I think that we can use this as a touchstone for what Sandi was referring to. A suggestion for an amendment to this?

Chair Sohmer – As we thought we had done. Historically, that’s what we would have believed we were doing. Is there a second to this resolve?/ Professor Bohigian –"Could you add the words, "with the power to"? They will give you approval to have any committee you want."

Chair Sohmer – So will you read the amendment once again.

Chair Sohmer – That Resolution is before you. The question has been called. All those in favor of calling the question? Against? The question is before you. All those approving the amendment? Against? Approved without dissent. The entire Resolution as perfected by the amendment is before you. It is also passed unanimously.

Chair Sohmer – That’s a different Resolution. This is about this particular situation. We can come back to the other.

Professor Cooper (English, York College) – "I think that resolutions can be presented in different spirits. Implicitly, in the way this one is being presented, we are saying that as a faculty, we are withdrawing from further real involvement in the process, and we should not. I think what all of us responded to, as we listened to the presentation tonight, is the comparison of what we expected under contract and what we got or didn’t get. Therefore, I think that whatever we do should not suggest that we are withdrawing from it. But that the committee still lives, and that the contract has been violated. Therefore, I think that we ought to say, "whereas the contract has been violated in the following ways," and to that we simply attach a list of particulars, very concrete. A bill of particulars that would go along with saying, in these respects, we believe think the contract has not been met, but we are not withdrawing as a group. The faculty committee is not withdrawing from the process. We still want the contract to be honored in that way. Otherwise, much of it is language of opinion, or disgruntled characterization. For example, the Board has succumbed to political pressure. We may believe so, but it is much more effective to say we were told that we would get column A and we’ve gotten column B. I think that however we proceed, I think we should do it with an attachment of a bill of particulars. Not pleading as we withdraw from the process, but staying very much involved, and saying this contract has not been met. Let the Board see that we are still active and it can be done." / Chair Sohmer – The contract that has been broken is the social contract. It was written in the committee; it was written in a lawyer’s office. So it would be difficult for us to suggest that the contract has been broken. / Professor A. Cooper – "Then we have to get the presentations to the faculty that were made to the faculty, that were made before we went along with this. How the RFP was responded to, and what it was we thought we were accepting."

Professor O’Malley (English, Kingsborough Community College) – "I was going to say something else, but I want to support what Alan said. What happened was, we agreed to be part of this committee, we were given certain promises, and this was violated. This needs to be very clearly stated. We will proceed if we can clarify some of that. What I wanted to say was, this test is awful, and it will drive awful curriculum. And as a faculty member who sometimes teaches remediation, I am insulted by such a test. We have a good developmental program at Kingsborough. If this test determines graduation, it is an insult to students and faculty."

Professor S. Cooper (History, College of Staten Island) – "Some of what I was going to say has been addressed. This issue at this moment deals with three somewhat related and contradictory issues. One is the breaking of the promises on the creation of the ACT. But that doesn’t in fact describe what happened with the Proficiency Test, which appears to have been developed according to the commitments made. We’ve got Cecelia on that committee. If we have a sweeping condemnation of procedure, we have to accept and take out the Proficiency. Or at least be very clear that the same thing didn’t happen. Or at least say that we wish the procedure followed in terms of participation and consultation. The second thing, and I think the most important thing, is the issue of the contradictory nature of these tests. One on top of the other no longer follows consequentially. Each one of these things was inspired by a different political and educational issue. The stew that they are making isn’t even anything representing bouillabaisse. It is indigestible. We cannot figure out the long-term consequences, except for probably driving enrollment down. The third issue, which remains permanently with us for the last six years, is this complete denial of the By-law 8.6, which applies to faculty responsibility, with regard to educational matters in the University. These issues are not absolutely the same, but they are all touched on here."

Professor Bohigian (Mathematics, John Jay College) – "I have to introduce an amendment to the resolution in order to talk to it. ‘An appropriate set of examinations shall be developed an approved by the University Faculty Senate, which would determine if nominees to the Board of Trustees have the educational level and knowledge of CUNY issues and its by-laws, to serve as members of the Board of Trustees. Failure on any of these exams, would disqualify any individual from serving as a member of the Board of Trustees, until such time as said member receives the requisite level of remediation necessary to bring such individual up to the required accomplishment level.’ Having said that, no good deed goes unpunished. The faculty has been cooperative with the Board of Trustees ever since I’ve been at this University. The most famous policy was the Academic Personnel Practices decision, which was accomplished in 1978. The Board now uses it as a regular part of the grievance procedure. We have, as others have pointed out, in all good faith, functioned with the University Trustees, at all levels, in order to accomplish things. It has always turned around against us. We have to take a stand on this issue, as strongly and clearly as possible. I introduced this somewhat facetiously. But I think that if you refined it a little bit, I think they would get the message loud and clear."

Professor McCall (English, Baruch College) – "I think it is appropriate to have the generic resolution on testing. I think the problem with the resolution is the amendment that we just approved because that speaks specifically to the ACT. I think if you want a resolution on the ACT, you have to draw that up. The process that was used to develop the Proficiency was totally different from that which is occurring with the ACT. The faculty have stayed the course, and done what they were supposed to do. The consequences of this exam are something else --whether or not it’s appropriate now in light of the fact that it does violate the resolution that states it was to replace the WAT, for certain purposes. Now the ACT is also being used for the purpose that the WAT was claimed not to be valid for. I think those are some of the problems. But I think a generic resolution is fine, and then a specific one perhaps, to the problems with the ACT."

[Unidentified Speaker] – "I would like to ask, based on what Cecelia just said, that we separate the two resolutions. When we go back to Executive Committee, we can create the whereas for the second resolved, and separate them into two separate resolutions."

Chair Sohmer – That is a motion. Is there a second? Is there any discussion on the separation of the two resolutions? One ACT specific, and one test specific.

Professor Greenbaum (History, Queensborough Community College) – "I would just like that we follow Alan Cooper’s approach as to how the resolution should be drafted."

Chair Sohmer – All those in favor of the separation? All those against? Unanimously. We now have two separate resolutions.

Professor Crain (Psychology, City College) – "The Executive Committee is going to have to put together the thoughts, and come up with the two resolutions. I think that the sentiment is uniform here. I think we are just trying to make it as powerful as possible. / Chair Sohmer – The first Resolution is addressed to the Trustees. I think the second Resolution should be addressed to the Trustees, and xerox copies to the Chancellor and Vice Chancellor. / Professor Crain – "And to the Chronicle, I would encourage to put in that the standardized tests, including those developed by ACT, consistently produce lower scores among women, poorer students, and students of color."

Chair Sohmer – The first Resolution, as altered, amended, and yet to be perfected, is before you in principle. All those in favor? Against? All those in favor of the second Resolution in principle? Against? Both are unanimously adopted.

Professor A. Cooper (English, York College) – "I think you ought to amend the distribution to include the Regents, on both resolutions." / Chair Sohmer – We probably would have had the wit to do that anyhow. / Professor Cooper – The point is, the Regents made it clear that they expected faculty involvement, and they expected that it would not affect minority students. It is clear from Bill’s remarks, and everything we’ve known over the months, that it will do the later."

c. Resolutions to Amend CUNY Master Plan: Chair Sohmer – In your packet were resolutions to amend CUNY’s Master Plan. Let me tell you a little bit about the history. We met with the administration several times and talked about the Master Plan, because the Master Plan is due in early June. Therefore it will be sent off from the Board of Trustees sometime in May. We were promised that by this Monday we would have a copy of what they intend to do. Needless to say, there was a phone call today which indicated maybe next Monday. Next Monday is the last Monday in April. They will have a document that we presume will be un-amendable by the beginning of May. We decided in the Executive Committee, that as the Faculty Senate, we have an obligation to make sure that our voices are heard in the Master Plan. So we decided to write a portion of the Master Plan, which we will be sending off to the Board of Trustees as a part we think should be incorporated, whether it comes from the Chancellor or not. So you have two resolutions, one and two, to amend CUNY’s Master Plan.

The first, as the University Faculty Senate, essentially we recommend an iteration of something that the University said it would do some years ago, which is diminish its Executive Pay Plan. They actually did diminish it slightly, and it’s been growing ever since. It is like pruning. The statement was -- since they have hired a consultant to recommend salary increases for the Executive Pay Plan, which roughly, when you go to the median, are about 30% increases for the people in the EEP -- that maybe they should hire a consultant to examine the administrative staffing to a relativistic administrative staffing at other universities. The consultants should come back with a statement about the adequacy, or over-adequacy of Executive Pay Plan personnel at the various campuses. With fewer people in these titles, we will have monies to hire faculty, which we don’t at this point have.

Professor Greenbaum (History, Queensborough Community College) – "The next to the last line, I would like to strike "in those which might need more." If campuses are now surviving and doing well without additional administrators, I don’t think we should call upon anyone to recommend an increase in administrators anywhere." / Chair Sohmer – What about just "altering." / Professor Greenbaum – "No, I want just diminutions."

[Unidentified Speaker] – "Have you done a study so that you know that a consultant doing this, might not decide, that we are under administered, compared to other universities. In which case, they might suggest just the reverse of what we want?" / Chair Sohmer – The answer is no. Most of us are pretty clear about the superfluity of deans and vice presidents at some campuses.

Professor Baumrin (Philosophy, Graduate Center) – "I recommend two small changes. In the next to the last line, before the word "administrators", I would put "executive pay plan administrators." The other change is, where you have at least three similar university systems, I would use something like, "urban non-residential university systems." The problem is that if you are comparing an urban university that is non-residential, with a residential one, you will surely find more administrators in the residential one." / Chair Sohmer – Those are changes which I think the Executive Committee would be willing to accept without any fuss.

Chair Sohmer – These are the Master Plan amendments emanating from the Senate. Is there any further discussion? First the amendment which is striking diminutions? All those in favor of the amendment? Against? It is passed. Now the Resolution as amended. All those in favor? Against? It is unanimously passed.

d. Resolution to Amend the Master Plan to Enhance the Retention of Students: Chair Sohmer - There is a second amendment. [Comments made off-microphone.] At the moment, most counseling for majors occurs within the departments. There is no mechanism at most campuses for reimbursing somebody in terms of time for doing that. [Comments made off-microphone.] The sense I think is clear, even if the words aren’t: That there should be greater resources available to create the ability of faculty to counsel students in their major fields. Stefan suggests that the sense of this Resolution be voted on, and the verbiage be given to a committee.

Professor A. Cooper (English, York College) – "I think in line with this, we ought to say something about the 1992 Board policy passed concerning being excused from paying tuition in the last semester, or the last 15 credits -- a policy which is on the books, and has been more honored in the breach than the observance. As we follow this up in our own caucus today, and during the past week, it was determined that there may be many reasons for it. There is an opinion that it is soon going to be a policy reversed. But the policy exists, and students now, don’t know the policy. Most faculty we found, at least at our college, do not know the policy. Therefore we are unable to advise students to take advantage of the policy." / Chair Sohmer – Only if they started with CUNY. / [Unidentified Speaker] – "Yes, this is for students who started at any unit of CUNY, and whether or not they started in matriculated status. Therefore, we have a major problem going on. Because with all of these economies that we are talking about, and all these expenditures, they are coming off the backs of students. This is if the students are not being spared. " / Chair Sohmer – Is that appropriate here, or should we have another resolution?

[Unidentified Speaker] – "Well, look what you’ve got here. You have a whole policy intended to keep students in CUNY, to make the University attractive. We have one promise that was made, and is not being kept. The reason I got, when I inquired into it, was that they are supposed to be automatically notified through the SIMS process. Well, in 1992, there was no SIMS process. The first group that could have reach the fourth year, would have done so in 1996, with no mechanism to do it. I keep hearing different statistics about how many students are being honored with this, and how many are having their rights violated. I think it is part of this discussion. I would like to include consideration of that in this general proposal. That is, I think we ought to frame some language of concern. It was part of the rationale for raising tuition at that time, that that raise in tuition would really not be so punitive because those who were good students, who stuck it out, could get to their senior year and have a remission from tuition. "

Professor Burr (Mathematics & Computer Science, The Graduate Center) – "I do want to speak again to point A. As it stands, it is utterly meaningless. Our Dean from time to time has enhanced counseling, by telling departments they should do more of it. That is what the administration thinks "enhanced counseling" means. You’ve got to say what it really means, otherwise…" / Chair Sohmer – So what you are suggesting is that we talk about increased resources. / Professor Burr – "At a minimum to talk about increased resources. The administration can say we ought to enhance counseling and figure they’ve done their job. That is typically what they do."

Professor Beaky (English, LaGuardia Community College) – "Could you explain B: The two year cycle of courses needed to complete majors." / Chair Sohmer – There is a serious problem of absence of upper division courses in many places at any particular moment of time. It occurs for all kinds of reasons. At one point or another, various campuses created cycles, which were published. They were also lived up to by all the departments. So a student who needed some kind of capstone course in his department in order graduate, would not come to his senior year and discover the course isn’t there. It would be there. / Professor Beaky – "Is that clear from this? It is not clear to me whether this is about course availability, curriculum, establishing new sequences." / Chair Sohmer – Again, we’re talking about resources to make the availability of upper division courses possible. / Professor Beaky – "That needs to be clarified."

[Unidentified Speaker] – "I don’t know if I will be expressing the spirit of others besides myself, but obviously there is considerable confusion about this Resolution. I know how we would respond if the Board of Trustees were to receive on their table, at meeting time, a Master Plan Amendment, and then proceed to have a confused debate, in which they indicated they didn’t quite understand what it meant. And then they voted for it. I think it would be wise for us to put this off for a month, to have some discussion, to clarify this significantly, and to act in a more deliberate fashion on a very important issue."

Chair Sohmer – That is a suggestion for tabling, which I think is inappropriately preceded by a speech.

Professor Crain (Psychology, City College) – "I just have a minor recommendation that, given the Zeitgeist, when I read this, I thought the opening paragraph meant that students nowadays have to meet stiffer requirements than they did in the past. I thought, I don’t agree with that. Our requirements have always been tough. When it is rewritten, where it says "generally," I would recommend that we put, "as students move into to their junior year, they are generally required to perform ...," just to make it clear that we mean as they move from the sophomore to the junior year, they are generally asked to meet more requirements. I don’t believe that anything the Board of Trustees has imposed upon us has done anything to make our requirements any tougher. I think our requirements have always been extremely tough."

[Unidentified Speaker] – "Was it the case that you said that, if in order to be useful, this had to be some place by a certain date?" / Chair Sohmer – The answer is, the Board will be transmitting it before the beginning of June, which is the State law. If this were to be delayed, we could transmit it to the State Education Department anyhow. / [Unidentified Speaker] – "Slightly in the spirit of Ken’s suggestion, I might, if the wind were in the right direction, move to recommit, with the notion of the sense of the Senate, for the Executive Committee to forward its Resolution, without further debate. But in that case, you need the sense of the Senate. I would like to invoke the following procedure. I move to recommit, and leave the microphone open for a few minutes, to see if anybody wants to add any thoughts."

Chair Sohmer – The suggestion is that it be recommitted for some stylistic and substantive purposes. The question is, are there any substantive purposes that would inform the Executive Committee and its work?

Professor Shapiro (Mathematics, Brooklyn College) – "Maybe right before A, it should say, "initiative geared to retain students in their 4^th, 5^th, and 6^th semesters, as intended to enrich their experience as the University has recommended, to include funding for" and then put all of these things, however they are re-worded. So it is clear that we are asking for the resources to do these things, and we don’t have some of the problems that we discussed earlier."

[Unidentified Speaker] – "As a very annoying English teacher, this long list needs to be made parallel. Because every sentence starts with a different part of speech, nouns, gerunds, etc." / Chair Sohmer – We did it as an illustration. Thank you. We will certainly inform the document with that.

Chair Sohmer – The amendment is before you, which is to remit to the Executive Committee, which will then do a substantive and stylistic re-write. All those in favor? Against? It is passed unanimously.

e. Request for faculty to serve on PSC CUNY Research Award Program: Professor Richardson (Nursing, New York City Technical College) – "I just want to remind everybody that we still need some people to serve with the PSC CUNY Research Award Program. We don’t have any applicants yet in the area of comparative literature and health sciences. We have several in the area of health and human services, psychology, and physiological psychology. We have one in the area of art history and visual arts, computer science, and sociology. I’m just asking you again, please try to get the faculty on your campuses involved, especially in the areas of comparative literature and health sciences. We should be meeting fairly soon, within the next month or so, to review the resumes, and decide who the people will be to fill the job. Please again, if you could get people interested in the next few weeks. Thank you." / Chair Sohmer – We once had a problem, and we allowed retirees. Do we still allow retirees? / Professor Richardson – "As far as I know, yes, we still allow retirees." / Professor Baumrin – "Anyone in one of the language disciplines can serve for comparative literature. It is not restricted to people in comparative literature departments."