THE THREE HUNDRED FOURTH PLENARY SESSION

The meeting was called to order by UFS Chair O’Malley at 6:30 p.m. in Room 9204/5 at the Graduate School and University Center. 53 voting members were present:

Baruch: Present – Hill and Pollard. Absent – Freedman, Giannikos, Majete, Myers, Onochie, and Wiley. BMCC: Present – Friedman, Martin, Price, White, and Alternates Alva and Rani. Absent -- Aymer. Bronx CC: Present – Skinner. Absent - Fergenson, Lopez-Marron, and McManus. Brooklyn: Present– Antoniello, Bell, Cunningham, Jacobson, London, Shapiro, and Tobey. Absent – Haggerty, Romer, and Sardy. CCNY: Present – Connorton, Crain, and Sank. Absent – Benenson, Broderick, Buffenstein, Sohmer. Vacancies – 3. CSI: Present – Cooper, Levine, and Yousef. Absent– Foleno, Klibaner, Petratos. CUNY Law School: Present – McArdle. Absent – Andrews. Vacancy – 1. Graduate School: Present – Baumrin. Absent – Katz-Rothman, Khuri, Kulkarni, Nair and Ofuatey-Kodjoe. Hostos CC: Present –Roe, and Singh. Absent - August. Vacancies - 1. Hunter: Present – Kaye. Absent - Doyle, Finder, Friedman, Krishnamachari, Matthews, Sherrill, and Wimberly. Vacancies – 2. John Jay: Present – Kaplowitz and Wylie-Marques. Absent – Holder, Kadir, Mandery, Napoli. Kingsborough CC: Present – Barnhart, Farrell, Galvin, Goodkin, and O’Malley. Absent – none. LaGuardia CC: Present – Beaky, Davidson, and Mettler. Absent - Gallagher, Lerman. Vacant -- 1. Lehman: Present – Jervis, Mineka, Philipp, Wilder, and Alternate Kolb. Absent –Heching, Hosay. Medgar Evers: Present – Hastick. Absent -- Barker, Donohue, Patwary. NYCCT: Present – Cermele, Dreyer, Horelick, Hounion, and Alternate Gavis. Absent -- Richardson, Walter. Queens: Present – Bird, Moore, Savage. Absent –Brody, Erickson, Habib, and Sukhu. Vacancies – 3. Queensborough CC: Present –Pecorino, and Alternate Ansani. Absent – Barbanel, Dahbany-Miraglia, Weiss. Vacancies – 1. York: Present – Lewis. Absent – Berg, Frank, Moss.

New-elected senators attending were: Davenport (John Jay), Hest (QCC), Monte (CSI), Morawski (Brooklyn), and Viscusi (Brooklyn).

Governance Leaders present: Baumrin (GSUC), Cooper (CSI), Dreyer (NYCCT), Friedheim (BMCC), Kaplowitz (John Jay), Leonhard (CCNY), Levine (CSI), Mettler (LaGuardia), Savage (Queens), and Tobey (Brooklyn). Parliamentarian Andrea McArdle, Executive Director Phipps, Administrative Assistant Pasela, and Secretary Blanchard were present.

II. Approval of the Minutes of March 23, 2004 - The minutes were adopted as proposed.

IV. Nominations for Officers and Members-at-Large of the Executive Committee - Professor Sally Mettler (English, LaGuardia), chair of the Elections Committee, presided over nominations. Nominees for Chair were Bill Crain (Psychology, CCNY) and Susan O’Malley (English, KCC); for Vice Chair, Karen Kaplowitz (English, John Jay); for Treasurer, Martha Bell (Educational Services, Brooklyn); and for Secretary, Lenore Beaky (English, LaGuardia). Nominees for the at-large seats were Stefan Baumrin (Philosophy, GSUC), Sandi E. Cooper (History, CSI and GSUC), Anne Friedman (Developmental Skills, BMCC), Eda Harris-Hastick (Social & Behavioral Sciences, Medgar Evers College), and Manfred Philipp (Chemistry, Lehman College & Biochemistry, GSUC).

Prof. Mettler explained that additional nominations could be made by self-nomination in the form of a notification letter to the Elections Committee at the Senate Office any time through May 17, or from the floor at the May 18 plenary.

A. UFS Recommendations on the 2004-2008 Master Plan (Recorded in Reports & Deliberations)

B. Resolution from Academic Freedom Committee - The resolution was passed unanimously by voice vote with no abstentions:

WHEREAS, the American Association of University Professors (AAUP) in its 1915 “Declaration of Principles on Academic Freedom and Academic Tenure,” at a time of attacks on college professors for their political opinions, held that “…one of [the university’s] most characteristic functions in a democratic society is to help make public opinion more self-critical and more circumspect…[and that] it is precisely this function which is most injured by any restriction upon academic freedom…,”[1]

AND WHEREAS, the Association further stated, quoting the Wisconsin State Board of Public Affairs, “it is neither possible nor desirable to deprive a college professor of the political rights vouchsafed to every citizen,’”[2]

AND WHEREAS, then Vice Chairman, now Chairman of the Board of the Trustees, Benno Schmidt, stated in September 24, 2001 that “Academic freedom, freedom of inquiry in the search for truth, the freedom of thought to challenge and to speak one’s mind, these are the matrix, the indispensable condition, of any university worthy of the name. The City University of New York has a proud tradition of academic freedom. We will defend the academic freedom of our faculty and students as essential to the preservation of the University. That these are prized American values, as well as central to the academic mission, only makes their defense in times of crisis the more essential,”[3]

AND WHEREAS, the City University of New York, through its governing bodies, has recognized the principle of academic freedom on multiple occasions:

In June 1946, when it reaffirmed the AAUP’s 1940 “Statement of Principles,”[4]

In November 1973 when its Council of Presidents stated that the university “…should remain a forum for the advocacy of all ideas protected by the First Amendment to the Constitution and the principles of academic freedom,”[5]

In October 1981 when the Board of Trustees resolved “That the University pledges diligently to safeguard the constitutional rights of freedom of expression, freedom of association and open intellectual inquiry of the faculty, staff and students…,”[6]

In December 2001 when the University Faculty Senate resolved that it “strongly supports the 1981 Board of Trustees statement” and that it, “along with the Council of Faculty Governance Leaders, affirms the full AAUP Statement of Principles on Academic Freedom and Tenure,”

In February 2004 when the University Faculty Senate resolved to “condemn the attempt of the United States Government to interfere with the free exercise of the freedom of the press” in preventing scientific journals from editing articles of authors from embargoed countries, and further resolved to “oppose the creation of [the] advisory board” in Section 6 of H.R. 3077, the reauthorization of the Higher Education Act of 1965,

AND WHEREAS, it is especially in times of real or imagined national emergency that the principle of academic freedom in the university is most vital but is also most vulnerable,

AND WHEREAS, the present time is again one of uncertainty in which respect for the cardinal principles of the Bill of Rights and of academic freedom is at risk, as witnessed by the 2001 passage of the USA Patriot Act, which according to the AAUP, constitutes a potential threat to academic freedom and privacy, and by the promulgation of such documents as the “Academic Bill of Rights” which, according to the AAUP, “threatens to impose administrative and legislative oversight on the professional judgment of faculty, to deprive professors of the authority necessary for teaching, and to prohibit academic institutions from making the decisions that are necessary for the advancement of knowledge,” and by the establishment of ideologically-informed websites such as Campus-Watch.org and NoIndoctrination.org which monitor individual courses and professors, and solicit student complaints, and by the intrusive subpoenas requesting information about a conference held at Drake University, subpoenas which were protested by the AAUP,

THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the University Faculty Senate reaffirms its own commitment to safeguard these principles, and

BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the University Faculty Senate calls upon the University’s Board of Trustees to reaffirm its own best traditions of respect for Constitutional rights and the principles of academic freedom, and to circulate a statement of its policy on academic freedom both widely within the University community, including to students, staff, faculty and all administrative officers of the colleges and the central office, and also nationally to other universities and to organizations such as the Association of Governing Boards and the American Council of Trustees and Alumni.

C. Resolution on Open Access - Discussion was postponed until the next meeting due to the hour.

D. Resolution on Space - The resolution was passed unanimously by voice vote with no abstentions:

Resolution on the Allocation of Research and Instructional Space in Academic Departments Involved in the Laboratory Sciences

[Following a resolution approved unanimously by members of CUNY's Chemistry-Biochemistry-Biology Discipline Council on March 18, 2004 which was supported unanimously by the CUNY Council of Faculty Governance Leaders on April 16, 2004]

Whereas, all faculty members in the laboratory sciences require laboratory space for the research that they are required to do by the CUNY Bylaws* and the PSC-CUNY Contract⁺ and

Whereas, people who teach college-level laboratory science require laboratory space in order to appropriately prepare for their instructional activities, and

Whereas, teaching in the laboratory sciences requires that undergraduates have access to laboratory research experiences, and

Whereas, the appropriate maintenance of both research and instructional space requires control and supervision by an academic department, and

Whereas, academic departments can provide the most accurate evaluation of scholarly productivity in their disciplines,

Therefore Be It Resolved, that the primary authority to allocate research space will be retained by academic departments, who will use scholarly activity as the primary criterion for such allocations, in accordance with their development plans, and

Be It Finally Resolved, that CUNY presidents and the CUNY administration be asked to redouble their efforts to obtain space and facilities adequate to an ever-growing research enterprise at CUNY.

It shall be the responsibility of instructors, assistant professors, associate professors and professors to perform teaching, research, and guidance duties.

Employees on the teaching staff of the City University of New York shall not be required to teach an excessive number of contact hours, assume an excessive student load, or be assigned an unreasonable schedule, it being recognized by the parties that the teaching staff has the obligation, among others, to be available to students, to assume normal committee assignments, and to engage in research and community service.

E. Endorsement of Hostos Senate Resolution on Malo Case - The resolution was passed unanimously by voice vote with no abstentions:

The University Faculty Senate endorsed the resolution below, which was passed by the College Senate, Hostos Community College, on April 15, 2004:

Resolution from the Hostos Community College Senate

WHEREAS, the case against Mr. Miguel Malo has been before the courts for over two years, and the last trial ended in a mistrial, requiring Mr. Malo to face a fresh trial, and the attorney who was representing Mr. Malo has had to withdraw from the case;

THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED THAT, 1. The Senate respectfully request that all charges be immediately dropped against Mr. Miguel Malo; and 2. This resolution be conveyed to the Bronx District Attorney, Mr. Robert Johnson, and to Chancellor Goldstein.

[1] AAUP, Policy Documents & Reports, 9^th Ed., Washington, D.C.: 2001, p. 297.

[2] Ibid., p. 299.

[3] Board of Trustees, Minutes of Proceedings, Sept. 24, 2001, pp. 112-113.

[4] Administrative Council, June 8, 1946, Cal. No. 5.

[5] Minutes, Council of Presidents, Nov. 12, 1973, p. 9.

[6] Board of Trustees, Minutes of Proceedings, October 26, 1981, Cal. C, p. 105.

REPORTS AND DELIBERATIONS OF
THE THREE HUNDRED AND FOURTH PLENARY SESSION
OF THE UNIVERSITY FACULTY SENATE
OF THE CITY UNIVERSITY OF NEW YORK

A. Chair O’Malley: Instead of doing an oral report, I did a written Chair’s update. There are six items that I listed: Academic Integrity Report; The Master Plan (we’ll be discussing it fully later in the meeting; one concern is that the Board hearing is going to be May 17 in the Bronx combined with the Bronx Borough hearing, one will follow the other.) Number three is the conference -- we now have a hundred people signed up-- at John Jay on the politics of tenure on Friday. Four is the faculty searches: the John Jay search and the Kingsborough search. The results should be reported at the next Board meeting. Five is search for the new Vice Chancellor for Academic Affairs. Louise Mirrer is leaving as of June 1; Distinguished Professor Stuart Ewen and I are on this search committee. Finally a new task force to develop a policy on privacy is being formed by Vice Chancellor for Legal Affairs Rick Schaffer and the appointees are Stefan Baumrin, GSUC, Phil Pecorino, QCC, and Harold Sullivan of John Jay. Any questions?

The next thing on the agenda is the UFS recommendations for the 2004-2008 Master Plan. One draft was mailed to you, but we have a later draft because people have given us all kinds of information. Martha, what do you think is the best way of going about this? / Professor Bell - I think perhaps somebody should summarize it and then take suggestions, because I came up with another suggestion that I really want to see in it. / Chair O’Malley - I can summarize this but also you have excerpts from the University Master Plan. I can e-mail it to all of you as an attachment tomorrow. They didn’t want me to put it out on the website but I had a meeting at LaGuardia C.C. today, and I found that all the Chairs had it (so why was I being so good?) Tomorrow you will all have in your e-mail a copy of the Master Plan. If you picked up the information on the back table, I did a table of contents for it so you can go to the parts you’re interested in. But first let’s take a look at our recommendations. The introduction is just telling you a little bit about the Master Plan. In the bullets it talks about the Regent’s interests: disabilities, research, strengthening graduate education. The next part is process, telling about the focus groups and how we wrote it up. All of this we shared with the Office of Academic Affairs, and I do believe that their draft of the Master Plan shows our influence. Here are the recommendations: More full-time faculty; this is definitely in their Master Plan. Increased diversity in the faculty ranks; this is also in the University Master Plan. Faculty Counseling. Again, a lot of this has been written by various people e-mailing me suggestions. The second section is on admissions, financial aid, and testing. The first one on TAP and STAP reads “whether or not TAP should move toward a credit based instead of semester based system with a cap on the number of credits during a student’s career should be studied.“ This would remove a perverse incentive forcing students to take more credit than they can handle during a semester. That’s a controversial one. There’s a lot of sentiment both ways, but I think a lot of people are upset with students taking too many credits. There is nothing in the University Master Plan on financial aid or admissions or testing, interestingly enough. Monitoring students’ success; it seems to me that’s extremely important; there is nothing in the University Master Plan. CUNY ACT Test reading and writing. In bold are what has been added since the draft I sent to you. Does anyone want to add anything to the first one, improving undergraduate education? Martha, you want to add something or change something there?

Professor Bell (Educational Services, Brooklyn College) – It’s not that I want to change anything. I guess it’s under faculty. I think we’ve said not a word about shared governance, and if anyone has to mention governance we have to mention governance, so there should be a section both on government and consultation and it should be strong and it should lead this section. / Chair O’Malley - You’re absolutely right. Anything else on this section?

Moving on to admissions, financial aid, and testing. Notice I added the CUNY ACT Test, mathematics; Bob Feinerman, who’s in the Math Discipline Council, wrote that with the help of Martha and George. Yes, Bill.

Professor Crain (Psychology, City College) – The ACT Test. Right now what we’re saying is that many faculty objected to the low standard of the test. My understanding is that it’s just a bad test. Some students can write and they don’t do well and they’re ready for the courses but they are not allowed in, and other students aren’t ready and they are allowed in. It’s just like a thermometer that’s not valid, it flies all over the place. If somebody followed our recommendation here they would simply raise the passing score, so I think we need to add a sentence that says, “while others object that the students who are qualified are excluded from writing.” We need a better set of admissions criteria. / Chair O’Malley - So you’re saying we need a better test. / Professor Crain - A better set of assessments, yes. / Chair O’Malley - Because right now we do have the Regents and the SAT and the ACT. / Professor Crain - We need a broader set of assessments. / Chair O’Malley - OK. / Professor Crain - And something like “while others complain that the test excludes students.” It’s just too narrow and too faulty a test.

Professor Cooper (History, College of Staten Island) I thought we had agreed on a request that an entire assessment of the admission standards created by the Board in the Office of Academic Affairs be reviewed. We now have two or three years of these students in courses and everyone I know in advanced courses is sending students to writing centers. Something is not working as far as the combination not merely of the ACT test but the SAT and Regents scores, -- a whole variety of measures presumably which the Vice Chancellor for Academic Affairs insisted were the equivalent of the old CUNY RAT, and they’re not. I think they’re not-- I can’t prove it right now. / Chair O’Malley - If you look, the first sentence says “the validity of the CUNY ACT Test reading and writing needs to be evaluated both for placement…,” and I could make it stronger. / Professor Cooper - I’m not just talking about the ACT Test, I’m talking about the entire new system. / Chair O’Malley - But then it goes down here about the SAT, “faculty recommend that the criteria of exemption from the reading and writing on the SAT, etc.” be examined, particularly as there will be a new SAT. And then down here “the Regents exemption exam score of 75 must be reconsidered based on a study of comparative data on Regents and ACT scores.” But you’d like it stronger, more pointed. / Professor Cooper - I think there has to be a whole reassessment of the process and these three items are sort of the categories of the issue. / Chair O’Malley - OK, we could make that more pointed.

Professor Levine (Engineering Science and Physics, College of Staten Island) – Following up on that suggestion, under monitoring students’ success we say “students’ performance within the first two semesters should be monitored.” Why not delete “within the first two semesters?” Students’ performance should be monitored over their entire career. We want to see the validity of all the testing, not just the first two semesters, and I think this addresses the issues that Sandi and Bill raised. / Chair O’Malley - That would help.

Professor London (Political Science, Brooklyn College) - On the first item, TAP, I’d like to add part-time TAP. That’s very important for our students. / Chair O’Malley - OK, thank you.

Moving on to undergraduate and graduate education, developmental skills - I don’t know, Anne, if this is strong enough. / Professor Friedman (Developmental Skills, Borough of Manhattan C.C.) – Much better. / Chair O’Malley - Yes, better. General education; articulation; I mentioned TIPPS and Degree Works; Graduate Education - all CUNY graduate students who teach should get a tuition waiver; the Graduate Student Tuition Waiver Program funded by the New York State Legislature for SUNY students should be expanded to include CUNY. Distance education. In terms of the University Master Plan, let me just summarize this…/ Professor Cooper - There’s a confusion because they’re two different recommendations. This paragraph is written by somebody who’s thinking in terms of equity between the ordinary graduate students and you are addressing a very specific way the program should pass through opportunity programs. / Chair O’Malley - I see. / Professor Cooper - This is not clear if that’s what is meant, if the opportunity program is meant. Put it back under SEEK. / Chair O’Malley - Put it back under SEEK. I see. / Professor Cooper - And then this thing needs to be rewritten to reflect the issue, which is the fact that graduate students in SUNY are getting tuition waivers, which they are not getting in CUNY. / Chair O’Malley - OK. / Unidentified - You just need to put in that all graduate students need tuition waivers. / Professor Kaplowitz - Isn’t it graduate students who teach or do research? Isn’t that what we’ve been lobbying for. / Unidentified - They all do research. / Professor Baumrin - That’s not true. I don’t want to start a fight but that’s just not true. Tuition waiver is for graduate students who are either doing teaching or research, not all graduate students. It would be silly to have graduate student tuition otherwise. It should be all CUNY graduate students who teach or do research. / Chair O’Malley - OK.

In terms of the University Master Plan, developmental skills is actually in it; general education is, articulation, graduate education, distance education is. That did get in the University Master Plan. Any more comments on those?

Professor London (Political Science, Brooklyn College) - On distance education, should that be expanded to educational technologies or is that understood as being brought up as it is? Manfred, are you satisfied with distance education or should that be educational technologies, which is a broader category? / Professor Philipp - It’s better to be broader. / Professor London - And that would include web based courses …/ Chair O’Malley - I think that’s good.

Professor Lewis (English, York College) – In the School of Journalism it’s mentioned here that a group of faculty had met for more than two years to discuss the original concepts for the School of Journalism, and also should we add that a number of them form a Curriculum Committee for the School of Journalism and in the haste to get the School of Journalism going the curriculum process has really been cut short. We came up with a very productive outline for that curriculum but we really haven’t had a chance to elaborate on it to the point necessary, and if they bring in a new Dean and that Dean takes over he or she will be doing it with literally no or very little consultation from the faculty because that process was cut short. So maybe add here the idea that there should be continued consultation with the University-wide Curriculum Committee with the School of Journalism Curriculum Committee. / Chair O’Malley - I’ll mention the formation of a Curriculum Committee that should continue working. /

Professor Cooper (History, College of Staten Island) – What troubles me about this, and maybe they’re doing something altogether different, is when new colleges open, and I’ve been involved in two in this system, the faculty that are appointed in the first two years usually developed a curriculum. Is it the thought that the faculty in this new School of Journalism will be drawn from existing campuses or are they going to be outside? Because if there is a faculty established in the first year we really do have to defend the proposition that the curriculum is theirs. / Chair O’Malley - Yes, but there is a Curriculum Committee that has done a draft of the curriculum at the request of the Office of Academic Affairs.

Professor Lewis (English, York College) – There are two things that they mentioned as far as faculty. They said that they project about 25 full-time faculty. This might be something that grows over time but they’re originally planning to hire 5 full-time faculty explicitly for the School of Journalism. The understanding was that the rest of the full-time faculty would be taken from existing journalism people and media people from around the University and also there would be additional adjuncts taken from major media outlets from around the city as well. / Chair O’Malley - OK. Thank you.

Moving on to number four: special programs for students. Interestingly, in the University Master Plan there is no mention of SEEK and CD, or ESL, no mention of the CUNY BA and of course no mention of women’s centers, although there’s a section on childcare. SEEK and CD, any comments on this or on ESL?

Professor Price (Developmental Skills, Borough of Manhattan C.C.) - I’m not sure why ESL is under special programs rather than included in developmental skills, because when I read this I see a concern, and it is a concern about where the ESL students are because the numbers have dropped, but I don’t see anything about programs or courses or education. / Chair O’Malley - If you want to add something…I’ve had a lot of trouble developing this. This came from Mary O’Riordan from Tech but I think she was fairly upset with the lack of response from the Office of Academic Affairs in terms of the recommendations that the ESL Council has made. But I think this section could be a whole lot stronger if you want to add some things. E-mail me? / Professor Price - Yes.

The disability - I put something in but I must say the University Master Plan took many of our suggestions from the focus group on disability. That was kind of a victory. CUNY BA - this has gone back and forth and had many rewrites.

Professor Levine (Engineering Science and Physics, College of Staten Island) – I’m not really sure why we are pushing more collaboration between the CUNY Honors College and the CUNY BA/BS Program as they are quite different in intent, and the only similarity that I can see is that they are centrally run. And so they have been arbitrarily placed together for an administrative purpose. I do not see why we as faculty should be recommending that and I would suggest deleting this entire section on the CUNY BA. / Chair O’Malley - I could.

Professor Baumrin (Philosophy, The Graduate School and University Center) –Thank you for your comments, Madame Chair. However, I agree with Professor Levine that this should be left out, and I particularly object to the italicized language in the middle, which I mentioned last week to you, “Enrollment should be particularly encouraged among adult students graduating from the community colleges and students who have enrolled as non-matrics for several semesters.” The CUNY BA is a program for senior college students seeking the opportunity to take courses throughout the University and to get credit for life experience work or related material and it would be entirely inappropriate for them to be taken from community colleges into the program. / Professor Levine - I move the deletion of the entire section. / Chair O’Malley – Sandi, what do you think?

Professor Cooper (History, College of Staten Island) – I was going to say the same thing. I find embarrassing a sentence on a document from us that singles out one program of all the Bachelor’s Degree programs as recognized as an excellent program. So is the History Department at Staten Island, let’s put that in!

Professor Crain (Psychology, City College) – My own opinion is it should stay. It needs more recognition. I agree that there are contradictions internally, inside the paragraph, but I think it is a program that’s under recognized and that serves all the students and contributes significantly. So my own opinion is to keep it. / Chair O’Malley - Steve, on this? And then maybe we have to decide as a body.

Professor London (Political Science, Brooklyn College) - I also agree that it should stay. I understand that we’re singling this out but I think the reason we’re singling it out is that it’s an orphan of sorts. / Chair O’Malley - It is an orphan. / Professor London - And it’s not particularly favored, I think that’s not a secret, and the Graduate Center it’s not funding it appropriately or finds it coming out of its budget. So I think it is a worthy program and while other programs are being funded I think it’s in real danger. So I think there is a rationale for keeping it there. / Chair O’Malley - And it could be rewritten.

Professor Kaplowitz (English, The John Jay College of Criminal Justice) – I do think it should be included. Why don’t we just delete all references to the Honors College in the discussion about the CUNY BA program because that seems to be rather gratuitous, illogical. So the City University should emphasize this program, provide sufficient resources, should provide sufficient advertisement. And then take out the next sentence about more collaboration between the Honors College and the CUNY BA Program, and that I think would first of all not dilute the emphasis on the CUNY BA Program, which is what I think we’re trying to do, and it won’t mix up two things that aren’t really related. / Chair O’Malley - In a way it would be nice to have it here because this does go to the Regents and this program never gets any attention. / Professor Kaplowitz - And, especially for colleges that aren’t able to offer all the majors that are available and for the older students or the more independent students, it’s a program that really should be emphasized. This is a substitute motion to retain the paragraph about the CUNY BA program but delete the references to the Honors College and add language about adding resources to it.

Professor Hastick (Social and Behavioral Sciences, Medgar Evers College) – I didn’t realize there was a motion on the floor because really what I wanted to do was to make a motion. But I’ll add a friendly amendment that we might want to add a statement to reaffirm the importance of the CUNY BA program in doing such and such, because it kind of helps people revisit what the CUNY BA program is about, but I support the notion of keeping it in the document. And the latter part should really be revised because it’s not up to us to tell the Regents that faculty should be encouraged to be faculty mentors. I don’t think that helps. / Chair O’Malley - My sense is that the way it is right now it’s unacceptable and there has been a suggestion about rewriting it and then there are other people who feel that it should not be in the document at all. I think there has to be a vote. / Professor Baumrin - My motion was to delete the paragraph. That motion was seconded. That motion then was moved to amend. The amended motion, if my memory serves me well, is more or less the first paragraph without any reference to the Honors College, the retention of the disputed sentence about enrollment and the deletion of the third paragraph on the basis that it’s unseemly to invite faculty members to be mentors. I don’t want to say this but one could just defeat the amendment, then excise the paragraph, and then we could start all over again. So what’s on the floor now is the amendment as I have reported it, I believe. / Chair O’Malley - So now we are voting on the amendment, which is to include the CUNY BA but with all mention of the Honors College out, and I guess the added language in bold is still there and the last sentence goes. All in favor of that? Those against the amendment?/ Professor Baumrin - The amendment passes. Now the original motion is to delete the section. A vote to delete is Yes and a vote to retain is No, as amended, of course. I still would like to vote on the deletion. / Chair O’Malley - How many people want to close debate? How many want to continue talking. / Professor Baumrin - This is an instruction as neutral as possible. A vote in favor deletes the section on the CUNY BA as amended, a vote against retains the section as amended. / Chair O’Malley - Those people for deletion as amended? Those people against deleting? It will be rewritten with the amendments. Thank you, Stefan, very much.

There’s the Honors College section. Women’s centers - should this stay or should this go?

Professor Lewis (English, York College) – I think this section on the women’s centers makes a lot of sense and it’s a good proposal but I’d like to add something that might be just as important and maybe more important that’s been left out here. A real crisis in the University is the lack of recruitment and retention of minority male students, which has been going down drastically. / Chair O’Malley - This is in the University Master Plan. / Professor Lewis - There should be some statement here maybe added to this that in addition there should be a concerted effort or a specific program funded by the University to specifically recruit and retain and to offer counseling for minority male students who seem to be having trouble staying within the University. / Professor Kaplowitz - There is a section called the Chancellor’s Initiative on Male Minority Students. / Chair O’Malley - We will get to that. It is in the University Plan but we could put it in our recommendations if you would like. / Professor Lewis - I think it’s really important. If we’re going to put this about women’s centers…

Professor Friedman (Developmental Skills, Borough of Manhattan C.C.) – I have no objection to going on record that we support something important. However, the intention of this document is to try to influence the document that the Chancellor’s Office is going to present. If they already have this in their document what is the need to add it into ours? I wouldn’t oppose it but I don’t really see that it’s necessary, and then we have to figure out the wording and so forth. That’s my question. / Chair O’Malley - There is a Chancellor’s initiative on the Black male in education, 6.1 in the University Master Plan. Do we want to add something in ours? / Professor Baumrin - It is not just black males, it’s males period. I’d like to decide it so we could get on.

Professor Kaplowitz (English, The John Jay College of Criminal Justice) – If I recall, Susan, we sent these different iterations from the Executive Committee to Vice Chancellor Mirrer. / Chair O’Malley - That is correct, although she hasn’t gotten the last couple of drafts. / Professor Kaplowitz - It seems to me that to add this after the draft of the Master Plan has been released seems not timely, and we could certainly in testifying on the Master Plan praise that section and support it, or in a letter to the Regents about the Master Plan that’s passed by the Board at the end of May praise that section, but I don’t know about adding something that we didn’t think of until we saw it in the Master Plan. / Chair O’Malley - I think in our response to the Master Plan we could point out that we support it. Anything else on this section?

Professor Crain (Psychology, City College) – I understand the problems with the mothers on public assistance and work had not been solved, because we lost like 20,000 students. / Chair O’Malley - So you’re saying add something perhaps. / Professor Crain - Something on that, that we remain concerned. / Professor Cooper - It’s not women’s centers. / Chair O’Malley - No, it would be separate. / Professor Crain - Women’s caught my eye there. / Professor Bell- It should go under admissions. / Chair O’Malley - That certainly is not in the University Master Plan.

Professor Cooper (History, College of Staten Island) – I didn’t read the Honors College section fast enough when we went over it. I don’t know if this is happening at other campuses but at our campus the existence of the Honors College has essentially suspended the operation of our own program. There is no admission to our program at this point. It’s not just a matter of integrating it; they have obliterated it, and there’s no way we can compete because the old honors programs which did exist cannot offer the goodies that this one does in terms of the tuition, the laptops and all the rest of it. I don’t know whether or not we want to get into this, it may not be relevant… / Chair O’Malley - The second sentence was supposed to do that. However, some faculty have felt that the Honors Program should be integrated into the colleges so as not to diminish local honors programs. / Professor Cooper - It isn’t a matter of it not being integrated. The local programs cannot compete. / Chair O’Malley - So how should it read, Sandi? / Chair O’Malley - I’d have to think about it frankly but I think we should be aware of the fact that the effect has already occurred; it’s not a potential, it is true, it is now in effect that the local honors college is essentially in suspension, I guess it’s on ice, and I don’t exactly know what we can do about it; there’s just no way to match it. And why should a student take the local admission? / Chair O’Malley - I think at Brooklyn College and at Queens they’re both working. Sandi, if you’ve got some language that you want e-mail me, or should we leave out the sentence because it’s misleading. / Professor Cooper - I think we should leave it out. / Professor Kaplowitz - I think so too. And that’s an internal college matter.

Professor Antoniello (Health and Nutrition Sciences, Brooklyn College) - I think a sentence should be put in here about supporting local honors colleges, because even though it’s still functioning at Brooklyn it has diminished from lack of support, and I don’t see why we couldn’t say something about supporting the individual college programs. But the other point I wanted to make about the Honors College, and I don’t know if this sentence meant to address that, this move to centralize the Honors College, to take it out of the individual colleges and move it here, move the classes here. / Chair O’Malley - Now it’s going to be on Governors Island. We’ll get there in a few minutes. / Professor Antoniello - But I think we should say something about preserving the integrity of the individual colleges. / Chair O’Malley - It wouldn’t hurt us to say it, no matter what’s happening. / Professor Kaplowitz - What Susan said wasn’t a joke. The Master Plan says that the Honors College shall be situated on Governor’s Island.

Professor Dreyer (Dental Hygiene, NYC College of Technology) - I’d like to speak to an issue about the Honors College. My college was not invited to participate in any way, shape or form. You’re not the only college that has been excluded . / Chair O’Malley - I have a sentence here about that. / Professor Dreyer – OK, but I’d like to be really strong about that, that when you undermine the local components I think you also undermine what is very unique in our University, is that students tend to associate with their home college and do so through fundraising and coming back and sending their kids to the school or whatever they do, and I think that when you take away those individual programs that are unique to that campus and saying, “Well, none of those honor programs matter, you’ve got to be in the Honors College,” I don’t like this whole thought of making it honors special. Every campus is unique and these students need to be supported and recognized. / Chair O’Malley - I do have this one sentence, extending the Honors College to those colleges currently not included. / Professor Dreyer - Not only extending it but somehow to incorporate that what we have already does work. / Chair O’Malley - OK.

Professor Antoniello - I think the point that should be added here is that students are accepted to the Honors College out of high school and there was one point made about filling extra spaces, but the individual honors programs are for students already at the college, and that’s a very important aspect of it and something we should put in here, because many of our students who are first generation college students are late bloomers and once they get to college they realize their potential, and that’s why these other honors programs are so important. And I think the fact that the Honors College as it is now only accepts high school seniors that’s another point that should be … / Chair O’Malley - Yes, we had this if there were a few spots, but there are very few spots. / Professor Antoniello - But that also would be difficult for the students because they do move through as a cohort, so that would be a disadvantage. / Chair O’Malley - And there are so few spots.

Syd Lefkoe (non-senator, Queens College) - I think I need to be approved to speak. / Unidentified - I’d like to move to approve Syd Lefkoe speaking to us. / Chair O’Malley - Without objection. / Professor Lefkoe - Thank you. Some of us come to the University and have stayed within the University because of a deep commitment to the historic mission of the University, which is a more egalitarian kind of approach, and there is a nice piece of this that a lot of folks, like parts of the cultural passport, have been extended beyond the Honors College and should be extended further. I would like to expand on that even further and say in some way that the other parts of the Honors College program as well should be extended beyond the borders of the Honors College. For example, there’s a lot of special attention, special advisement, enhanced programming, all sorts of things like that, that I think all students in the University will benefit from. / Chair O’Malley - Thank you.

Professor Crain (Psychology, City College) – I would abandon the whole thing. / Chair O’Malley - You’d get rid of the Honors College. / Professor Crain - Free tuition for everybody, not just free tuition for this group of elite students. / Chair O’Malley - That would be nice.

Libraries - This actually comes from Phil Pecorino’s committee and he wrote it.

Professor Pecorino (Social Sciences, Queensborough C.C. / Chair, UFS Committee on Information, Literacy and Computer Technology) - We’ve got five separate items under the title of libraries and I’m happy to see that in the University’s draft three of them are already included, so that’s progress, but I’m astounded that the one that’s titled disability issues isn’t in their list under disability issues. You must have put in the word “still being debated.” Who’s debating it and what’s debatable about it? Librarians have reported to us that there are whole floors of libraries that are not accessible to people with wheelchairs. / Chair O’Malley - It was supposed to be after this first sentence, the institutional open access provision policy, because we have a resolution… (tape switched) Professor Levine - …to the Master Plan, which is what we should be discussing. / Chair O’Malley - We’re about to move into that. We have been working with focus groups and it seemed to me quite exciting to come up with faculty recommendations to at Master Plan that goes straight to the Regents. They are very eager to see what we have to say, but we also have to look at the University draft and do a response to that. However, I couldn’t get it out to people because it only came out yesterday afternoon, but we’re about to move to it. / Professor Levine - When I get to this section on research, which is a very weak section, it appears that what we’re saying here is we’re endorsing the idea of the flagship environment and the cluster hiring. I’m very pleased with the cluster hiring initiative in environmental science, I’m involved in that and I think it’s a great idea, but do we as a body want to endorse the philosophy? I would like to see us endorse the creation of new knowledge through research in its broader sense. I would like to see CUNY provide more support for basic research, not merely certain selective flagship areas. / Chair O’Malley - Yes.

Professor London (Political Science, Brooklyn College) - I have some wording on exactly that point for this section. “It is important to rebuild the infrastructure for doing research in the University, such as providing resources for laboratory start-up costs, research related reassign time, sabbaticals, travel funds for research purposes, and conference fees.” / Chair O’Malley - Sounds good. Will you give that to Bill? / Professor London - And others may want to add to the list.

Professor Dreyer (NYC College of Technology) - The problem I have with this, and I don’t know how to put it into words, is that when the Chancellor talked about building this new one great big building where all this great research was going to happen…/ Chair O’Malley - We’ll get to that. It’s OK, it’s in here, but if you want to say something more, sure. / Professor Dreyer - I would like something if we’re going to talk about research that it is University-wide. / Chair O’Malley - I think Steve is talking about research at the local level. / Professor Dreyer - But very strongly, really strong.

Chair O’Malley - I think what I should do is rewrite it and then put it out on the listserv for responses. But I think it has been a useful process for us to actually think what we would like this University to look like in the next four years.

Professor Crain (Psychology, City College) - I just want to add, I apologize, we just went too fast on the ACT, I’ve got to focus on that. We probably have different opinions on the CPE but I hate to see it’s not in here that we want that looked at. It has an effect on the curriculum and the atmosphere.

Chair O’Malley - All right. So now we move to the University Master Plan, and you should pick up excerpts in the back. What I did first was to do an outline - there was no outline or table of contents in the University Master Plan - so here it is, so that when I e-mail it to you you can just go to the sections that you’re interested in. Because it’s 126 pages I only pulled certain chunks, but tomorrow you’ll have access to the whole thing. It will be an attachment in all of your e-mails. The first page is a preamble about a different University. If you look at ours we talk about educating the children of the whole people in New York City, which is the mission of this University. This Master Plan is not concerned with open admissions or access. What it is concerned about, on page 3, “now the widest range of students, including importantly those who are among the most highly qualified,” so it’s much more interested in the Honors College and the highly qualified students. That may be OK to some but it certainly is quite different from the mission that led most of us to join this University. There is no mention of ESL, no mention of SEEK, CD, or developmental education. / Professor Kaplowitz - It’s very long. It’s 126 pages. / Professor Baumrin - Do you mind a moment of criticism. I understand that you’re not responsible for this having been distributed to the Faculty Senate yesterday…/ Chair O’Malley - No. In fact I was not allowed to distribute it last night./ Professor Baumrin - But it’s either a waste of time or extraordinarily frustrating for us to try to read this, comment on it, and amend it under these circumstances. / Chair O’Malley - There is no way you can do that. / Professor Baumrin - But if we can’t amend it might we ought to stop then talking about this…/ Chair O’Malley - I don’t mind doing that. I will summarize it. / Professor Baumrin - But I’m going to recommend that we move the agenda because this is too painful. / Chair O’Malley - That’s absolutely fine with me. If you can take it off your computers, take a look at it, use the outline and take the sections that you’re interested in and then e-mail us that would be great. I was going to summarize but I certainly don’t need to summarize. / Professor Kaplowitz - Why don’t you give the timeline of the CAPPR meeting, May 3, and so forth? / Chair O’Malley - OK, so you know what is happening with this, it will go to CAPPR on May 3. It will then be at a board hearing on May 17 and passed by the Board on May 24. I think that it’s very important that we start doing a response very fast, that you e-mail me material and then we bring it to the Executive Committee next Tuesday.

Professor Friedman (Developmental Skills, Borough of Manhattan C.C.) – I just want to speak to what you just said. I would like to make a motion that this body officially request that, given the length and the importance of this document, the UFS requests that the Chancellery refrain from submitting this to CAPPR and the Board in May and that it be held till the June CAPPR meeting and the June Board meeting so that the elected faculty bodies, which include the local Senates and Councils, have a chance to read it, given the fact that we all work and have jobs (that doesn’t have to go on the motion), so that we can have some real input in their document, coming on the heels of what Stefan said. I really would like to put that on the floor that we request so that we can have some real input. / Chair O’Malley - So that’s the motion. Second? / Unidentified - Second. / Chair O’Malley - Discussion? Let me just say what I think. Louise Mirrer is leaving at the end of May and there is no way we are going to get to do this. We can give it a try, I’m certainly willing to give it a try, but she is leaving and they want this put through with her there. But I’m perfectly willing to give it a try to see if we can postpone it a month.

Professor Philipp (Chemistry, Lehman College) – I asked my college President this afternoon how the college’s part of the old Master Plan was formulated and whether there had been any faculty input. Obviously I knew the answer to that. So the answer was clear, that it was formulated by the Cabinet, and yes, we’ve had input because of our focus group, but on the other hand seeing it today and then going to the Board almost immediately does mean that we’d have no input. And even if Vice Chancellor Louise Mirrer is leaving we should still advocate for a delay because it is the only way we would have an input. / Chair O’Malley - I’ll ask for a delay and if they say no? So you will testify in June and be at the June Board Meeting, I hope.

Professor Beaky (English, LaGuardia C.C.) – I just wanted to speak in favor of the motion because since this process began the whole point of it was for us to have input and what actually has happened is that there have been two tracks, theirs and ours, and their track is moving very fast. In order for those two tracks to actually merge, have interplay, have a relationship of some sort, we ought to request this. So I’m supporting the motion. / Chair O’Malley - All in favor of calling the question? Those in favor of asking the Chancellery to postpone the consideration of the Master Plan until June, all in favor raise your hands. Those against. / Unidentified - Can the Chair recognize that the vote is unanimous, please. / Unidentified - And no abstentions. / Chair O’Malley - OK. So now we should move the agenda.

Professor Hastick (Social and Behavioral Sciences, Medgar Evers College) – Just before we do, I am delighted to see the Chancellor’s initiative on the Black male in education in this document. Is there a similar document for other minority groups, such as Latino? I only see one line. / Chair O’Malley - But I think it’s kind of out of order, isn’t it? / Professor Hastick – […]especially among Black and Latino male population, that’s it. / Chair O’Malley - But I think we’re not commenting on the University Master Plan right now, unless people want to continue.

Professor Levine (Engineering Science and Physics, College of Staten Island) – We spent an hour discussing a draft of our recommendations to the Master Plan, which is at this point irrelevant. If we want to make recommendations it should be on changes to the existing Master Plan. / Chair O’Malley - I agree, and we’re going to do that, but people have decided they want to have another month. / Professor Levine - I would hope that we are not going to take the draft that we spent an hour discussing and treat that as our discussion in response to the Master Plan. / Chair O’Malley – No. This is going to the Regents in terms of the faculty recommendations for the Master Plan. / Professor Levine - That’s what I’m objecting to. / Chair O’Malley - You’re objecting to that. / Professor Levine - Yes. / Chair O’Malley - We will also do our response to the Master Plan but they are very interested in our issues, such as the Pharmacy School. I’ve been talking to a number of them, and the Regents are interested in our ideas. / Professor Levine - I’m not disputing the value of sending to the Regents items that we believe in that didn’t get into the Master Plan I support that, but where there are items that did get in but in different ways I would like us to at least consider before we discuss our wording what their wording is. / Chair O’Malley - OK.

Professor Cooper (History, College of Staten Island) – Another thought just popped into my head. If we’re going to send a document to the Regents it seems to me that in the early paragraphs or in the preamble it should indicate that the University ought to make a commitment to the preservation of academic freedom, given the circumstances we’re operating under at this point, and I think we could come up with some language reflecting our various resolutions. This University has in my view an increasingly parlous attitude towards both academic freedom and privacy and an extraordinary willingness to support the Patriot Act in all of its codicils and footnotes. There are faculty at other campuses, such as Berkeley, which have voted unanimously not to permit the intrusive aspects of that act to operate on their campus, and I think that we ought to really start this thing off, any document that goes out rather, with a bang on that issue.

Professor Kaplowitz (English, The John Jay College of Criminal Justice) – I’m going to float an idea, which is going to be not well received but here it goes. I somehow recall, and I don’t want to trust my memory, but I think that the Regents are requiring the Master Plan from CUNY to be submitted in June. / Chair O’Malley - June 1st. / Professor Kaplowitz - Which would be the response and a legitimate response to our request to delay. And the answer would be that they don’t have the option and it has nothing to do with Vice Chancellor Mirrer’s leaving but that it must be received by the Regents June 1 and the Board would be voting on May 24. If we want to have input, and given the fact that the Master Plan of 2000-2004 was indeed a blueprint and just about everything in it was followed except the 70% course section taught by full-time faculty because of presumably budget reasons, we could, and this is what I’m dreading saying, meet a week from today and devote a plenary to responding to the Master Plan draft. That would be the 27th of April and this would be six days before the meeting of the Academic Review Committee of the Board of Trustees, CAPPR. / Chair O’Malley - Anne, speak to that.

Professor Friedman (Developmental Skills, Borough of Manhattan C.C.) – I’d like to speak to that. It’s not our fault, for a change, that we get this 126-page document, which none of us have even seen yet, we have a few excerpts, today, April 20th, and we don’t have time to give input. Now if the deadline from the Regents was June 1st obviously the Chancellery knew its obligations were it interested in our genuine input to get this to us in a timely fashion. I would suggest in terms of process, following up on the motion that was passed, to request an extension to June, that we write a letter to the Chancellor telling him that the body voted unanimously asking for this extension to June because we want to have the time to give our informed input and therefore we would like him to request of the Regents an extension of one month or whatever’s practical, we need a written response back from him, hopefully with a reason. I would prefer to have any communication written, whether it includes this additional piece about the Regents, written from you on behalf of the Senate to him with the expectation that he will communicate back in writing. I want him to say no formally to the whole body and not just to you on the telephone. But I don’t think that this is unreasonable for us as a body to ask him to extend into June the Board stuff and to request of the Regents. Otherwise he’s not interested in our input. I hate to feel it’s a fait accompli, that we accept we can’t do it unless we meet next week. / Chair O’Malley - OK, Martha.

Professor Bell (Educational Services, Brooklyn College) - I didn’t want to respond to Anne, I wanted to go past that. We’re going to vote on Anne’s then go ahead. Did you make a motion on that? I’m unclear. / Professor Friedman - I’m not sure. / Chair O’Malley - Can I just do a point of information? The SUNY Master Plan is due June 1 and the privates’ Master Plan is due June 1 and the CUNY Master Plan is due June 1. It goes to the Regents, they then develop a state-wide Master Plan with the three plans. I’m hoping that the Regents will come in the fall and present their state-wide plan. I will write the letter but I think what it will mean is that we’re a non-player, because I can’t get the State Ed and the Board of Regents to change their deadlines, I don’t think. We can ask. W can try. Now the Chancellery is not pleased with Louise Mirrer and the lateness of this document, that is true, but there we are. So do you want to continue with me writing a letter and simply saying we won’t…It seems to me we’re out of the ball game if we do that, but I’m willing to do it.

Professor London (Political Science, Brooklyn College) - I think this is not that we won’t be a player, I think this is how we remain a player, because we then go to the Regents saying this is their thing, we wanted to comment on it, they didn’t give us the time to do it, and so then we have the chance to critique it and present to the Regents an alternative perspective. And it’s on record that we made a request to have some formal consultation and because of the lateness they were unable to accommodate us, but then we go to the Regents. / Chair O’Malley - So first the letter goes to the Chancellor, we get his response, and then we send that to the Regents, which we could do. That’s what you’re saying, right? / Professor London - Sort of.

Professor Bell (Educational Services, Brooklyn College) – What I thought we should do is, regardless of what the response to the letter is, that people should really start to read this and send their responses to the sections that they deem the most important as quickly as possible, Susan, and that the Executive Committee next Tuesday be dedicated to looking at this and see if we can put together some plan of response. I think we have two types of responses here. One is we’ve got a very brief window maybe to change some things that the Chancellor submits to the Regents, and I think that’s the one we’ve got to move very quickly to do if we can negotiate some stuff. I think there’s the more global response that we will send directly to the Regents, that we will testify to the Board, and that we will go on with, and that’s the one we should do what Anne says and say, “we didn’t have enough time, we need full consultation, we need to meet on this,” but I think we need to go both the inside route and the outside route and not give up our chance to start to play in the document and see if we can get some of the things we want changed informally before. It’s like the internal amendment period on the budget. It’s much easier that route than the other route. / Chair O’Malley - Particularly ESL, SEEK, the things that they have left out that we simply have to go after them immediately, but hold off the response, write the letter, and simply say we don’t have enough time for a full response, and then see what the Chancellor says. Professor Baumrin (Philosophy, The Graduate School and University Center) – I wouldn’t do that. I would do more or less what Steve London was suggesting. Let me just restate it. Sending an actual response with respect to the Master Plan undermines our authority as commenters on it because we would be alleged to have cooperated in its drafting, which is what we don’t want to do. We do not want to be told in the middle of May and then be broadcast throughout the Regents and the state that this was done with the faculty’s agreement. The most important thing we have to communicate is that it was not done with the faculty’s agreement. To achieve that we do our own report, which is we did this thing that we spent a whole hour and we take all the recommendations that people make over the course of the next couple of weeks, we add it to that, which is our direct communication to the Regents, and we might copy the Chancellery, and if they want to jump on before they file the thing let them decide to do it. So what we want to do is communicate to the Regents so there will be four plans: the privates, SUNY, CUNY, and the University Faculty Senate. / Chair O’Malley - A second? Discussion?

Unidentified - You had suggested what I thought was a substantial change in addition to the original motion which we unanimously adopted, which was to also request of the Regents that they delay their deadline. / Professor Friedman - [off mic] / Chair O’Malley - So it’s the first one which was voted. Summarize that. / Unidentified - That’s the letter requesting of the Chancellery that the discussion be held in the June session. / Chair O’Malley - There was a sense of that. / Unidentified - Your suggestion was that we should be moving now in the next executive meeting, which is next Tuesday, submitting by e-mail comments substantively to the recently released Master Plan. / Unidentified - To Susan and to the Executive Committee. / Professor Baumrin - If Martha is not disputing my recommendation, which is consistent with that and with Steve London’s original recommendation, we integrate that as our report to the Regents with a copy to the Chancellor, not to the Chancellor for his consideration for modification of the Master Plan. We have got to maintain our independence from this process. We have been used and now abused, so the way we handle that is we make our own report to the Regents. I don’t mind telling the Chancellor, but the Executive Committee taking all the materials from all of the members of the Senate will come up with a document that we will then forward directly to the Regents, which presumably will […] on the 1st of June. / Chair O’Malley - I think first we have to vote on Martha’s motion and then Stefan’s, and then see if maybe they can be combined or not. So first let’s start with Martha, and then we have a couple of resolutions. / Professor Bell - May I ask a question of Stefan? Stefan says we can’t be co-opted into having participated but my question is we’ve already held focus groups to which Louise Mirrer was invited, whether she attended or not… / Chair O’Malley - She attended some of them. / Professor Bell - She attended, one; two, drafts of the documents that we discussed tonight that wasted our time have been given to her right along and it’s been said to her right along; how is this not already participating or co-opting? /Professor Baumrin - …participation as approval. We don’t approve. We participated, they didn’t listen, so we send our own report. / Professor Bell - I agree with we send our own report, but I don’t agree that that will make us not co-opted. I think we’ve already been part of the game. / Chair O’Malley - What Stefan is saying is the two things cannot be combined and therefore that Martha’s needs to be voted up or down. Is that correct? / Unidentified - I think he was saying that the two could be combined. / Professor Baumrin - The difference between Martha’s proposal and my proposal is nuanced, and the nuance is this: she thinks we’ve been had and anybody knows it, and I say whether we’ve been had and everybody knows it we’re not going to make out that we had. / Chair O’Malley - I see, so they could be combined. So we can marry the proposals. We have a motion. Can we vote on that now? What is the motion? / Professor Baumrin - The motion is that we integrate the Senate’s responses to individual parts of the Master Plan for the creation of a document to be transmitted to the Regents directly by the Chair of the Senate by June 1st with a copy to the Chancellor. / Professor Bell - And that the Executive Committee be charged with doing that. / Chair O’Malley - And we’ve had a second.

Professor Philipp (Chemistry, Lehman College) – If I could make a friendly amendment to that. What I was going to say before is not only has the UFS been had, not only have the college Senates been had by the late delivery of this document, also the Discipline Councils have been had. The Discipline Councils should have an opportunity to look at this document and comment on the parts that relate to their discipline. So I’d like to make a friendly amendment that we also take input from the Discipline Councils - I’m closely associated with one of them - and that input go directly to the Executive Committee in the same way that comes from the members in the Senate. / Chair O’Malley - Absolutely. College Senates, Discipline Councils, all responses we can get.

Professor Barnhart (History, Philosophy and Political Science, Kingsborough C.C.) – I have a question now. Before I say anything stupid, does the motion as it now stands, in so far that we’re copying the Chancellor, preclude something we weren’t going to do before? Were we going to have some sort of less official contact, some effort to influence the final form before we went before the Board, was that what we were going to do and we’re not going to do now? If that’s right then I would be very hesitant to accept the exclusion of that because I think that, for one thing, we’re talking as though the Master Plan as it now exists is entirely evil. I don’t know that, because I haven’t looked at it. It may in fact have incorporated faculty input. If it has I see no reason to think that they won’t make some effort, perhaps if there’s enough response, to incorporate additional faculty input, and I would rather see a less evil document go before the Regents than a more evil document go in front of the Regents. Therefore I would like to try both prongs, which is what I thought Martha’s original suggestion was, and I therefore would speak against Stefan’s suggestion that we drop both prongs and pursue essentially a head-on attack on the whole thing.

Professor London (Political Science, Brooklyn College) - Anybody here has the right to make a comment. As a matter of fact there is going to be a chance to testify before the Board of Trustees and everyone here is entitled to go testify before the Trustees. I think that the issue here is whether we do it as a body. And so people will have the opportunity, Michael, others, will have that opportunity. There will be opportunity to influence but this body, I think, is making a statement about how it’s been treated and also preserving certain important rights with respect to the Regents, because if we have not been duly consulted it’s important for us to maintain those rights and make sure that is made clear. So I think that when we put together a document in the end to give the Regents that becomes part of the rationale for us to do that. So I think that the motion on the floor allows for all of that to happen.

Professor Beaky (English, LaGuardia C.C.) – I know it is not the motion that is currently on the floor but to help me in my vote on this motion could I have a restatement by Martha of her motion? / Professor Bell - Originally? The original motion was to gather all of the responses via e-mail before Tuesday of next week and have the Executive Committee begin to draft a response to work the informal mechanism with the Chancellery and the same time to do what in fact Stefan says and use that stuff to go further to draft a formal response to the Regents and in fact the Chancellor to try both tactics to influence the document, one the informal route and the second the formal route. / Professor Beaky - So my question then is, is it Stefan’s understanding that the informal route is excluded by his motion? It is. Thank you.

Professor Kaplowitz (English, The John Jay College of Criminal Justice) – I agree with Michael. I think that since the Executive Committee is meeting Tuesday this body could authorize the Executive Committee to respond to the draft of the Master Plan and influence it as best as possible while this entire body can act as Stefan has proposed, because the process is of course important but the document is ultimately what’s going to be the blueprint for the University for the next four years and I don’t see the Regents rejecting the Master Plan that’s approved by the Board of Trustees and saying, “we are going to revise it to include…,” and they really can’t; I mean that’s micromanaging. We would as a faculty be enraged and probably bring any kind of legal action we could against the Regents were they to micromanage the University that way, if they were to reject a document passed legally, maybe not with consultation, but legally by the Board of Trustees. It would be such a precedent that we’d be asking them to do that we would regret it. I think we need to shape this Master Plan as best we can before it’s acted on by the Board of Trustees. And don’t forget between CAPPR and the Board of Trustees there are a couple of weeks and we can get changes, but if we opt out now they could ignore everything and the Regents would rightly ignore everything because they’d say, “you had two weeks between the time you received it and it went to the Board Committee.” Two weeks is really a lot of time, at least as they see it. In the real world it’s a long time. I think that we would be not fulfilling our responsibility if we didn’t try to shape this, so I would support Martha’s never made motion and support Stefan as a two-part approach. So I would like to make a substitute motion in response to Stefan’s that we charge the Executive Committee to receive and respond to and shape whatever comments that we can receive by Tuesday and transmit it to the Chancellery and to Susan as the faculty member on the Board Committee on Academic Affairs to change the Master Plan in whatever way the Executive Committee deems appropriate, at the same time communicating our recommendations to the Regents and any comments to the Regents that this body deems fit and cc the Chancellor in the documents sent to the Regents. / Chair O’Malley - Is there a second? It’s very important before people leave that we vote on a resolution on academic freedom. I don’t want people to disappear before that. All right, discussion.

Professor Crain (Psychology, City College) – I speak against the substitute and in favor of Stefan’s original motion. I think we’re going to try to have it both ways and it weakens us. Stefan’s is I think correct. They get a certain number of documents amongst which is the University Faculty Senate’s. I don’t know what the real world is. We’re a deliberative body and we need time to think. We did not form a Master Plan impulsively and quickly. This University is too important and our mission is too important, so we did not have time. We did have time to formulate our own position. That position is sent as an independent position. We did not try to privately or officially work on theirs, we couldn’t properly consult with, we don’t delegate that, we simply send ours. I think it’s a strong position that we’re taking, so I say vote down the amendment and stick with London / Baumrin. / Chair O’Malley - One more comment and then there will be a restatement. / Professor Davidson – Move the previous question. / Chair O’Malley - All right, so then we need a restatement of what we are voting on. Which is what Karen said. Do you want to restate that Karen so people know what they’re voting on? / Professor Kaplowitz - Authorize the Executive Committee to comment on the Master Plan directly and shape it and send to the Regents our overall comments. Two-part approach. / Chair O’Malley - To send our plan, what we have been working on, so that we have that document to the Regents and our comments. All those in favor of calling the question? All those in favor of the substitute resolution? All those against? Abstentions? I think it’s clear what we’re doing. It carries 24 to 11.