b. Chancellor: Let me talk about a few things and then I would be happy to entertain any questions that you have. The statutory deadline was missed on March 10^th. There was supposed to be a reconciliation of revenue targets between the Assembly, the Senate, and the Executive. Whenever that happens, each of these organizations comes forward with their own budgets. The budget I like is the Assembly budget. Why don’t we start with the good news. You all know about the Governor’s proposed budget. It is essentially a $20 million lump sum to the University. It wasn’t really lined out at all. Both the Assembly and the Senate lined out their budgets. The Assembly discussion is lead by Shelly Silver. For the senior colleges they have increased the operating budget proposal the Governor gave, by a little under $23 million. This includes slightly under $10 million for faculty positions, in addition to what the Governor presented. We start at a base of $20 million and we work our way up. There is an additional $6 million for SEEK. We have been talking about doctoral student fellowships with much greater vigor. I don’t see how we are going to sustain our graduate programs unless we get graduate fellowships. For all of us who have been at research universities, you know that this is common practice. At CUNY it has never been part of the operating budget. There are a series of other things, but those are the major components. There is an additional $2 million for students with disabilities.

On the community college side, there was a proposal to add about $18 million to what the Governor proposed. State aid for the Assembly was $175 per FTE. About $5 million in faculty positions, some money for College Discovery, a little under $1 million for child care, and some other smaller initiatives. On the capital side, there was a substantial amount of additional money put in, totaling about $13 million. That had to do with our initiative with incubators and accelerators, the CUNY Institute for Software Design and Development, and the CUNY Photonics Initiative. That is a wonderful budget. It adds about $54 million to what was proposed by the Governor. I really don’t need to go into the Senate budget. It involves cuts in adjuncts, freshman year programs, and supplemental financial aid, for a total of a $6.5 million cut for the senior colleges. The Senate is only proposing a $25 addition to base aid for community colleges. There is a small amount for faculty positions, which is really not an add-on but a restoration of what was in the budget last year. If you net this out, there is a total reduction of $3 million from the Governor’s budget.

The strategy that we are working on is that very soon we are going to work with the Faculty Senate and other constituencies here in the University. We must have a strategy that is different than the one we’ve had before. Clearly the Assembly is strongly supportive of the University. I am quite surprised that the Senate came out with the budget that they did, because I have had several meetings with Senator Lavalle and Senator Bruno. I have reported on these meetings. I know that a number of you have been doing the same. Bob King has been having these meetings. There has been great encouragement about the need for faculty positions and restoring the University with respect to areas that it has suffered mightily with. Then this budget came out, and it took us by great surprise. It may be in reaction to this very strong support coming from the Assembly. All roads will lead to political considerations. At the end of the day, we will have a budget that will exceed what the Governor has proposed.

We really have to be vigilant. I can’t emphasize this enough. I am deeply concerned, and I think all of you feel the same way. The outer years look very troublesome. The financial and capital markets are closing down. There is going to be a very real shortfall in projected revenues that both the City and the State have for next year and the year after. Unless there is a remarkable turnaround, this will occur. What is invidious about this is that it is not just local. Those of you who read financial news know that what we are experiencing here is being experienced around the world. Our economy is no longer an isolated economy. It is deeply integrated with respect to other economies. We don’t act alone but in unison. I worry about this.

I don’t know if any of you caught a speech that Carl McCall he gave yesterday. He was hinting that government may be required again to start contributing to pensions of government workers. They have been relieved of this obligation over the past few years, in part because there has been so much liquidity and capital appreciation in the portfolios of the pension plans. As a result of this, there really wasn’t the need for government to put in more money. Indeed, we have been told that there is some excess capacity that the government thought they would need to put into our budgets, that they did not put in. We are looking for that excess capacity to be funneled back to the University. We are working on this. There are signs out there that there is some trouble ahead.

That fact is that this State, this year, will close its books with an operating surplus between $4-5 billion. Clearly, if any of you were in the executive position, you would want to take some of that money as a reserve against contingencies for outer years. Even with that, there is going to be a sizeable surplus. That’s why this is the year. I don’t know what is going to happen in outer years. This is the time for all of us to join hands and work together. We have to work together on the same themes. We have differences with respect to certain things, but there is a commonality that we all agree on. We have to work with that commonality. I will come forward with ideas for a strategy, perhaps getting some consultants to work with us. We don’t have too much time. We believe that these budget negotiations are going to go on for some time. This is going to be a rancorous budget season with a lot of very difficult issues. School aid will be right at the top, as well as problems with hospitals.

There is concern about softening and coming to the end of a business cycle that we haven’t experienced in this country. The tragedy with this University and with SUNY is that we didn’t hit in the last ten years. I am tired of hearing myself say it, but it just jumps off of the page when you see how much wealth and liquidity was available in this State, and none of it chased public higher education. The Senate bill is very generous in the off-balance-sheet kind of dollars that don’t typically go to fund the operating budget of many of the private institutions in this State. We have to have a strategy that deals with the Senate, and we will.

On seeking revenue, I was down in Washington, D.C. last week. This time I was there with Vice Chancellor Mirrer and Vice Chancellor Schaffer. We were working through our congressional delegation in the City. We have now seen just about everybody in our two trips. We are going to do some local trips as well. We are looking for resources to support some of the activities we are anxious to move ahead. I am guardedly optimistic that we are going to be successful. We are really doing a lot more centrally in the area of fundraising. I am trying to push the presidents. The word is getting out. I am getting calls more and more from the presidents. They are saying, "I got this" or "I got that." People are starting to understand that there is a responsibility of the executives on our campuses to lead the institution in acquiring resources that go back to the campuses. I think we are going to have some real successes at 80^th Street. These are critically important times to do this on all of our campuses.

Harold Levy and I have appointed Joan Mahan Powell, who is retiring as a member of the Board of Education, to replace Larry Edwards as the Deputy to the Chancellor. This has worked well with Larry. We now have open doors between the Board of Education and CUNY. Those opportunities are helping us to think about the K-16 fabric that we all talk about. One of the exciting things that I think all of you have been reacting to is the 2000 census. This City has really been transformed. It is remarkable what has happened in this City in ten years. Most notably in Brooklyn and Queens, there has been an increase in population, and an increase in immigrant groups, in large numbers. I think that these are the families that are going to be sending their children to this University, as our families did. It is a wonderful time for this University to keep its doors open and welcoming for all of these new people who are coming to this country to change there lives. What better institution is there to help them?

There is a "Study with the Best" brochure where we are highlighting our faculty and our programs. We now have the "Best" brochure in Spanish, French, Chinese, Korean, and Russian. It is being circulated widely throughout this City so that these new groups really get to hear about CUNY. We are working tirelessly on weekends. We had big events at Co-Op City, Fort Hamilton High School, and York College. We are going to have events at Flushing High School, one in northern Manhattan with Ed Sullivan, and at Lehman High School with Senator Guy Vilella. We are really opening up these institutions to attract students and communities that haven’t been involved as much in CUNY. It is starting to work, because our applicant pool has increased. We will see what we will get in terms of students enrolling at the institution. I’m fairly optimistic that we are going to have a strong enrollment at our institution. I think that we really have to pull it all up so that the University is out of harm’s way with respect to revenue.

I’m going to conclude with one other thing. We are going to do something that sounds a little quirky, but I think it’s an interesting marketing idea to get people to pay attention to CUNY. Do you remember in the 1950’s the scavenger hunts in New York? On the radio you would hear things and everybody would rush to the Cyclone in Brooklyn and try to find something worth $50,000. We’re going to have a scavenger hunt using the CUNY web site. We have been working with all of the campuses to make sure that when you pull up your pages there are no spelling errors, etc. The idea is to get people to visit the CUNY web site, and then the questions force you to go to all of the campus web sites. You are forced by these questions to become familiar. The prizes are 100 one-year subscriptions to the New York Times, and entrance to a number of performing art institutions.

Professor Manassah (Electrical Engineering, City College) - "I would like to thank Deputy Chancellor Mirrer for following up my question of last meeting with a memo. I am not going to discuss the content of that memo or that particular case, but I want to raise an issue of governance. Let’s start with the approval of a curriculum. First the curriculum is approved by the curriculum committee of the department, then it is approved by the curriculum committee of the school, then it goes to the Provost. Assuming that there is a disagreement, I would like to know what mechanisms are in place at the University when a disagreement occurs between faculty bodies and the Provost over curriculum. I hope the answer is not going to be that the Provost has veto power. As I read through our governance rules, I didn’t feel that was the intention. What are the processes and mechanisms in place that one needs to follow?" /

Chancellor Goldstein - If anything is going to be submitted to the central office for assignment to a committee, and then ultimately to the Board for approval, it needs to be submitted by the president of the campus. That’s what we do. If the president submits it, we look at it and do whatever evaluations are necessary. If there are no problems or inconsistencies, then the Vice Chancellor will discuss it with me and we will bring it to the appropriate Board committee for action. / Professor Manassah - "Does that process allow for a forum where you can hear both points of view?" / Chancellor Goldstein - I think there are ways to communicate with the Chancellery. It doesn’t necessarily have to be with the president, although we hope that it would be with the president. This is not the gulag. We are an open institution. I get communications from faculty all of the time. When I read something that I find is compelling, I pick up the phone and speak to a Vice Chancellor or a President directly. If you feel that there is an egregious action that is being taken, you have a way to communicate with me or someone in the Chancellor’s staff.

Professor Cooper (History, College of Staten Island) - "Could you tell us whether or not the proposed Senate budget in Albany cuts SUNY as it does CUNY?" / Chancellor Goldstein - I don’t have the numbers in front of me, but there are cuts at SUNY as well. In fact, I had a discussion with Bob King. He had the same issue with faculty positions. That is what jumps off of the page. I think that we are in a stronger position this year, because SUNY is asking for faculty positions. The only thing they got was restorations of what was taken out by the Governor. They didn’t get anything additional. I can get you copies of that information. / Professor Cooper - "This is exceedingly curious. This is a first." /

Professor Crain (Psychology, City College) - "I am concerned about the issue of student and faculty public consultation and input. At yesterday’s Board meeting, there was a community college report that was approved. There was a theoretical increase in the Executive Pay Plan, not for actual people, but an increase in the structure of it. There was an approval of a president for City College. Nobody had an opportunity to go to any public hearings on the first two items. The items were not on the agenda; they just appeared. The presidential search was rushed. We were desperately calling a meeting on Friday afternoon for the faculty, students, and staff. We were talking about who we would recommend for president. By that afternoon we heard that the decision had already been made. We have spent a lot of time trying to figure out where we stood on a search. It was so rushed that it was difficult." /

Chancellor Goldstein - Let me start with the last issue. The search lasted ten months. The Search Committee is formulaic. The structure of the City College Search Committee is no different than the structure of any other search committee. There are a number of trustees, I believe five, three faculty, two students, an alumnus, and a president. It is formulaic. The Search Committee received about 40 people. That list was culled down to a smaller list. The people were brought in for interviews. There were people on the Search Committee who were there for some of the interviews, and not there for other interviews. At some point, the guidelines stipulate that the Search Committee reports out candidates to the Chancellor. Those candidates then go to the campus. Here is where it is a little less formulaic.

Each campus decides on the number and the type of constituencies that the candidates will seek. In this particular case there were three candidates, Gregory Williams, Robert Reinstein, and Wesley Harris. Wesley Harris had dropped out early, right after the Hunter Search. I worked on him to come back in the search. He was back in the search, and then just as we were about to have a campus visit, he called and said, "My wife does not want to live in New York." It was final. We sent two people. The City College had a long list of constituencies, students, department chairs, faculty senate representation, a review committee, distinguished professors, an alumni group, vice presidents, deans, a community group, etc. At the end, I got written reports from every one of those committees on their reaction to these candidates. I think we have a first class president that was appointed. Gregory Williams is a very substantial man who cares deeply about City College. I spoke to his wife, and to him several times over the weekend. They are very excited about coming to City College. He believes in its mission, and he has a lot of energy and ideas. With a lot of help from faculty and others on the campus, I think that Greg Williams is going to make a real difference in the life of City College. I don’t think that there was any breach in practice. If anything, I think that we were assiduously attentive to process here for City College.

With respect to the raise, there was no raise. Whenever there is a management change in compensation, it immediately hits by law to the executive. All it did was increase the upper bound of the executive compensation. Not one person has been given a raise. The State just said, "You have 3% more money, make the adjustment." That’s why it wasn’t voted on.

With respect to the Community College Report, this report was not placed as an item that was voted on as policy for the University. This is a document which is an adaptive document for discussion about community colleges. There are a lot of suggestions and recommendations in that report. Nothing is being done with it. That committee is going to continue to operate. It is really a document that serves as a basis for discussion. What in that document will ultimately become a policy of the University? I don’t know. I think it needs to have a much more ubiquitous airing than it did. This was a very small Board committee without great representation across the University. This was a Board committee that was put together to develop a discussion document that now really needs to be aired in the wider community. We have a long way to go with what we are going to do with some of those recommendations. Nilda Ruiz said that there were 50 recommendations in the document. It needs to be aired in the community now. Things will be pulled from it, and things will be added to it. It is an adaptive process. / Professor Crain - "We have to know what is coming on the agenda. It is part of the democratic process." / Chancellor Goldstein - It never went through a committee, it was never something that was voted on. This was just something that the committee was reporting on. / Professor Crain - "It has quite strong implications, once you get a report in motion."

Professor Hastick (Social and Behavioral Sciences, Medgar Evers College) - "Tonight I am the messenger. I have been asked by our faculty senate to clarify the evaluation of department chairpersons. We were told in a recent meeting of the faculty, that Medgar Evers College is moving forward with the evaluation of chairpersons, despite rejections and resistance from faculty. Is this a process that we are moving forward with? Has it been clarified? We have nothing in writing. We were told that some forms will be coming forward." /

Chancellor Goldstein - Several months ago I wrote to the presidents to say I believed that it is their obligation as managers to sit down with department chairs, and to coordinate the process of where the campus is going. We have now created an executive compensation plan. What it really is, other than salary, is the Chancellor sitting down with each president and working out where the president, in consultation with staff and faculty, is moving the institution. It is not meant to be a document to hit somebody over the head with, and say you haven’t performed. It really is a way to understand where the institution is going. As we talk about the integrated University, this has particular importance. We really can’t, with the limited resources we have, allow the campuses to act as a federation of campuses that are going off in every direction. We just don’t have the money to do that. If we did, I would have no objection.

We really have to have a much more coordinated approach. This is why I have asked each of the presidents to sit with me to ensure that their thinking is consistent with the overall thinking of the University, while trying to maximize degrees of freedom for each individual campus. Consistent with that approach, I don’t think "evaluation" is a good word. I don’t think of this as an evaluation. I believe that it is important for the president to look at the chair. There is a bifurcated responsibility here. The chair is elected by the faculty, and that is fine. We have ways of evaluating chairs as faculty, and we do. But we really do need to ensure that the president knows what the chair is doing with respect to moving that department consistent with where the college is going and consistent with where the University is going.

All I was asking and requiring is evidence that there is a dialog, so that the president really knows what the chairs are doing, and to ensure that there is some consistency with the approach that the college is taking. The problem that arose was that there was some form that was developed at some point in the past that presidents thought would be helpful, and would require people to sign. When I was made aware of it, I said that I don’t think a form is necessary. If they want to use a form, and everyone is comfortable with it, that is fine. What I was concerned about is the president getting the information. That’s really what this is about. Does that clarify things for you? / Professor Hastick - "It certainly does. It is very different from what we have been told." / Chancellor Goldstein - That is the reality of what it is, and I think that it is important that every president does this. We just don’t have the wherewithal to move in every direction.

Professor Perlstein (Governance Leader,, Borough of Manhattan Community College) - "The BMCC faculty is concerned that the new technology is undermining what has been the historic commitment of CUNY to the first amendment and academic freedom. What I mean specifically is that we now have an internal e-mail system at BMCC. We were suddenly notified that any message sent to the entire faculty, by a faculty member, has to be cleared by the Vice President for Academic Affairs before it is posted. The faculty has no objection to a set of rules for reasonable use of the system. The procedure that is in effect at the moment seems to be a flat out violation of the legal responsibilities." / Chancellor Goldstein - This is the first time I am hearing of this. I will look into it. /

Professor Philipp (Biology and Chemistry, The Graduate Center) - "The question pertains to your emphasis on the presidents being involved in certain money matters. Will this be reported, as other colleges and universities do, in the Chronicle of Higher Education in terms of their endowment fund and its growth?" / Chancellor Goldstein - Each of the campuses must have foundations. Those things are audited financial statements. We get them, and they are a matter of public record. / Professor Philipp - "Will they be reported to the Chronicle of Higher Education in the future?" / Chancellor Goldstein - I never thought about it. I hope that we have enough money to report it to the Chronicle.

Professor Beaky (English, LaGuardia)- "I want to ask about the Community College Report. We are very unhappy about the whole process. There was a faculty member on the committee, and this person was not permitted to give meaningful input. You called it an "adaptive document." What does that mean?" / Chancellor Goldstein - Adaptive means that it is going to evolve over time and change over time. I am going to be given a document, and I will forward it to Louise Mirrer. She will initiate a discussion with appropriate bodies, faculty bodies and Board bodies, to really start going through this document, picking out best practices, and thinking of ways to make the community colleges as good as they can become. It is really a document to say, are there things in here that can improve the community colleges as we see them. When I say "adaptive," I mean that it is going to be discussed, moderated, expanded, and changed over time as more and more people influence the discussion.

a. Chair: Let me mention that some time ago the Chairman of the Board created a committee to look at the community colleges. We pressed that there would be a member of the faculty, that we had chosen, to be on that committee. Eva Richter did serve on the committee and felt ill used by the end of that period. We will come back to a resolution about ill usage. The committee never actually considered the report before it was released two weeks ago. There was a draft, which in CUNY usually means that it is the final report. That has been the case for 40 years unfortunately. The report was sent to the members of the committee less than a week before the responses were required to possibly be incorporated. They thought that that was ample. There were things in the report which nobody in the committee had seen during the various times the committee convened, even though there are those who would tell untruths about the fact that they had seen it. Last night I had a talk with the community college president who sits with the committee. When I said that there was something that was never looked at, he said of course there was. We will discuss that a little bit later at the end of the meeting. I want to express my personal thanks, and the Senate’s thanks to Eva for suffering through this.

As you probably noticed in the New York Times, and heard from Bill and some others discussing it, last night a new presidency came in. This makes the seventh president appointed on this Chancellor’s watch. My sense is that by the end of the year, there will be more. The Queens search will almost certainly not initiate until after the summer. The sense of most people is that, if you start a new search now, you aren’t going to have people leaving their universities to come here. There will be a search beginning with Queens, and there will be several other vacancies by July. The University is being completely transformed by this Chancellor, in the sense that one of the acts the presidents commit before they take the job is an act of fealty to the Chancellery, for better or worse.

Let me remind this body that April is the last session of this Senate. May is the first session of the next Senate. Therefore it is very important that you complete the elections on your campuses for the membership of the Senate. The incumbents will remain in place until their replacements come on. We distributed a Plenary attendance sheet with numbers. You should consider it for the next election. There are some people who have never been here, or are hardly ever here. It seems to me that governance requires serious participation.

The Assembly bill is a nice thing to talk about; however my various sources tell me that it is mostly fictitious. The things that look good for us, are just not going to happen because there isn’t anything close to enough money for it to occur. This is due to various things, such as the school aid bill, and the hospital problems. Please don’t raise your expectations about what is going to happen with this bill. Most everybody agrees that the earliest they are going to have a budget is late August or early September. This is obviously going to create some problems for hiring.

Professor Kaplowitz (English, John Jay College) - "Since Sandi asked the Chancellor a question about the State Senate’s proposal about SUNY, I have the information. I will be posting it on the CUNY Forum. The net decrease for SUNY recommended by the State Senate is $2.8 million. The Senate has rejected the Governor’s proposal authorizing differential tuition levels for graduate and professional programs. There are some increases, but there are $11.4 million in reductions, so the net decrease is $2.8 million." / Chair Sohmer - The differential tuition statement in the Senate bill is barring both CUNY and SUNY from instituting differential tuition.

Professor Cooper (History, College of Staten Island) - "This issue has periodically arisen in the some 20 odd years that I had to do with the Board Committee on Academic Program Planning. The stand that the Senate took in the past, and we may want to change it, was that these issues should be resolved on the campuses. We were always worried about 80^th Street mandating academic programs. There is usually nobody in the Academic Affairs Office with the expertise to make decisions. You may end up with a decision you like. But most likely we will end up with decisions that we can choke on. That position was the position that the Senate took in the past. Furthermore, according to the authority that created this Senate, there are issues that we are not allowed to touch, campus curriculum being one of them." / Chair Sohmer - The Executive Committee can certainly consider the process. / Professor Cooper - "I understand that. But I am saying that in the past we tried very hard to avoid having an academic decision being made in the Office of Academic Affairs, for reasons that I think are fairly clear. I’m not suggesting that it not be considered, and that something better cannot come about." / Chair Sohmer - The Executive Committee may decide that there is a better way, and we will move toward it.

Professor Richter (English, Kingsborough Community College) - "The committee was charged by the Board Chairman to review the missions of CUNY’s six community colleges, and to consider the role the respective colleges might play in a fully integrated university system. The committee was to make recommendations regarding a desirable balance between liberal arts, professional, and vocational programs in the community colleges. Finally, the committee was to consider the position of the community colleges in the context of a flagship environment.

I think that we know the drill and the jargon. It comes out of the idea of the corporate university, which is structured from the top down, led by the chairman of the board. Second of all: the idea of competition, specifically colleges competing against one another, against their records, and against everybody for a little slice of the pie. What happened was that there were a number of different conversations about the missions of the community colleges. None of that appeared in the report. There were conversations about the transferability from the community colleges to the senior colleges. There was conversation about all sorts of things including the idea of "value added." This concept was new to me. It is the idea of performance indicators establishing a bottom line for the performance of the community colleges, and then we would try to better those every year. We would be competing against ourselves. The teeth of this whole proposal was that the budget would be tied to the performance of the various colleges.

This has appeared in the report in a series of recommendations that were never discussed in the context of the meetings. Ideas were floated and mentioned, but to have had this come out in the form of 50 exact proposals was never really discussed. We had seven meetings all together. In June, the chairman of the committee, Nilda Ruiz, said that we now had the basis for a number of recommendations. These recommendations were very general. They were put up on the web site by Bill Phipps. Nobody had any particular objections to them, but they still didn’t constitute the specificity of the recommendations that are now in this report. When I was sent the draft report, under the seal of confidentiality, I was given three days to respond to it. Bernie was kind enough to write a letter at that point saying that the process of consultation had been non-existent.

This started an exchange of letters. I finally went to the Executive Committee for advice and direction. They suggested that I do answer the report. I came out with a letter with ten points, taking up several of their recommendations and objecting to them one by one. It seems to me that the report reflects a number of ideas, namely the global feeling of the Trustees around the University that we should be a corporate enterprise. Secondly, there is a relegation of the community colleges to the position of provider of services to students who are about to go out into the commercial world. In other words, it talks a great deal about the addition of certificate programs, and the transfer of non-credit certificate programs into credit bearing programs. It talks a great deal about transferring non-credit bearing courses to credit bearing courses, and non-credit certificates to credit bearing certificates, and then transferring these to the senior colleges.

The report talks about a core curriculum, in violation of all the discussions that we have had about the core curricula, in the various colleges. I don’t know if the final report has changed that or not. It pays very little attention to the liberal arts basis of the community colleges. There are glancing remarks about it, but there is no guarantee that all the programs at the community colleges will have a liberal arts basis so that they can be transferred to a senior college. Nor does it discuss what the liberal arts education is supposed to do for our students. Such is the report. I need not tell you that I was dismayed by this. The claim of consultation is mocked simply by the fact that none of the recommendations had been passed. There was no discussion of the report once it was written. An advisor to the report was mentioned in the preamble to the report. I had never met this person, and had no idea that this person was part of the committee. All of these violations of the process of consultation have occurred. I asked for an extension of the deadline. It was extended until Friday. I got my objections in on Friday and on Monday the complete report was submitted, adopted, passed, and that is it.

Chair Sohmer – Fortunately, it has not been adopted or passed. It has been received. That doesn’t mean that it won’t do any harm. What was written had little to do with anything except the Schmidt Report.

Professor Cooper (History, College of Staten Island) - "The recommendation that non-credit bearing work in certificate programs become transferable to credit bearing degrees --doesn’t that strike you as a violation of the State Education Law." / Chair Sohmer – Yes, I am almost certain it does.

b. Resolution on the disapproval of the Board of Trustees Community College Report entitled, "Rising to the Challenge: Exemplary Community Colleges in a Revitalized City University of New York."

Professor Farrell (Chair of the Community College Caucus, Kingsborough Community College) - We bring the resolution that the University Faculty Senate expresses its disapproval of the Board of Trustees Community College Report entitled, "Rising to the Challenge: Exemplary Community Colleges in a Revitalized City University of New York," for the following key reasons.

1. The report downgrades and narrows community colleges to job training centers.

2. The report represents a wholesale desertion of the ideal of liberal arts and science education at community colleges.

3. The report represents the de facto end of open admissions by excluding some students from community college academic programs.

4. The report makes no provision for governance procedures to routinely ensure the integrity of courses given in community colleges.

5. The report is dismissive of faculty input.

Chair Sohmer - This is a resolution, which needs a second. Any discussion?

[Unidentified Speaker] - "I am not opposing the motion. I am asking the question, is someone planning on moving something to criticize the process that created this report? Otherwise, I think this motion should have more parts to it which do that."

Professor Reitano (Social Sciences, LaGuardia Community College) - "I support this resolution because the Community College Committee Report is a sham and a travesty. As such, it is a perfect reflection of the Board of Trustees under the leadership of Herman Badillo. The report is not just about community colleges, but symbolizes Badillo’s approach to the entire University. First, the report has been promulgated in the most autocratic way, making a mockery of shared governance. Second, it substitutes market demands for academic objectives, and redefines community colleges as trade schools. Third, it demeans higher education per se, by threatening to use funding and real consequences to reward and punish institutions in accordance with linear performance indicators such as graduation, retention, and employment rates. Fourth, it dismantles open admissions at the community colleges by seeking alternatives for remediation. Thus will CUNY’s community colleges become the first in the nation to close the open door? Overall the report embodies Badillo’s reactionary approach to education, informed primarily by his political ambitions, and the conservative counsel of the Manhattan Institute where he is now an honorary fellow. We must go on record as opposing him and his insidious policies, which are systematically destroying the historic egalitarian mission of this University."

Professor Crain (Psychology, City College) - "I was trying to write down Joanne’s comments as she was saying them. Typically the committees have to put on the agenda something when it is going to appear. The Board serves the community. How is the community supposed to know that this was coming, without it being on the agenda? It makes a mockery of public input. I want to add those words to what Joanne said."

Chair Sohmer - That is an amendment. Is it seconded? We are now on the amendment.

Professor Crain (Psychology, City College) - "The amendment is, "The document was promulgated in an autocratic manner making a mockery of shared governance and opportunity for public input."

Chair Sohmer - That is the amendment before you, let us second it.

[Unidentified Speaker - Off Microphone]

Chair Sohmer - The amendment is before you. All of those in favor of calling the question? The question is before you. All those in favor of the amendment? Against? It is passed. We now have the original motion as amended.

Professor London (Political Science, Brooklyn College) - "I certainly support the motion as amended. I just want to share with the body the action that the union is taking with respect to this situation. Bill referred to this as a mockery. It also makes a mockery of the contract. The contract requires that there be consultation with the union, with the proposal of policies that will change the terms and conditions of employment. There are a number of places in the draft plan where you find changes in terms and conditions that are contemplated. We will raise this at the Labor Management meeting on Friday. If we do not receive satisfaction we will contemplate going forth with a grievance. We think that the University must live up to its agreements. Fortunately this is in the contract. We want to be sure that we are consulted in the process. If this helps provide a public forum and expands the consultation process, our objective will be achieved."

Professor Hampton (Senator Elect, Hunter College) - "I just wanted to ask a question, because I think Sandi’s point about one of the recommendations being illegal is an important point. Since we are considering illegality, intent is also important. Intent in being legally defined as "known" or "should be known." Along those lines, I’m wondering whether we could consider adding something like "Implementation of certain recommendation in the report would compromise the integrity of senior college degrees in ways that are patently illegal." / Professor Cooper - "They compromise community college degrees too." / Professor Hampton - "Sometimes we think that senior colleges aren’t affected by this." / Chair Sohmer - I suggest that some of the recommendations would potentially violate State Education Law and impact adversely on the integrity of the community college and senior college degrees, were they to be implemented.

Chair Sohmer - I believe that is a proposed amendment. Is there a discussion of the proposed amendment? There is a motion to call the question, is there a second? The question is called. All those in favor? All those in favor of the amendment? Without dissent. We now have this doubly amended resolution before you. Is there any further discussion? There is a motion to call the question. Is there a second? All those in favor of calling the question say "aye." All those in favor of this resolution as amended say "aye."

Professor Sank (Anthropology, City College) - "At the last meeting there was a discussion about the resolution commending Chancellor Goldstein. The discussion that followed indicated that perhaps there should be an addition to that regarding the searches that had not yet been completed at Hunter and at City, whether the original resolution should be amended or whether a second resolution should be made. The discussion ended with the thought that the second resolution should be made. The point is, Sandi Cooper did indicate that we should come out with the resolution for the next Plenary urging the Chancellor, and those members of the Board of Trustees who understand their own obligation, to stick to their principles. Did the Executive Committee come up with that?" / Chair Sohmer - I’m afraid it will have to wait until the next meeting." / Professor Sank - I would like to raise something that I didn’t get an opportunity to raise to the president. I was going to say that the situation at City College, where the new president was appointed by the Board of Trustees, is really a very serious problem. I think it merits attention. There were three finalists, as the Chancellor indicated. One dropped out, and then there were two. We were told that Williams had to make a decision about another position by Monday, so we were forced to make a decision with only two candidates. The faculty felt that we should have had three candidates. The students expressed their views on this as well very eloquently. The overall feeling was that Williams was not the one that we would have chosen. The faculty met on Friday, but we were supposed to meet on Monday when the Board was to vote. At that meeting, the faculty argued this whole issue and finally came to the Resolution that they supported the other candidate, Reinstein, not Williams. The faculty and students indicated that they were displeased with the whole process. We felt that the search should be extended and continued. There was also a survey that was collected at the two meetings. I assumed that we would learn the results of that survey. We were told that it was sent to the Board of Trustees without anybody at City College knowing the results. This is what I wanted to ask the Chancellor: what were the results of that survey? Did it indicate support for one or the other, or neither? We were distressed that both candidates were very narrowly focused. They both came from professional law school backgrounds, and most of their careers were spent practicing law. We were also told that we couldn’t get any more candidates. The Chancellor said that there were 40 candidates. Why couldn’t they go to that list of 40 candidates and bring in a third candidate? The whole process was terrible. It was a rush to judgment. We didn’t have time to consider the situation. I really think a resolution should come from this body, if not condemning the process then to go back to what was suggested at the last meeting about a resolution about future searches and how they should be conducted. If we can’t have a minimum of three candidates, that is sad. There were 40 candidates. Some people said, that no one wants to come to City College. I doubt that."

Chair Sohmer - It seems to me that this body should comment on process. I hope that the members of the Executive Committee can come up with a resolution before the next meeting. The members of the Board of Trustees received the communication from the Chair of the Faculty Senate at City College, because I personally put it in each of their hands. It did not sway them.