Subject to Senate Approval

May 14, 2002

The meeting was called to order at 6:30 p.m. in Room 9206/9207 of the Graduate School and University Center. Eighty-three voting members were present:

Baruch: Present – Hill; Absent – Freedman, Majete, Onochie, Pollard, Sethi, and Wiley. BMCC: Present – Aymer, Friedman, Neis, Price, Vozick, and White; Absent – none. Bronx CC: Present – Gonsher, Tanaka-Kuwashima, and Jose Lopez-Marron; Absent – Read and Skinner. Brooklyn: Present – Antoniello, Bell, Jacobson, London, Moriber, Romer, Shapiro, Sheridan, Tobey, and Alternates Bloomfield and Sardy; Vacancies – 1. CCNY: Present – Connorton, Crain, Manassah, Sank, and Sohmer; Absent – none; Vacancies – 5. CSI: Present – Cooper, Foleno, Klibaner, Levine, and Yousef; Absent – L’Amoreaux. CUNY Law School: Present – McArdle; Absent – Andrews and Goode. Graduate School: Present – Baumrin; Absent – Kulkarni, Nair and Ofuatey-Kodjoe. Hostos CC: Present – Vasillow; Absent – Canate and Italia; Vacancies – 1. Hunter: Present - Doss, Friedman, Krishnamachari, Kurzman, Matthews, and Wallach; Absent –Hampton, Sherrill, and Wimberly; Vacancies – 1. John Jay: Present – Bohigian, Holder, Kaplowitz, Richardson, Wylie-Marques and Alternate Cochran; Absent – Mandery. Kingsborough CC: Present – Farrell, Galvin, Goodkin, O’Malley, and Alternate Fridman; Absent – Barnhart. LaGuardia CC: Present – Beaky, Lerman, Mettler, Reitano, and alternate Davidson; Absent – Gallagher. Lehman: Present – Mineka, Philipp, and Alternate Burke; Absent – Avani, Hoching, Josay, and Tananbaum. Medgar Evers: Present – Barker, Harris-Hastick, and Alternates Hickerson, Leocal, and Patwary; Absent Bennett and Donohue. NYC Technical: Present – Cermele, Dreyer, Horelick, Hounion, Richardson, Walter, and Alternate Courdileone; Absent – None. Queens: Present – Erickson, Frisz, Moore, Savage, and Speidel; Absent – none; Vacancies – 6. Queensborough CC: Present - Barbanel; Absent – Specht, Tully, and Weiss. Vacancies – 2. York: Present – Cooper, Frank, Lewis, and Moss; Absent – None.

Governance Leaders present: Baumrin (GSUC), Friedheim (BMCC), Kaplowitz (John Jay), Levine (CSI), Manassah (CCNY), Mettler (LaG), O’Malley (KCC), Rodriguez (Hunter), and Tobey (Brooklyn). Faculty guests were Dahbany-Miraglia and Richter. Executive Director Phipps, Administrative Assistant Pasela, and Secretary Blanchard were present. 

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

II. Approval of the Minutes: The minutes of April 23, 2002, were adopted as proposed.

III. Reports:

A. Chair (recorded in Reports & Deliberations)   

B. Representatives to Board Committees (written)

C. Faculty Advisory Committee to the Research Foundation (recorded in Reports & Deliberations)   

IV. Nominations and Election of Officers and Members-at-Large of the Executive Committee: (recorded in Reports & Deliberations)

V. New Business:

A. Resolution on Reasonable Accommodations for CUNY Faculty and Staff with Disabilities – Adopted unanimously by voice vote as amended.

Whereas, Section 504 of the Federal Rehabilitation Act of 1973 established the legislative obligation for all colleges and universities receiving Federal dollars to increase physical and programmatic access and to provide auxiliary aids and prohibit discriminatory procedures and states in part (as amended): "No otherwise qualified person with a disability in the United States . . . shall, solely on the basis of disability, be denied access to, or the benefits of, or be subjected to discrimination under any program or activity provided by any institution receiving federal financial assistance [italics added]," and

Whereas, the Americans With Disabilities Act of 1990 and the Reauthorization of the Rehabilitation Act of 1992 further iterate the responsibilities of both the public and private sector to make all necessary accommodations for individuals with disabilities accessing programs and services, and

Whereas, an established procedure exists on each CUNY each campus for students with disabilities to request reasonable accommodations, and a budget is provided at each campus to provide those accommodations for students with documented disabilities, and

Whereas, there is no established CUNY procedure for CUNY faculty and staff with documented disabilities to request reasonable accommodations (and procedures that do exist on some campuses are neither clear nor consistent) nor is there a budget at most, if at any, CUNY colleges to provide such accommodations for faculty and staff, and

Whereas, the lack of written, clear, and promulgated CUNY-wide procedures and the lack of college funding to provide accommodations may cause some faculty/staff accommodations to be seriously delayed or not provided at all, a condition that has caused and may continue to cause increased disability and suffering and to occasion successful grievances and lawsuits, as well as diminished productivity and ill will,

Therefore Be It Resolved, that the University Faculty Senate calls on the Chancellor to ensure that:

· CUNY presidents be provided with a written directive explaining the legal mandates for colleges to provide reasonable accommodations (and access) when requested to faculty and staff and other members of the CUNY community, including guests, who have a disability;

· Colleges provide a budget to ADA/504 Coordinators* for reasonable accommodations (and access) for faculty and staff with disabilities, beginning no later than the start of the Fall 2002 semester;

· CUNY-wide procedures governing requests by faculty and staff with disabilities for reasonable accommodations (and access) be established, in writing, and widely promulgated throughout the CUNY community and posted on the CUNY homepage, no later than the beginning of the Fall 2002 semester;

 

· Such written procedures be distributed to newly hired faculty and staff at the time of their hiring.

 

*The College ADA/504 Coordinator is usually the College’s Director of the Office of Affirmative Action, Compliance, and Diversity.

B. Resolution on Monitoring of Overhead Recovery Accounts – Adopted unanimously by voice vote as amended.

Whereas, each CUNY College is reimbursed by the RFCUNY for all the overhead charged to the grants and contracts developed by its faculty and staff except for an administrative fee, now at 7 3/4% of the total value of each grant; and

Whereas, each CUNY College is reimbursed for the full amount of faculty reassigned time charged to grants and contracts; and

Whereas, each CUNY College is credited with its share of the interest proceeds earned from the pool of Colleges Reserve Accounts maintained by RFCUNY; and

Whereas, the expenditures from any of the above funds accounts are not subject to the usual restrictions and monitoring imposed by the State on tax-levy funds; and

Whereas, this flexibility in the allocations of these funds has on a number of occasions resulted in the non-congruence of the expenditures with the provenance of these funds; and

Whereas, the purpose of these funds has always been understood and accepted by the concerned Faculty to be seed money intended to support, nurture and develop further research activities and educational programs on the campuses; now therefore

Be it resolved that the UFS recommends that:

1. Each campus faculty governance body establish an oversight committee on Overhead Recovery Funds, that will advise the President prior to the allocation of these funds, monitor the expenditure of these funds to insure compliance with their intended purpose, and submit a written report to the faculty once a year on their experiences

2. The majority of the membership of this oversight committee consist of the active researchers and Principal Investigators on externally-funded grants and contracts.

C. Resolution of Appreciation for Dr. Bernard Sohmer – Adopted unanimously by voice vote.

Whereas, Dr. Bernard Sohmer was elected Chair of the University Faculty Senate on May 19, 1998, and was reelected on May 16, 2000, and

Whereas, Bernard Sohmer, by virtue of his position, has also served as the Faculty Trustee on the Board of Trustees of The City University of New York during those four years, and

Whereas, Bernard Sohmer, as both Chair of the University Faculty Senate and as the Faculty Trustee, has dedicated himself to effectuating the mandate of the Board of Trustees Bylaws that the University Faculty Senate be responsible for the "formulation of policy relating to the academic status, role, rights and freedoms of the faculty, university level educational and instructional matters, and research and scholarly activities of university-wide import," and

Whereas, Bernard Sohmer’s leadership of the University Faculty Senate has been a vigorous and effective defense and championing of The City University of New York and of its students and faculty and of its mission, and

Whereas, Bernard Sohmer has worked with dedication and has drawn upon a reservoir of tremendous institutional memory to represent the faculty to the Trustees, to the Chancellory, to the College Presidents, to City and State Legislators, to other University constituencies, to national organizations, and to the general public, and

Whereas, Bernard Sohmer guided the University Faculty Senate during the last four years of the previous Mayor’s terms of office during which CUNY was subject to relentless and unwarranted attacks, and

Whereas, Bernard Sohmer wrote a powerful and comprehensive rebuttal to the Board of Regents after CUNY Trustees approved the 1999 policy phasing out remediation in the senior colleges and imposing new standardized barrier tests to student admission and advancement, and

Whereas, Bernard Sohmer took a strong stand against a newly imposed policy of annual reviews of department chairs by college presidents, which lead to its being clarified and circumscribed by the Chancellor, and

Whereas, Bernard Sohmer organized and coordinated the faculty response to the aspects of the CUNY Master Plan undermining CUNY's mission of both access and excellence, and

Whereas, Bernard Sohmer applied steady pressure to ensure that CUNY's first priority was and continues to be the hiring of more full-time faculty, which is now being reflected in many initiatives of the Chancellor and Board, and

Whereas, Bernard Sohmer, as Chair of the UFS, was one of the founding members in 1998 of the Committee for Public Higher Education, which coordinates a group of educational, civic, labor, religious, legal, public citizen, and public spirited community groups to sustain the campaign for open access to CUNY, and

Whereas, Bernard Sohmer, as Chair of the UFS, was an active member of the Friends of CUNY and has also helped preserve the CUNY Academy, therefore

Be It Resolved, That on the occasion of Bernard Sohmer’s completion of four years of dedicated service as Chair, the University Faculty Senate, on behalf of the entire CUNY faculty, expresses its sincere admiration and its heartfelt gratitude, and

Be It Further Resolved, That the University Faculty Senate declares Bernard Sohmer a permanent and venerated Institution.

D. Resolution to Honor Vice Chancellor Brabham on Her Departure from CUNY – Adopted unanimously by voice vote.

Whereas, Sherry Brabham has served CUNY as the Vice Chancellor for Budget since 1999, and

Whereas, Vice Chancellor Brabham has been an exemplary Vice Chancellor, committed to transparency of budget information of processes, and

Whereas, Vice Chancellor Brabham has consulted full and in good faith with faculty leaders, and especially with the faculty member of the Board of Trustees Committee on Fiscal Affairs and with the University Faculty Senate’s Budget Advisory Committee, with whom she meets regularly, often monthly, and

Whereas, Vice Chancellor Brabham’s commitment to budget transparency is exemplified by her sharing of all documents not only those requested but even those documents not known about and therefore not requested, and

Whereas, Vice Chancellor Brabham has served CUNY for 19 years in several capacities, including CUNY Budget Director, and Vice President for Finance of Queens College, and

Whereas, Vice Chancellor Brabham is leaving CUNY on June 14 to be Vice President and Chief of Staff of the New School,

Therefore, Be It Resolved, that the University Faculty Senate expresses its sincere and heartfelt admiration, gratitude, and appreciation of Sherry Brabham and,

Be It Further Resolved, that the University Faculty Senate wishes Sherry Branham every success and happiness in all her future endeavors.

E. Resolution to Honor Vice Chair Cecelia McCall on her Departure from the UFS – Adopted unanimously by voice vote.

Whereas, Professor Cecelia McCall has served as an exemplary, classy, and professional Vice Chair of the University Faculty Senate since 1998 for two consecutive terms, and

Whereas, Cecelia McCall has been an absolutely wonderful and invaluable member of the University Faculty Senate’s Executive Committee for many years, and

Whereas, Cecelia McCall has been a fabulous and invaluable delegate of the University Faculty Senate representing Baruch College, and

Whereas, Professor McCall, because of the tremendous press of duties as Secretary of the Professional Staff Congress, and as the Legislative Director of the PSC has decided she will be unable to be a members of the University Faculty Senate next year,

Therefore, Be It Resolved, that the University Faculty Senate expresses its heartfelt respect, admiration, appreciation, and affection to Cecelia McCall, and

Be It Further Resolved, that the University Faculty Senate expresses in advance its tremendous sense of loss at Cecelia’s absence from among the University Faculty Senate’s delegation, and

Be It Finally Resolved, that the University Faculty Senate looks forward to continuing to work with Cecelia McCall in her many extremely important roles at this University.

There being no further business, the meeting was adjourned at 8:10 p.m.

Respectfully submitted,

Bill Phipps, Executive Director

THE TWO HUNDRED EIGHTY-SEVENTH PLENARY SESSION

May 14, 2002

III. Reports:

A. Chair – I wanted to briefly reminisce over the fact that this is the end of my fourth year as chair of the Faculty Senate. It has been interesting, wearing, and not nearly as effectual as I hoped, but we have accomplished some things. There is probably a longer list of things not accomplished than accomplished. But we have positioned it so that the next Chair will have it very easy, I’m sure.

I’d like the body, please, to observe a moment of silence for a member of this body, Professor Pearson of the School of Architecture at City College, who was killed in a construction accident last week. He was a member of the Senate for many years and was one of the good people of the world.

C. Faculty Advisory Council (FAC) to the Research Foundation (RF) – Professor Manassah: As almost everybody in the room knows, the Council is a committee appointed by the University Faculty Senate with the mandate to represent faculty interests in the business of the RF of the City University of New York. For those people who may be new to this body, this is a 501C(3) non-profit organization that is charged with managing the post-award phase of grants and contracts awarded to the University. In addition to the chair of the Council, a position I was appointed to by the Executive Committee of the UFS in October, 2001 for a term of three years, three other faculty members elected by FAC from among its members serve on the 17-member Board of Directors of the RF. This report is a summary that I am submitting from a personal perspective in my capacity as appointed chair of the Council to the UFS upon the request of Chair Sohmer – this is chair’s report, not a committee report. I am summarizing both the achievements the Council made during the present academic year, and the difficulties we still have to overcome carrying out our mandate.

What were the achievements? One, as a result of an initiative spearheaded by the previous chair of the Council, Professor Manfred Philipp, the Board of Directors increased the annual allocation for doctoral student research fellowships from $600,000 to $1 million. This increase will moderately impact the number of fellowships offered in the year 2002-2003, but its full impact will only be achieved in the next year, meaning 2003-2004, when an associated recruitment effort can be fully implemented. Two, there are a number of indications that the quality of the contracts and grants department and other support unit services to project staff and principal investigators have improved qualitatively over the last year. Many attribute this improvement to the introduction of electronic tools to replace many routine paper transactions, such as position approval forms, time sheets, etc. The Council helped this effort by providing feedback to the Foundation’s chief operating officer. Third, the Council worked closely with the Foundation’s chief financial officer and his staff to improve the transparency of the Foundation’s financial reporting system. Supplements to the financial statements were added, giving additional details of potential interest to both granting agencies and members of the University community.

Professor Speidel – It’s really not necessary for him to read the report since it was given to us ahead of time. It may be appropriate to pick out some high points and do a Q & A, but it’s inappropriate to read the entire report.

Professor Manassah – OK. Those of you who have seen the reports of the Foundation in the past know that they were very, very opaque. The financial information that is found there would require an accountant and a consultant, with a third accountant to explain what the first two were saying – but this time it is being done more clearly. The first item that will be important in terms of the resolution, which was also distributed, is what the different colleges do with respect to the money they get back from the Research Foundation in terms of what’s called "overhead recovery money." There is approximately $20 million that goes back from the Research Foundation to the different colleges that are at the disposal of presidents and provosts. Let’s say the accounting for that has been less than perfect, in certain instances there have even been even some irregularities. We have not succeeded completely in getting all those numbers out, however I want you to know about the valiant effort that your colleagues did this year to force the numbers to become public – Laurel Cooley is not here, but she is responsible for doing most of that work with her colleges at York College.

City College was one of the experimental places where we were trying to see how good the reporting is, as far as what the colleges say they are spending the money on versus what the Foundation books say. Let’s say that the correspondence was not 1-to-1, as many would want it to be.

We have had some very serious difficulties within the Foundation. Effectively although the faculty members are full members of the Board, they really are not treated as such. We have the vote on the Board, but there are difficulties. For instance, there is not a slot on the agenda saying Report of the Faculty Advisory Council although the Bylaws say in no uncertain terms that the job of the Council is to advise the Board of Directors about faculty needs. Also, part of the money that’s taken as a management fee by the RF is kept in terms of funding certain research programs that are of high visibility and with good potential with respect to the University. Now what happened, instead of having the faculty involved in these things, they are being done as a decision between the Executive Director of the Foundation and the Office of the Vice Chancellor for Academic Affairs, with no faculty involvement. We come to know about these things at the same time that everybody else does.

Two other very bothersome things: some of the programs they announce to the University faculty to enter, they don’t tell people that sometimes some of those awards are made without peer review. In effect what happens is that some deans or other administrators decide this is greatly promising, so we should fund it. Another point, which I have talked about with the community college caucus earlier today, is the fact that there was some money tied specifically to collaboration between senior college and community college researchers, but all of a sudden some of the requirements have been blocked, and I became aware of it just incidentally. I asked who changed it, and they said we did. Did somebody talk to us, or to the community colleges? Of course, the answer was no.

The other thing is the basic lack of any courtesy – we can speak when we’re allowed to speak.

Baumrin – The case where the scope of the grants has been readjusted unilaterally by the Vice Chancellor’s office – I think that’s worth explaining in some detail.

Manassah – The centrally allocated budget is that part of the management fee that is reserved for internal grants. Among those internal grants are some to encourage people to do start-up research, or sometimes people are going out to some of the federal agencies, which insist there should be some matching funds coming from the colleges. There are some other programs, effectively like exploratory research, like when they wanted to do something about photonics or bioengineering. But then there was a whole budget in excess of one half million dollars a year, which was to couple researchers who are active but who are at community college and don’t have all the facilities that exist at the senior colleges which some of the experiments might require, and researchers at the senior colleges. And the idea was to use some of that money to encourage that kind of collaboration. In general it was a way of supporting the community colleges – not that they cannot do the research on their own – they just didn’t have the equipment. So some of that money was to pay for this kind of collaboration, but this was changed. So now it says collaborative, but it doesn’t specify anything; it’s left up to the judgment of whoever the reviewer is. So I appointed myself to a panel that is going to review those projects to make sure its original intent will be preserved.

Sohmer - Hearing no more questions, we can now move to the resolution. The resolution will arrange that on each campus, such monies will be monitored. [Senators A. Cooper, Bohigian, and Baumrin made grammatical amendments, which were accepted.] The question has been called; all in favor? The question is before you. All in favor say aye, against? It is passed unanimously.

There is an announcement from the Research Committee.

Professor Richardson – The Research Committee would like to let you know that we’re doing well in getting resumes of candidates to run for the UCRA, but we need people in Urban Studies and a few other areas. If you know anybody on your campuses who would be interested, please let us know. The deadline is May 17, and you can call Stasia Pasela at 212-794-5538, and my number is 718-260-5668. Thank you.

VII. Nomination and Election of Officers and Members-at-Large of the Executive Committee:

Professor Mettler, LaGuardia: [Alternates eligible to vote were called to the back table to receive ballots.] We’re going to conclude nominations, which were begun at the last meeting, we will hear speeches of no more than three minutes in support of nominations, then we will cast our ballots. The following nominations have been made:

For Chair, nominations are Susan O’Malley, Kingsborough Community College, and Manfred Philipp, Lehman College. Are there any additional nominations? Vote to close nominations? That is passed. [The candidates gave statements, and tellers then counted ballots. The result was a tie, 39-39. Since there is no provision for a tie, the Chair then instructed that voters reconsider and cast ballots again.] The winner is Professor O’Malley with 41 votes to 37.

For Vice Chair, the nominiation is Karen Kaplowitz, John Jay College. Are there any additional nominations for Vice-Chair? Unidentified speaker - I nominate Professor Manfred Philipp. Is there a motion that nominations be closed? A second? All in favor? Nominations are closed. [Professor Kaplowitz gave a statement; Professor Philipp waived doing so.]

The vote is 46 for Professor Kaplowitz, 29 for Professor Philipp, and 1 abstention.

For Secretary, the nomination is Lenore Beaky, LaGuardia Community College [There were no additional nominations. Professor Beaky gave a statement.]

The vote is 67 for Professor Beaky, 1 write-in for Professor Levine, with 3 invalid ballots.

For Treasurer, the nominees are Martha Bell, Brooklyn College, and Stefan Baumrin, Graduate Center. [There were no additional nominations; both candidates gave statements.]

The vote is 40 for Professor Bell, 32 for Professor Baumrin, 1 for Professor Levine, and 1 abstention.

For Members At-Large to the Executive Committee, the nominees are Jamal Manassah, City College; Anne Friedman, Borough of Manhattan Community College; Sandi Cooper, College of Staten Island. Are there any other nominations? [Professors Baumrin and Philipp were duly nominated.]

Those elected to at-large seats are: Professor Cooper, 62; Professor Hastick, 61; Professor Philipp, 57; Professor Friedman, 51; and Professor Baumrin, 50. Professor Manassah received 45 votes, and Professor Vozick, 20.

V. New Business:

A. Resolution on Reasonable Accommodations for CUNY Faculty and Staff with Disabilities

Professor Kaplowitz – I’m representing the Executive Committee, but this was proposed by the UFS Committee on Disability Issues, which is co-chaired by Professors Davidson and Neis. There are a whole series of Whereas clauses, but basically it says there is a legal mandate since 1974 that any institution receiving federal monies must provide reasonable accommodations to people with disabilities who request them. That includes, of course, CUNY. Now there is a budget in each college for students with disabilities, but there seems to be no budget at most of the colleges for faculty and staff who request accommodations. As a result, faculty or staff are being sent from one vice president to the other who disown jurisdiction. In the meantime the employee is becoming more disabled, suffers more, often has a grievance or lawsuit – all of which is avoidable. This resolution proposes four steps that we’re asking the Chancellor to ensure so this can be addressed. [She reads the steps aloud.] On behalf of the Executive Committee, I move this resolution.

Ruth Frisz – What kind of backup do we have through the PSC, because it seems to me this is a union issue, too?

Chair Sohmer - Certainly, were we to pass it, we would pass it along to all our PSC friends and ask them to encourage the implementation.

Eda Hastick – I would like to ask the maker of this resolution to add "access" wherever it says "accommodations." It should be both because in some old buildings, people in wheelchairs cannot get in because the doors are too narrow. Kaplowitz – You are correct. I accept that amendment.

George Shapiro – I move in the same spirit that the second Resolved clause be amended to say that funds for faculty and staff shall be "above and beyond their current budget for students," so that students do not lose funds at the expense of faculty and staff. [The motion was seconded.]

Don Davidson – I feel I have to disagree. We can’t tell the University where to get the money from; we just want to get it done.

[After further discussion, Professor Shapiro withdrew his amendment.]

B. Resolution on Monitoring of Overhead Recovery Accounts – See above.