Subject to Senate Approval

 b. Chancellor:   Let me just go through some things rather quickly, then I would like to take your questions.  On the 30-day amendment process that we go through after the Governor proposes a budget, we received consideration for one item that we petitioned for.  Obviously we petitioned the Governor in a number of areas.  We did get a $3 million infusion to work with 1199, The Health and Hospital Workers Union.  This will enable our colleges primarily in the Bronx to draw in a number of students that we have not been able to draw in before.  We are pleased with that.  We are going to try to get some additional funds as well. 

             We did sponsor on February 13^th a luncheon during the Black and Puerto Rican Caucus Conference in Albany.  I spoke at that conference.  It was very well attended, and there was a lot of good will for the City University of New York.  CUNY’s Women’s Presidents were in Albany today at a special meeting of the Women’s Legislative Caucus.  They will be addressing budget issues.  It is not just CUNY’s Women’s Presidents, but SUNY Women’s Presidents as well.  On the 12^th-13^th of March, the Board of Trustees and the Chancellery will be in Albany meeting with the leadership in the Senate and the Assembly.  We will do as much as we can to carry our message.  We have a number of borough hearings and meetings scheduled throughout the month of March and April, if necessary.  College visits to Albany and district offices are also taking place.  Assemblyman Sullivan and Assemblywoman Catherine Nolan have scheduled a hearing on CUNY’s and SUNY’s heavy reliance on adjuncts.  It is certainly something that we are deeply concerned about.   I will be testifying on March 1 before the Borough Presidents and on March 15^th I will be testifying before the City Council’s Finance and Higher Education Joint Committee. 

 I received a fax from Adam Barsky, the Director of OMB.  This was a form letter sent to all agency heads.  They have upped the ante on the PEG (Program to Eliminate the Gap) reductions.  Let me go over it with you.  The Mayor came out with his preliminary budget on January 25^th.  This is the Mayor’s Financial Plan, which is the precursor to the actual budget that the Mayor advances.  There is belief at City Hall that there is a slowdown in the economy, not only in the State of New York, but nationwide.  Revenue expectations are being revised almost on a daily basis.  There is the specter of the tax cuts that were enacted during the Mayor’s first term in office and the Governor’s tax cuts are starting to come into effect now. 

 When you have a reduction in revenue, due to not collecting as many tax dollars, you have a deficiency budget.  When we got the original PEG reduction for our community colleges a couple of months ago, we petitioned the Mayor.  The original number was $5 million, and we got it reduced twice.  The last number we were dealing with was a $900,000 reduction against this year’s budget.  The directive that I received yesterday increases that reduction of $900,000 by $2.4 million.  We are talking about a $3.3 million reduction for this fiscal year.  The language says that this is an exercise.  We have not been asked to eliminate any programs or to reduce our expenditures, but to file a plan. 

 We will petition again and work with the Council, as we did before, to get consideration.  This was across the board to all agency heads.  In addition to the PEG reduction for 2001, we have another exercise for PEG reduction for 2002, extending about $7.4 million over the PEG reduction we already worked on for 2002.  We are in a situation of a dynamic environment with the City.   These numbers are changing daily.  I think that some of you will see this if you call up your CREF accounts.  The markets are in some turmoil.  What has happened this year has had a very chilling effect on the ability of both the City and the State to have a certain level of support. 

 We are going to watch this very closely, and clearly do whatever we can to get this overturned.  We are still facing a maintenance of effort problem.  The Mayor has proposed about $5.5 million for additional faculty in his preliminary budget, as well as a $5 million addition to College Now.  We have $5 million in that program and this would bring it up to $10 million.  As that money was put in the left hand pocket, out of the right hand pocket came an equivalent amount of money.  If you add up $5.5 million and $5 million, you get $10.5 million.  $10.5 million came out of our maintenance of effort provision.   That may be coincidence, or it could be by design.  I don’t want to comment at this point, I just don’t know.  Obviously the maintenance of effort provision puts us on a much stronger plane, because this is statutorily required as the State enacts its budget and forces local sponsors to maintain the funding of the current fiscal year.  Of course if we get a reduction in this current fiscal year, it will have a chilling effect on maintenance of effort.  We are going to watch this very closely. 

            I typically don’t report on the federal side.  However, if you recall last year, we closed the federal office of the City University of New York.  It was quite expensive, and I never really believed it was generating the value for the expenditures.   This year and last year we took a very different approach.  We were in Washington, D.C. two weeks ago.  Staff from the Chancellery, Harold Levy, and I visited Hillary Clinton, Chuck Schumer, Nita Lowey, and Eliot Engel.  We are going back on March 21^st to visit with Charlie Rangle and Jose Serrano.  We are going to go to the New York Congressional Delegation.   We are going to meet all of the people that we think are important for the notion of the Teacher Empowerment Zone.  This is a whole panoply of programs which deals with our teacher education programs.  We have been greeted very warmly and genuinely by everybody.  The Teacher Empowerment Zone concept is our idea.  Harold Levy has bought into it in a very significant way, and is a true partner.   So is Randy Weingarten.  It is going to take the union, the schools, and the University to really join in partnership to do this in a very significant way.  I am very hopeful that if we are successful, as we believe we will be, we will be able to get several million dollars directly into the operating and capital budgets of the campuses that are involved in teacher education programs.  We can create smart classrooms by allowing some of our faculty who have lamented to me that their campuses are just not wired appropriately, to do the kinds of things they would like to do pedagogically in the classrooms.  We are excited about the efforts that are in play.

              I am also deeply concerned about enrollment issues, even though at the senior colleges, we are up 10% in applications over last year.  I am not worried about the community colleges; they will be fine.  We just have to be aggressive, as we were last year.  What we are doing this year differently than we have done before, is to go to various locations around the City and mount CUNY Fairs.  I participated  in one this past Saturday at Fort Hamilton High School in Brooklyn.  There were several hundred students there.  We had our four presidents from Brooklyn, President Kimmich, President Beaufait, President McClenney, and President Jackson. All were talking about their programs.  Staff from the colleges were there, as well as representatives from other campuses within CUNY.  We are doing it in each of the boroughs. 

          On March 3^rd we are having a major event at York College.  We are also doing one with Co-Op City.  Co-Op City, for those of you who know the Bronx, is a village unto itself.  There are 60,000 people living in Co-Op City.  We are developing a program with the Board of Directors of Co-Op City.  We are trying in every way that we can to bring the University to the communities from which we get our students.  Ultimately, what I would like to see is some extension centers associated with our campuses.  We have to go through the business plan to make sure that if we bring these extension centers to targeted areas of the City, that they are going to give the kind of yield in students that we expect.  One of the ways that we will be informed as to where to place these extension centers is through the good work of John Mollenkopf. 

 As the 2000 census data are available, I am very anxious to see the demographic shifts that have occurred in the last ten years.  There have been dramatic shifts in this City.  Unless we understand those dramatic shifts, and the demographic profile in communities, we can’t really do this intelligently.  We have older students that may be single parents, who are working and may find it difficult to take a subway or bus 30 minutes to a campus.  If they can get to something that may be five minutes away, and have provisions for child care, I think it is worth the effort.  That is one of the reasons that we were pushing this 1199 collaborative.   We expect to open a center on Fordham Road.   For those of you who know that area, there was an old Alexander’s and Caldor’s Department Store.  It is a fairly big complex.  We are going to use these dollars to renovate part of that building, open it up to people connected to 1199 and others in the community.

 Professor Crain (Psychology, City College) – “The admissions policy we have has been improved in terms of the index, and the faculty committees, but all of the improvements only affect the initial pool of applicants who can get into a bachelor’s degree program.  After they get into that initial pool, the big test is, can they pass certain tests.  If they pass the tests they get into the bachelor’s degree program.  If they fail any one of the tests, they cannot.  We have a lousy admissions policy.  It is totally focused and centered on the test.  Even the University of California system now may make a progressive change and eliminate the SAT requirement.  CUNY has test-driven admissions.  It is not respectable to focus on tests that are known to penalize students of color, poor students, and women.”  /

 Chancellor Goldstein – Every time you are here you ask the same question.  You’re passionate about it, and I have to respond in the same way.   First of all, this is Board policy.  Until that Board policy is amended or changed in any way, we are obligated to follow it.  This is the governing Board of the University.  They have been heard, they voted on this, and this is policy for the University.  The fact is, when a student is admitted to a baccalaureate program through the admissions process, there are so many interdictions on behalf of the student, that the overwhelming majority of those students are going to get through with the test.   For those who don’t, we make every effort that we can to try and find ways to keep them in the University.  I think we have been successful so far. / Professor Crain – “It is Board policy, but you lobbied very intensely for this at the Board of Regents.  You can’t dismiss it as Board policy.”

              Professor Philipp (Biology and Chemistry, The Graduate Center) – “You have reported extensively on some financial aspects of the University.   I recall that you instructed the presidents to do more work in terms of endowment raising.  Would it be possible for you to report on the success of that initiative.” / Chancellor Goldstein – I don’t have any particular information today in that regard.  However I will tell you, there is heightened awareness by each of the presidents.  In part of my evaluation of presidents, that is going to be an important indicator of success of a president’s tenure.  The degree to which either the president directly, or the president’s designees, increase the operating budget through the acquisition of outside funds is critically important.  Some campuses are doing very well, because I get calls on a regular basis, saying, “I just brought in this gift.”  The presidents are very much involved in this, but I don’t have any specific data at this point to give you.  If you recall, we have instituted a performance based assessment instrument that we take very seriously.   Each of the presidents has a dialog with me, one on one, closed door, nobody else in the room.  We come to an agreement on certain targets.  One of the areas is fundraising.  Each of the presidents has been somewhat expansive in their determination to do better than they did the year before.  I am hopeful that they will be successful. / Professor Philipp – “The question was, can there be reports on this issue?” / Chancellor Goldstein – As I get the information, it will be available.   

              Professor Levine (Engineering Science and Physics, College of Staten Island) – “I am very pleased to hear your report about getting additional money during the 30-day period for comments.  I have two questions: what was the line item in your request that was honored, and which items did we request adjustments to that weren’t honored?” / Chancellor Goldstein – This was an area that is not part of the budget request.  It was part of a conversation that I had with Dennis Rivera, who said, “If we work together on this, we can do something, but it is going to require you and me to petition the Governor.”  We did petition the Governor, and as a result of this, that particular revision made itself known in the 30-day amendment. / Professor Levine – “It was not part of the original CUNY budget?” / Chancellor Goldstein – No, it was not part of the original budget message.   

              Professor Kulkarni (Mathematics, Queens College) – “I have a very quick question.  Last semester you asked me to come up with appropriate indices for measuring faculty diversity at CUNY.  I did some work for the Graduate Center, and I sent a copy of it to you two weeks ago.  I distributed it to the Status of the Faculty Committee today.  I made some statements about the Ph.D. programs by eyeballing figures.  To make them more precise, I need the Affirmative Action data for each Ph.D. program.  Will you make this data available to me?” / Chancellor Goldstein – When you say Affirmative Action, I’m not sure what you mean.  Are you referring to students or faculty? / Professor Kulkarni – “Faculty.” / Chancellor Goldstein – We know exactly who the faculty in the Ph.D. programs are.  That is available for anyone who wants to look at it. / Professor Kulkarni – “I need the Affirmative Action data.” / Chancellor Goldstein – You mean their race and ethnicity? / Professor Kulkarni – “Yes.” / Chancellor Goldstein – I’m sure that can be made available to you. / Professor Kulkarni – “Who should I get it from?” / Chancellor Goldstein – I’m not  exactly sure who actually has that data, but I will get it to you. / Professor Kulkarni – “I also wanted to see you, to get your input on all of the indices that you expect from me.  You have more experience than me in statistical analysis, so I wish to learn from you.”

              Professor Beaky (English, LaGuardia Community College) – “I have a question about the Boy Scouts and the CUNY Campaign.  You know that there has been some discussion about the appropriateness of including the Boy Scouts in our CUNY Campaign given their national position.  Just yesterday there was testimony at the City Council.  Ed Koch testified.  Today there is a statement in the New York Times that the New York branch is going to ask that the policy be changed.  In light of all of that, is there anything more that can be said about the CUNY policy, more than just whoever doesn’t want to contribute to the Boy Scouts can affirmatively exclude them.” / Chancellor Goldstein – I think that most of us, if not all of us, feel that this is a repugnant position that the Boy Scouts have.  I feel that way, and I think a dominant group of people in the University feel that way.  However, there is a legal issue here that I would need to defer to counsel.  Rick will be very happy to respond to that. / Professor Beaky – “That’s good.  I’d like to hear more than just the statement that was put out on Senate Forum.”

              Professor Sank (Anthropology, City College) – “City College still doesn’t have a permanent president.  Our search started late, and we’ve traveled a pretty rocky road.  The last meeting of the Search Committee, as far as we have heard, was several months ago.  Since then we have heard that there were no candidates, then there were two candidates, at times three candidates.  It has just been vacillating.  A few months ago at one of these meetings, you promised that City College would have a permanent president in place by June or July of this year.  What is the latest target date that you can give us?” / Chancellor Goldstein – Tomorrow night there is a meeting of the City College Search Committee.  There are at least three very attractive candidates.  By the new semester starting in the Fall, there will be a new president installed.  We did have some very talented people with extraordinary experience, and a strong academic record, and experience in managing complex organizations.  However, as typically happens in a search, people who look terrific have family problems.   The family problems in today’s world are much more than they were prior, because we have oftentimes two professionals in a household and they are pulling in opposite directions.  Of the two candidates, one was pushing to New York, and the other was pushing to California.  We will get a president soon.

              Professor Manassah (Electrical Engineering, City College) – “You were talking about increasing the number of students and University retention.   As a means to increase retention, and to enhance students’ mastering of marketable skills in order to be on the competitive edge of graduating students with others from good universities, the faculty of the Electrical Engineering Department proposed adding a practicum section to certain key core courses.  Under this proposal, students under supervision would be exposed to, and practice, problem solving skills using computers.  This necessary educational component would have added to course contact hours, but not to the number of credits.  This would not have violated State law as it pertains to laboratory courses, where the number of contact hours and the number of credits is not the same.  The faculty of the School of Engineering endorsed this worthwhile effort and voted unanimously in December of 1999 to approve this curriculum change, and to send it to the Trustees for ratification.  Unfortunately this School of Engineering faculty vote was not promptly transmitted to the Trustees’ Committee, as it should have been.  It sat for more than eight months through a pocket veto through the CCNY administration.  When finally pressed by the CCNY Senate Executive Committee, the CCNY Provost forwarded our curriculum changes to 80^th Street, but with a negative recommendation.  The measure is now being killed with another veto at 80^th Street.  These curriculum changes have not been presented to the Trustees’ Committee for consideration, and ultimate ratification.  My question to you, Chancellor, what are the mechanisms in place in such cases that assure the faculty supremacy in matters of curriculum? What due process mechanisms exist to have such issues resolved by other means than administrative fiat?” / Chancellor Goldstein – The short answer is, we are not going to accept anything that comes from a campus until the president forwards it.  In this particular case, I have no idea about this provision that was voted on by your faculty senate, and where it is in the process.  I would imagine that it had some budgetary implications that the president was concerned about.  It is the first time I’m hearing about it.  I will look into it and get back to you. / Professor Manassah – “Since you are saying that it is financial, I thought it may be worthwhile to give you some numbers.  The cost of this would have been $8,000 per semester for adjuncts for the following benefits:  an increase in student retention by an estimated 20% (this translates into graduating an additional 25 engineers per year), and, second, an increase in the starting salaries of between $5,000 - $7,000, for each of our 75-100 graduates each year.” 

             Executive Vice Chancellor Mirrer – I don’t have a report, but I understand that there are some questions.

              [Unidentified Speaker off-microphone - different topic] / Executive Vice Chancellor Mirrer – I have to say what the Chancellor said.  As you all know, our Board of Trustees approved a resolution, which mandated that students show college readiness in reading, writing, and mathematics, before enrolling in a CUNY senior college.  What we did was to attempt to expand the number of ways in which a student could demonstrate college readiness.  Most demonstrations of college readiness have to do with a test.  That is true anywhere that I am aware of.  We introduced the SAT, the ACT, the Regents examinations, and a new test which is also an ACT exam.  The Chancellor has been very concerned to expand the range further.  We have been working to look at what kind of marriage between a student’s demonstration in some shape or form, and our Board’s resolve to ensure that students are ready for college level course work in composition and mathematics, is possible.   That is the position.

              Professor Frisz (Student Personnel, Queens College) – “In regard to the CUNY Proficiency Exam, I know you did some pilot programs and tests back in the Fall.  I am hearing mixed results, that students didn’t do very well, but they haven’t determined cut-off scores yet.  What is the status on the result of those initial exams?” / Executive Vice Chancellor Mirrer – Actually the students did extremely well on it.  The majority of students passed the exam, both at senior colleges and at community colleges.  There has been a Faculty Advisory Committee that has been working to develop an appropriate cut score.   We looked at various options and established one that seemed to be reasonable and appropriate.  We believe that the vast majority of students will pass the exam.  Those who don’t pass the exam will have three chances to do it.  There are a number of interventions for students who don’t pass it. / Professor Frisz – “When you say ‘very well’ what kind of figures are you talking about?” / Executive Vice Chancellor Mirrer – 80% passing. / Professor Frisz – “I heard 40-45%.” / Executive Vice Chancellor Mirrer – Not the CUNY Proficiency exam, no.

              Professor Sank (Anthropology, City College) – “At City, we’ve noticed that we’ve had a higher admission rate.  After the first year or two, the retention really drops off.  I was just wondering what the situation is across the CUNY system? Is it something unique to us? Is there some way that CUNY can help us? That is where we seem to be weak.  Is it just us?” / Executive Vice Chancellor Mirrer – No, it isn’t.  The retention rate at City College, however, is lower than at many of the other senior colleges.  It is a problem, and the primary reason for why there has been such a significant drop in enrollment at City College over the last four years.  The measures to approve retention are available to the college.  People who study this area believe that student services are extremely important.  Surely you know that there has been a problem with the kind of hospitality that students at City College have been offered by various offices, such as the Registrar, Bursar, etc.  The Chancellor and I were there some months ago and experienced it first hand ourselves.  As I understand, those problems are being addressed, and I hope that they are being corrected.   I think there is a need for students to be mentored by faculty.  It is extremely important for faculty to be deeply involved with their students.  It is time consuming, but important.  We have given City College funds to improve the specific kind of support they give students, through immersion programs, etc.  I think the college has the means to address these issues. / Professor Sank – “I agree with you that services are a key to that, but services have been cut at City College.  Academic Advising was closed.” / Executive Vice Chancellor Mirrer – Last year we had $7.1 million from the State for academic support services.  That money has been distributed among the colleges.  It has been funded again in this year’s budget, and it will be distributed again among the colleges.  

              Professor Crain (Psychology, City College) – “I looked it up in the student data book.  City College, among the senior colleges, has the second poorest group of students in terms of family income.   According to our Leaving Study, the main reason that they leave is because of financial problems.  We need to start working for progressive tuition reductions to make a difference when it comes to retention.  It is simply not true that all other colleges around the nation have an admission policy like ours, if that is what you are referring to, where you pass a test to get in.” / Executive Vice Chancellor Mirrer – I didn’t say that. I said that they use tests to determine readiness for college composition. / Professor Crain – “They don’t elevate placement tests to admission tests.” / Executive Vice Chancellor Mirrer – I didn’t say that.

                   Professor Richter (English, Kingsborough) – “My question is somewhat of a follow-up on Ruth Frisz’s question concerning the tests, specifically the Proficiency Test.  As I understand it, the scoring is still in the process of being determined.  Is that correct?” / Executive Vice Chancellor Mirrer – No.  The cut scores have been determined. / Professor Richter – “Would it be possible for the various campuses to get a report on the recent pilot projects, how many and what percentage passed at the community and senior colleges, as well as the cut scores, the marking rubrics, etc.” / Executive Vice Chancellor Mirrer – I have made all of that data available to the provosts of all of the colleges.  I am certainly happy to send you a copy of what I gave to your provost.

              Professor Beaky (English, LaGuardia Community College) – “I also have a question about the Proficiency Exam.  I understand that there aren’t going to be that many administrations.  The next one is March.  For LaGuardia, that is the first week we come back for the Spring semester.  I was told that if the student simply doesn’t take the Proficiency Exam on the date that it is given, that counts as one of the three opportunities.  Is that correct?” / Executive Vice Chancellor Mirrer – It depends on the circumstances.   If a student just doesn’t show up, with no reason, yes it counts as one of the opportunities.  If the student doesn’t show up because he or she is ill or has an emergency, it doesn’t count.  Students are required to take the test the first time that they become eligible for it. / Professor Beaky – “Because of our peculiar calendar it really imposes difficulties for us.” / Executive Vice Chancellor Mirrer – I got a letter from Provost Bihn at LaGuardia drawing my attention to the problem.  We are in the process of trying to remedy it as best we can.

              Professor Doss (English, Hunter College) – “The Chancellor mentioned that there are hearings about adjunct conditions, but he didn’t list it among the appearances he will be making.  Who will the Chancellor be sending to the State Assembly Hearings on adjuncts? Also, can we depend on them to be more supportive, rather than just to say, as long as budgets aren’t better, we have to keep doing this.” / Executive Vice Chancellor Mirrer – I don’t know.  It is not an area that I would be involved in. / Professor Doss – “It seems an oversight if there is not a representative from the Chancellery.” / Executive Vice Chancellor Mirrer – The representative wouldn’t be me, but we can find out. 

              Professor Young (English, Borough of Manhattan Community College) – “I have a question about the ACT Test as a placement test.  We have a major problem, and I suppose it is shared in other community colleges.  It appears that there are inaccurate results, in terms of remedial classes.  I have two of them myself, and I have many students who don’t belong there.  There is apparently no apparatus for remedying those kinds of placement errors.  I was wondering if there could be a day or two set aside after the testing, after students appear in your class, where the ACT could re-administer the test to students, if teachers truly believe that students don’t belong in a remedial class.  It is extremely frustrating for students to be in a class for six hours a whole semester, and not really need to be there.” /

 Executive Vice Chancellor Mirrer – I agree entirely.  The ACT can be re-administered at will.  I don’t see any problem with re-administering the test. / Professor Young – “At will?” / Executive Vice Chancellor Mirrer – If there is a need to re-administer the test, we can re-administer it.  There has never been a fixed administration of the test that can’t be modified. / Professor Young – “We were told that if you are in, you are in, and there is nothing we can do about it.” / Executive Vice Chancellor Mirrer – There is a thick document with an appeals process, guidelines, etc. / Professor Young – “The appeals process is one thing.  Whether the exam was misgraded is not the issue.  The issue is, sometimes the exam is not incorrectly graded, but a student still doesn’t belong in a remedial classroom.” / Executive Vice Chancellor Mirrer – I think we understand that.  I will say that I had a letter from the English Discipline Council asking that we go to the computerized version of the exam beginning in the Fall.  The student will be able to take that any time. / Professor Young – “I don’t understand what you just said.” / Executive Vice Chancellor Mirrer – There is a paper and pencil version, and a computerized version. / Professor Young – “I am talking about the essay portion.” / Executive Vice Chancellor Mirrer – The writing portion of the test depends on having faculty available to grade the test. / Professor Young – “Is that the problem, faculty available to grade it?” / Executive Vice Chancellor Mirrer – I’m not exactly sure what your point is. / Professor Young – “My point is, we were told that we would not be able to re-test students, end of discussion.” / Executive Vice Chancellor Mirrer – That sounds odd to me.  I will check on it.

              Professor Manassah – “First, I want to thank you, Vice Chancellor, for staying after to answer some questions.  The follow-up question that I would like to ask is not the same as the question I asked the Chancellor.  I want to ask a question about a process.  What is the process and what are the mechanisms in place if faculty vote for a certain change, the administration of the college does not go along with it, and then things are sent to your office?   What goes beyond that point?  Is your point that you have to follow the administrator’s recommendation? Do you have some appeal process, where you would have both parties sit down and hear both arguments?” /

 Executive Vice Chancellor Mirrer – I don’t think the change you are talking about came to my office.  I don’t think it was a curricula change.  I think it was a faculty and staff change.  I haven’t seen anything relating to this. / Professor Manassah – “That is more serious.  Forget our particular case, suppose…” / Executive Vice Chancellor Mirrer – I guess it went to Vice Chancellor Malone’s Office.  I can find out. / Professor Manassah – “Forget about the particular case I presented earlier.   Suppose I am asking you hypothetically, if the faculty vote for a curriculum change, and the provost of that campus decides not to endorse it, then what?” / Executive Vice Chancellor Mirrer – If it comes to me, I make a judgment. / Professor Manassah – Do you call both parties so that you can hear both parties?” / Executive Vice Chancellor Mirrer – If there is a dispute, certainly.  I would call up and find out what the position is of all of the people involved.  I do that all the time.  If it is a curriculum change it should come to my office.  I don’t recall a curriculum change from Electrical Engineering reaching my desk. / Professor Manassah – “Forget about the particular case.  I want to know about the process.  The process would be that you would call both parties and you would be willing to hear both sides?”             / Executive Vice Chancellor Mirrer – Yes. / Professor Manassah – “Then I will pursue our particular matter along those lines.”

              Vice Chancellor Rick Schaffer (addressing the inclusion of the Boy Scouts as a charity in the CUNY Campaign despite that organization’s discrimination against homosexuals) – This is what went out last season.  It is a booklet, and then there is a pledge form inside.  You can either give in lump sum, or you can have it deducted from your payroll.  It gives you two options in terms of where the money is going.  Under one option, you make no particular designation.  In this case the money is divided among the 900 plus charities listed in the booklet, or you can designate to specific charities.  The form has four places.  If you want to designate to more than four charities you can; you just need to get another form.   Of course the numbers you designate need not be specific charities, because the charities are also grouped.  For example, you might designate 0191, which is the United Way of New York City.  Under United Way there are a couple hundred charities.  The money would then be divided equally among those couple hundred. 

 As it turns out, the vast majority of people who participate, and it is not a terribly impressive number considering the size of our University, 80% designate specific charities, and only 20% don’t designate and let the money be distributed among the 900 plus charities.   As you can imagine, the amount of money that goes to any particular charity as a result of a non-designation is very small.  I think it amounts to $50-$60 per person.  The vast bulk of people and money are going to specific charities.  In terms of the history of this booklet, I’m new and wasn’t here for the creation of it.  However, I understand that once upon a time, the campaign was a United Way campaign.  People came along and said, this isn’t right, we are a diverse City, but United Way picks and chooses however they want.  As a result, a number of other umbrella organizations were added along with United Way.  You have the Asian American Federation of New York with its member organizations, Earth Share of New York, America’s Charities, Independent Charities of America, Hispanic Federation, Community Health Charities of New York, etc.   Each has their own member organizations.   These were all added at various points to broaden the base and increase the diversity. 

 On this pledge form, after you make your pledge, there is an opportunity to add a charity that you would like included in the campaign.  The line says, “I would like the following organization for consideration for inclusion in next year’s campaign.” I gather that over the years, a number of organizations were added.  The process is simply, if someone designates the ABC Charity that they would like to be considered, a questionnaire is sent out to that charity, and they have to return it.  The process is to simply determine that they are an eligible 501c3.  If they are, they get listed in this first section under the 0100 category, the CUNY Campaign.  The CUNY Campaign begins with two University scholarship funds, and a list of about 100 independent agencies that got on this list because people returned this form, and said they would like an organization to be considered.  The form went out to the organization, was returned, they were determined to be an eligible 501c3, and they got on the list.  That is the history and structure of how we got to where we are.   I don’t know at what point the Boy Scouts of America were listed as one of the independent agencies under the CUNY Campaign.   It suggests that someone within the CUNY community asked that the Boy Scouts be added, and they were.  There is a hand-full of people over the last three years who have designated specifically the Boy Scouts of America to be their particular charity.  Those are the facts.  I will take questions.

              Professor Beaky – “There seems to be no way in which you can un-designate the Boy Scouts.  There seems to be no way in which you can say, “Give my money to this group and that group, all 900 of them, but not to the Boy Scouts.”  Well, why not? Because the Boy Scouts have a policy, that if carried out by CUNY, would be illegal.  It is not legal for CUNY to discriminate on the basis of sexual orientation.  It is in our policies.  It is not legal for the City to discriminate based on sexual orientation.  I am not a lawyer, but with regard to your legal explanation, it seems to me that it is one thing to say that they have right of association and the right to free speech.  I don’t see how that gives them the affirmative right to be included in our list of charities.   I don’t see why we simply can’t remove them.  It would be a statement on the part of CUNY that would be received positively by gay and lesbian faculty, staff, and students, about whom I worry a lot.  I think they need more support than they get.  I can’t see why we just simply can’t remove them from the list.” /

 Vice Chancellor Schaffer – I heard two questions in there.  I thought that at first you were suggesting that we should amend this form, so that in addition to listing charities that you affirmatively want to give to, you can list ones that you want excluded.  I thought that you were saying that there could be a category that said, “Give to everybody, except the following.”  The answer is, there is no reason why we can’t.  It is a practical problem that we can try to work with.  In terms of a practical suggestion, if people want to make a statement saying, “I want to let the Boy Scouts know, I’m giving to everyone except you.”  I think the answer is, we could design a form to do that. /   Professor Beaky – “That’s not what I’m advocating.  I think that a statement is made when CUNY includes them.  That is a statement that I wish CUNY did not make.” / Vice Chancellor Schaffer – It gave me no particular pleasure to reach the legal conclusion I reached in the memo that most of you have read.  It probably isn’t worth while spending a lot of time now on it.  Let me just point out the nature of the reasoning.  It is really a two-step argument.  You begin with the proposition that, as a public institution, we may not discriminate with respect to point of view.  CUNY operates like a government agency.  We cannot take action either directly or indirectly to show our disapproval of a point of view, as it is protected by the First Amendment.  This initial proposition, I assume, is not a controversial one.   Indeed it is the principle that guarantees freedom of speech generally.  More particularly in a university setting, it guarantees you academic freedom and rights in collective bargaining.  It guarantees you your rights of independence to express your points of view.  I cited with great care the lead case of the Supreme Court which talks about how government not only can’t discriminate directly, but it can’t do it indirectly.  That case involved a non-tenured, non-contracted professor who was fired for criticizing the administration of the University.  The Supreme Court said it may be that this particular professor had no right to be continued in the first place.  In the same way, no particular charity has a right to be on our list as part of the CUNY Campaign. 

 The fact that there is no right to be included, hired, or continued in the first place, doesn’t mean that the government, or in this case CUNY, has the absolute right to exclude, based upon First Amendment protected speech.  I think that is a general principle we believe in.  We start with that basic premise, that the University, like any other governmental agency, can’t discriminate either directly or indirectly.  In the case of the Brooklyn Museum, there was no right to have financial support from the City to begin with, but once it was there, the government agency could not exclude, terminate, or cut the funds, because it disfavors a point of view. 

 I think we are all on the same page up to this point in the analysis.  Now we go to the more controversial step.  It is controversial, not in the sense that I think it is a legally contestable proposition.  I am confident in this, but lawyers tend to talk themselves into positions, so I don’t claim infallibility on this point.  I am relying on a Supreme Court decision that probably none of us likes, that is, Boy Scouts of America vs. Dale.  This case held in a 5 to 4 Supreme Court decision last year that the Boy Scouts of America’s policy of refusing to have scout leaders who were openly gay was what the Supreme Court calls “associational speech” or “expressive association.”  In other words, not every act of discrimination by every organization is protected by the First Amendment.  In the vast number of cases it isn’t.  Your average employer discriminates on the grounds of race, sex, or sexual preference, and it is not considered in any way protected by the First Amendment.  However in this case I think the particular facts relating to the Boy Scouts were being misconstrued by the majority. 

 Due to the particular way the organization was created, its particular values, etc., the 5 to 4 majority reached the conclusion that the exclusion of avowed homosexuals from positions of troop leader was expressive activity protected by the First Amendment.   This occurred even though there was a very strong State interest on the other side.  New Jersey had a statute like New York City’s statute, which prohibits discrimination in places of public accommodation on the grounds of sexual preference.  Notwithstanding that, the Supreme Court said that the First Amendment values trump here.  The New Jersey statute could not be applied to the Boy Scouts.  By the way, that was not because they were not a public accommodation.  I think some people may have thought that.  The New Jersey Supreme Court had held, as a matter of State law, that the Boy Scouts of America are a public accommodation.  The Supreme Court said regardless of whether the New Jersey statute covers the Boy Scouts, their views, as embodied in their policy, are protected by the First Amendment.  That decision trumps the very strong State interest in preventing discrimination under other circumstances.  That is the law.  

 Ken Sherrill has referred me to Randy Mastro’s amicus brief in that case.  It is a very powerful and persuasive piece of advocacy.   Randy is a very good lawyer.  As far as I’m concerned, he was on the right side of the issue.  However, it was the amicus brief on the side that lost.  We’ve now got a Supreme Court decision that says that this is expressive activity, and it is protected by the First Amendment.  If you take that as a given, and I as a lawyer must, the next step of the argument is very easy.  We can’t discriminate on the grounds of First Amendment rights directly or indirectly.  If we as a University take the Boy Scouts off of the list because we disagree with their anti-gay views and policies, which views and policies the Supreme Court has now told us are protected by the First Amendment, then we are violating their First Amendment rights.  That’s the essence of the analysis.  I think it is correct.  It gives me no pleasure to have reached it.  My job is to advise the Chancellor as to what I think the law is.

             Chair Sohmer – I think we now understand it.  I think the Executive Committee will try to come up with a question about the very collection of money and things like that.

              Professor Cooper (History, College of Staten Island) – “About eight or nine years ago, a previous Board of Trustees refused to allow investment in tobacco and South Africa, which was an affirmative act.  I wonder how that would stand.  Is there any analogy here to a public university and its investment decisions? I just raise it because we have a lot of complicated issues.  I have a solution to the whole thing.  Perhaps you can investigate asking the Board of Trustees to cancel the whole Campaign, and ask that the money that is raised be put towards student scholarships.” / Vice Chancellor Schaffer –  There is no First Amendment right to produce tobacco.  There really was no problem with that policy.  Part of the problem comes from the way that we do this Campaign.  I think the intention was good, and the right thing to do.  We turned this Campaign into a public forum.  We said to the University community, if you have a charity and you want to be a part of this Campaign, you just need to suggest it, and if they are a 501c3, and they want to be part of the Campaign, we will add them to the list.  Essentially what we have done is created in First Amendment law what is called a public forum.  If it wasn’t for this issue, we probably would all agree that this is a good thing.  It gives everybody the ability to express their charitable preferences.  As far as doing away with the Campaign altogether, that is something you can look at.  I know that there is a wide variety of views on giving in the workplace altogether.  Some people find it inherently coercive.  I have no view on that.     

 IV. New Business

     a. Resolution Commending Chancellor Goldstein for Adhering to Principle in the Hunter College Presidential Search

              [Unidentified Speaker, Comments made off-microphone] / Chair Sohmer – There is a move to re-open the question.  There is a tradition in the Senate that a round of applause after a resolution is on the floor is a vote.  I was counting it as a vote.  That statement is what is being appealed.  My parliamentarian, is that correct? / [Unidentified Speaker, Off-Microphone] / Chair Sohmer – The resolution now is on the table; it is before you.

              Professor Speidel (Senator-elect, Geology, Queens College) – “It seems to me that what we want to do is say that the Chancellor has consistently maintained the principle that CUNY has an obligation to appoint only the most qualified persons as CUNY college presidents.  We want to say that we commend him for acting in concert with that principle in the matter of Hunter.   We want to say that we want him to continue acting in concert with that principle in ongoing and continuing searches.  This last part is not talked about in the motion at all.  The principle is not specified in the motion.  It is in the title, but it is not there as far as the language of the motion is concerned.  The first paragraph condemns the Board, which I think is totally justified, but not in this particular motion.  The third paragraph is also focused on the Board.  I think this can be cleaned up and do what you want to do quite nicely by saying that Chancellor Goldstein has consistently maintained the principle that CUNY has an obligation to appoint only the most qualified persons as CUNY college presidents; that the UFS expresses its admiration and support for Chancellor Goldstein for acting in concert with that principle in the matter of the presidency of Hunter College, and urges the Chancellor to continue with his principled and academically sound stand for all ongoing and future presidential searches.  I would like to make that as a substitute motion.”

              Chair Sohmer – There is a substitute motion.  Do I have a second?  It vastly changes the resolution. / Professor Speidel – “It doesn’t change the resolution, it eliminates two of the “whereas” statements.” / Chair Sohmer – It changes the wording. / Professor Speidel – “It changes the wording, correct.” /  Chair Sohmer – We are debating the substitution at this moment.

              [Unidentified Speaker, comments off microphone]

 Professor Kaplowitz (English, John Jay College) - “I think that the whereas clauses were written by the Executive Committee, on whose behalf I presented this.  As the Chair explained, this motion was being made to the body for vote.  The applause as I thought and he thought, was in support of this.  We did it so that the Chancellor could witness it.  The whereas clauses are to give the context for praising the Chancellor’s action.  Without that context, it doesn’t make any sense.  I could certainly see us having an additional resolution, such as the one that David recommended, calling on the Chancellor to continue his principled stand and resistance to undue pressures and so forth.  That would be a separate resolution.  We did have another resolved clause originally that we dropped because we wanted to speak specifically to this issue.  We wanted to make it so focused as to be unambiguous.  Therefore I think that the resolution we presented originally should stand.  I certainly think that we should consider another resolution if Professor Speidel would like to make one.  I urge that we endorse the resolution as written.”

 Professor Speidel – “It is clear that the Executive Committee wanted to do two things.  It is clear that they wanted to take a swipe at the Board for acting in the manner that they did, especially the chair.  It is clear that they wanted to give their affirmation to the stated support that the Chancellor gave.   It seems to me that the motion presented for us to act on from Hunter speaks to the behavior of the Board.  I don’t see the necessity for combining the two, when it is quite clear that what we want to do is say something about the Chancellor’s principles on this, and our support for that.  The other thing that I was concerned about was that if this is supposed to be an action from us condemning the Board, it is not a very strong one.  We can do a lot better, and Hunter’s Senate did.  I also think that we are going to have several fights with the Board coming down.  I would rather wait for the curricular issues, because I think that is going to be more to our guts.”

 Professor Cooper (History, College of Staten Island) – “I would like to disagree with David Speidel’s proposal, but certainly agree with the notion of a second resolution referring to future searches.  If we do, as David proposes, and remove those whereas statements, we are not only removing our condemnation of the Board, we are removing the only allusion in this whole mess that the Board conveniently decided to ignore its own Schmidt Report which it adopted.  This is the same report which presumably gave the Chancellor the CEO authority in the University and transformed the presidents into some kind of classy set of deans reporting to him.  The point is, in doing what they did, these Trustees undermined the Vice Chair of the Board and his lengthy, if contentious, analysis of CUNY’s woes and ills.  One of the few rational things that the Schmidt Report did do was come up with some kind of system of accountability, which put the Board technically in the background as a large policy making body, and not a micro-managing organization.  This decision completely contravenes what Badillo and others were raving about, because obviously their arms were being twisted.  Frankly, City College and Queens College could also easily get some more Giuliani dropouts.  There is going to be a lot of them lying around.  Who knows what other college in any borough might be next.  That is the issue for me at this point.  I imagine that at City and Queens, it would be my issue.  Frankly, if I were at those places I would want the searches to get stalled for two more years if necessary.  I really think that we should leave these whereas statements in here.  I agree that they should be stronger.  At this point, this whole thing is almost irrelevant.  The entire academic community in the country has read the Chronicle of Higher Education.  Everybody knows   who reads and keeps up with things, that this University is a political cesspool.  Everybody in Albany knows it.  The New York Observer knows it.  I would suggest that we come out, if necessary, with a resolution for the next plenary, urging the Chancellor and those members of the Board of Trustees who understand their own obligations, to stick to their principles.”

 Professor Kaplowitz (English, John Jay College) – “I don’t remember the University Faculty Senate ever having a resolution praising a chancellor of CUNY; perhaps only after their death.  I remember we passed a resolution praising Vice Chancellor for Budget, Richard Rothbard, after he announced his resignation to go elsewhere.  This is, quite frankly, historic for us.  We should issue a strong statement that includes the context, and the unconscionable behavior of the Board of Trustees, to explain why and to be brave enough.  Quite frankly, I think it is a cowardly resolution to leave out the Board of Trustees’ actions in this context.  I really think this is the Resolution this body should pass.”

 Professor Frisz (Student Personnel, Queens College) – “I call all previous questions.”

              Chair Sohmer – All those in favor of calling all previous questions? Now the first motion before you is whether to substitute the Speidel motion.  All those in favor? Against? So we do not substitute.  We are now on the main motion, which was presented by Professor Kaplowitz from the Executive Committee.  That is before you.  All those in favor? Against? Abstentions? The motion is passed.  The vote was 17 to 3.

              b. Resolution Supporting Hunter College Senate Statement on Raab Appointment.

              Chair Sohmer –We are proposing that the Hunter College Senate statement on the Raab appointment be adopted by this body.  There is a resolution on the floor in support of the Hunter College Senate.   All those in favor? Against? There is one abstention.   

                  c. Resolution in Aid of Faculty Research.

              Chair Sohmer – There is a resolution on faculty research, in regard to travel awards and Chancellor Research Fellows.  Is there any discussion about this resolution? The resolution is before you that the Faculty Senate endorses the UFS Budget Advisory Committee’s request that the Chancellor seek funding for the following two programs.  All those in favor of moving the question? Against?  The question is before you.  It is adopted.

            d. Statement on General Education/Core Curricula.

 Chair Sohmer –I am asking you to adopt the statement on General Education.   All those in favor of receiving it say “aye”, against?  It is adopted.

 Other Business:

 Professor Crain (Psychology, City College) – “Would the Executive Committee consider a resolution on taking a stand on the progressive reduction of tuition?” / Chair Sohmer – We will consider it. / Professor Crain – “I just ask that it be considered.  We are in the midst of lobbying and community college tuition is amazingly high.” / Chair Sohmer – It will be on our agenda.