THE TWO HUNDRED NINTIETH PLENARY SESSION

OF THE UNIVERSITY FACULTY SENATE

OF THE CITY UNIVERSITY OF NEW YORK

November 19, 2002

The meeting was called to order at 6:40 p.m. in Room 9204/5 at the Graduate School and University Center. 68 voting members were present:

Baruch: Present – Giannikos, and Hill; Absent – Freedman, Majete, Melnik, Onochie, Pollard, and Wiley. BMCC: Present – Friedman, Price, Vozick, White; and Alternate Martin. Absent – Aymer, and Neis. Bronx CC: Present – Lopez-Marron, and Tanaka-Kuwashima. Absent – Gonsher, and Skinner. Vacancies – 1. Brooklyn: Present – Antoniello, Bell, Jacobson, London, Shapiro, Sheridan, Tobey, and Alternate Bloomfield. Absent – Moriber, and Romer. Vacancies – 1. CCNY: Present – Benenson, Crain, Manassah, Sank, and Sohmer; Absent – Broderick, Buffenstein, and Connorton Vacancies – 2. CSI: Present – Cooper, Foleno, Klibaner, Levine, and Petratos. Absent –Yousef. CUNY Law School: Present – McArdle; Absent – Andrews (on leave). Graduate School: Present – Baumrin, Khuri, and Alternate Weinstein. Absent – Katz-Rothman (on leave), Kulkarni (on leave), Nair and Ofuatey-Kodjoe. Hostos CC: Present – Italia, and Alternate Vasillov; Absent – Canate (on leave) and Rivera. Vacancies – 1. Hunter: Present – Friedman, Krishnamachari, Matthews, and Wimberly. Absent –Hampton, Kurzman, Sherrill, and Wallach; Vacancies – 2. John Jay: Present –Kaplowitz, Richardson, Wylie-Marques, and Alternate Cochran; Absent – Bohigian Holder, and Mandery. Kingsborough CC: Present – Barnhart, Farrell, Galvin, Goodkin, O’Malley, and Alternate Fridman. LaGuardia CC: Present – Beaky, Lerman, Mettler, Reitano, and Alternate Davidson. Absent – Gallagher. Lehman: Present – Hosay, and Philipp. Absent – Heching, and Tananbaum. Vacancies – 1. Medgar Evers: Present – Barker, Donohue, Harris-Hastick, and Alternate Patwary. Absent – Bennett. NYCCT: Present – Cermele, Horelick, Hounion, Richardson, and Alternate Cuordileone. Absent – Dreyer, and Walter. Queens: Present – Erickson, Moore, Savage, and Speidel. Absent –Sukhu; Vacancies – 5. Queensborough CC: Present – Dahbany-Miraglia, and Alternate Tully; Absent – Barbanel, Pecorino, and Weiss. Vacancies – 1. York: Present – Lewis, and Moss; Absent – Cooper, and Frank.

Governance Leaders present: Baumrin (GSUC), Cooper (CSI), Fridman (KCC), Friedheim (BMCC), Kaplowitz (John Jay), Levine (CSI), Mettler (LaG), Rodriguez (Hunter), Savage (Queens), and Sohmer (CCNY). Guests Hanley (CCNY) and Lefkoe (Queens). Other guests Bob Nelson and Miranda Nelson. PSC Liaison McCall attended. Acting Vice Chancellor Ernesto Malave, attended. Executive Director Phipps, Administrative Assistant Pasela, and Secretary Blanchard were present. 

I. Approval of the Agenda: The report of Senior Vice Chancellor Allan Dobrin would be replaced by the report of Acting Vice Chancellor Ernesto Malave. The agenda was then adopted as amended.

II. Approval of the Minutes: The Minutes were approved as distributed.

III. Reports: (recorded in Reports & Deliberations)

A. Chair.

B. Ernesto Malave, Acting Vice Chancellor for Budget, Finance, and Computing.

C. Larry Hanley, Editor of Academe.

D. Representatives to Board Committees (written)

IV. New Business:

Resolution on Naming a CUNY Faculty Representative on the Board of Directors of the New York Structural Biology Center

Whereas, the New York Structural Biology Center is a New York State 501 (c) (3) corporation with a Board representing nine institutional members that include the Albert Einstein College of Medicine of Yeshiva University, the City University of New York, Columbia University, Memorial Sloan-Kettering Cancer Center, Mount Sinai School of Medicine, New York University, Rockefeller University, Wadsworth Center of the Department of Health, and the Joan and Sanford Weill Medical College of Cornell University, and

Whereas, the Center will house the largest and most advanced cluster of high-field magnetic resonance research magnets in the Americas, and

Whereas, CUNY has two representatives serving on the Governing Board of the Structural Biology Center, one being CUNY's Executive Vice Chancellor for Academic Affairs, the other being a faculty member, and

Whereas, it is traditional in CUNY governance that the faculty member of governing boards of CUNY-related institutions be named by CUNY governance bodies,

Therefore, Be it Resolved, that the CUNY faculty representative on the Board of Directors of the New York Structural Biology Center shall be named by the University Faculty Senate after consultation with appropriate Senate committees.

The resolution was passed unanimously by voice vote.

There being no further business, the meeting was adjourned at 8:35 p.m.

Respectfully submitted,

Bill Phipps

Executive Director

Chair: The Intellectual Property policy was passed yesterday at the Board of Trustees. The document is considerably better than when we first received it. I tried to get the document amended so that no changes would be made without consultation with the UFS, and I tried to do that with Manfred Philipp, who spoke quite eloquently. The best we got was that the Chancellor said verbally at yesterday’s meeting that he would not change the Intellectual Property policy in any way without consultation with the University Faculty Senate. But it was verbal, not in writing. Another issue: the resolution to end remediation in the senior colleges. The State Ed Department is writing a response to our proposal, our ten points. Regent Gardner today called me and he’s pushing for a hearing on the resolution in New York City. However, the Higher Ed Committee will not meet until Wednesday, December 11, in Albany. We’re pushing for an earlier meeting. I will be there, but my fear is that they may then vote the following day, which, if they can’t postpone it, means there will be no hearing. We’re still struggling around this issue. We will get monitoring. In other words, the remediation policy will be monitored I think for another number of years, and Gardner is asking if we have any specific things we want monitored. I referred him to our ten-point policy, but we might want to refine it. At least they are listening to us, but whether or not we are going to make an impact remains to be seen. There is a people’s hearing at City College Tuesday at 12:15 in the NAC Ballroom if people want to testify, but we need to keep on pressuring the Regents for a hearing.

There are two searches going on. One is for the presidency at York. There are three faculty on the Search Committee. There is also a search going on at the Research Foundation, and Jamal Manassah is on the Committee for the search for the president of the Research Foundation. The December Plenary has been changed from the 10^th to the 17^th. Please make a note of that. I do believe we will have Allan Dobrin talking about security. We have a new Listserv. Please use it. So far I’ve been quite pleased with it. Do use it to ask questions or if you want to have a conversation with other governance people.

CUNY on the Concourse, that was a topic we talked about at the last plenary. Dean Mogulescu is meeting with the Executive Committee on December 3, and we’ve asked to be informed about all credit courses run by Continuing Ed and what the procedure is, so at the next plenary I can report back on that.

We are trying to condense a 100-page print-out of sabbaticals for the past two years. It’s a little confusing, but we will release it when it’s ready.

Vice Chancellor Ernesto Malave: I had a bunch of materials sent over earlier today. I think it was enough for the group, about 75, but I don’t know whether you’ve had an opportunity to look at them. Let me make sure everybody has this material first. I’m going to talk about three things. I’m going to talk about the status of the current year’s budget, the FY 2002-2003 budget for both, first the senior colleges and then the community colleges, just to bring you up to date on where things are today. Then I want to take you through the 2004 Budget Request that the University Trustees adopted at yesterday’s Board Meeting, and then I want to talk a little bit about the outlook for CUNY in not only 2004 but 2005 and 2006. In your packet there are three documents. The first is a memorandum from me to Chancellor Goldstein dated November 18, in which I identify and indicate the potential impact of the Mayor’s Proposal that he announced last week. Then there is the budget request outline that’s in a PowerPoint presentation, and then for your casual reading later on when you’re out of here – I picked out what I thought was the most relevant piece of the Financial Plan Update that the Mayor announced yesterday.

Let me begin first with the senior colleges and how they fared this year and where things are. You recall that last year’s budget was effectively a flat line budget that in many ways contained the impact of 9/11, and how that distorted the budget picture in the State of New York. Just to take you back a little bit, the State of New York the year before last had proposed a budget, that is the Governor had proposed a budget, that included $20 million in additional resources for the University to do a number of things, including hire full-time faculty and meet its obligations for the Master Plan. The legislature, however, in a grand game of chicken with the Governor, decided they were not going to pass the budget, that it did not meet their priorities, so they decided that they were going to take away $4 billion from the Governor’s budget and took down the $20 million proposed increase for the senior colleges to $7 million. So our friends in the legislature managed to reduce the budget in ways that no one would have imagined, and they did so as part of a strategy that obviously at the end backfired, and obviously for a lot of reasons, but subsequent to that strategy 9/11 occurred. At that point nobody was playing any budget games, at that point everyone was doing triage, "let’s get back to Albany, let’s simply get this budget done." So the budget basically was a bare-bones budget that simply did not adequately address the needs of the senior colleges. That budget was subsequently modified later in October when there were some additional restorations for the SEEK program, there was $1 million in new funding for full-time faculty and some child care funds that will now be funded through the Department of Children and Families, and then some accounting issues related to the way in which Financial Aid administration is managed at CUNY. But at the end of the day it was a bare-bones budget. So what did we do? We decided that, given that it was a bare-bones budget and given the uncertainty that was built into that budget, we would set up what we call 2% encumbrances. So we allocated the senior college budget but we told the schools "this 2%, what amounted to $13 million dollars, don’t spend so quickly." And the reasons we didn’t want to spend it so quickly were two primary reasons and a third really fearful one. One was that there were exploding fringe benefit costs that were hitting us at the end of last fiscal year that were not being funded and it was punching a big hole in the budget, and it ultimately did. Also, we were the beneficiaries of a very warm winter. As a result, the fears that we had of a shortfall of the energy budget never materialized because we had an extremely warm winter, but all the energy folks told us that if we have a normal winter, and that’s not an unreasonable proposition, we have a shortfall of $5 million in the energy budget. For all those reasons - plus the most dramatic reason that everybody believed that the budget that was adopted in Albany was going to fall apart very quickly, that the budget simply could not stand, that it was an election year budget – for all those reasons, we set aside a reserve knowing that potentially a mid-year cut was coming. That obviously created some pressures at the senior colleges. Things that colleges were planning on doing they had to sort of hold back. I don’t know exactly how they were describing it on campus but we weren’t holding them to everything, we were just simply telling them to be a bit conservative in the budget. However, there was also a benefit that occurred this year that nobody really planned on. We didn’t really plan on getting the equivalent of a Brooklyn College enter into the system. We have 11,000 new students today, more students today than we had last year, and that obviously generates additional revenue at the senior colleges. So at the senior colleges we’re expecting at the low end about $20 million in additional revenue to flow into the senior college budgets as a result of this increased enrollment and that will obviously help offset whatever budget pressures, not all the budget pressures because with the increased enrollment will come additional costs, but it clearly is better to have the additional $20-25 million than not in a time in which you have all these budget pressures. So that’s happening and the other thing that happened last week is that I went to visit the Governor’s budget division. They are really trying to help us figure out a way out of this fringe benefit problem that we have in the current year. So we may be able, hopefully, to get through the year without having to maintain those encumbrances. The good news was that when I went to visit Albany - this was two weeks after the election, I would not have been shocked if somebody would have handed me a piece of paper with a number on it saying "this is your cut that you’ve been waiting for" – they didn’t do that. In fact, when I asked the question "are we likely to get any messages any time soon and could you give me a heads-up now, after all, you’re approaching the last quarters of the State fiscal year, so you should have some sense of how you’re going to end up", they had no number for me. And I took that as a positive development that at this point in the process the State was not prepared to levy a mid-year reduction. That doesn’t mean that they weren’t ready to say "by the way, we’re having a meeting next week, and things may change," but I just considered it as a positive development that I did not walk away with an additional budget cut. And that is where we are at the senior colleges.

At the community colleges the mid-year situation is not as hopeful. Well, let me not say that entirely. The Mayor last week announced a modification to another budget that incidentally everybody understood to be out of balance at the moment that it was enacted. Every one of the fiscal monitors, if you recall when the City Council and Bloomberg all stood there with their first budget, were really saying that this budget was not balanced and it would not take long to fall apart. It didn’t take long for us after the budget was adopted to get a notice from Mark Page, the City Budget Director, that he was imposing a 7.5% reduction or reserve in our budgets. So very early on in the fiscal year immediately went out notices from my office about the actions the city had taken to set up reserves. And they were only reserves at the time because this was now the University’s opportunity to submit impact statements, and we did. On September 4 we suggested what would be the impact of what was then an $11.7 million proposed reduction to the City Budget for CUNY, not just he community colleges. But the community colleges had taken that amount and had established $10 million in reserves. So the colleges had set aside $10 million because they did not expect to get that and they didn’t know exactly when the Mayor was going to decide. The Mayor has submitted his modification, which is now before the City Council, which is not an $11.7 million reduction but a $9.8 million reduction and it’s not all against the community colleges. It’s mostly against the community colleges, but the reduction now is a little under $6 million that’s being proposed for the community colleges, with the elimination of the Vallone Scholarship Program, which is largely a senior college financial aid program, and some adult literacy program cuts at a rate of 7.5 %. And there’s a major and yet unexplained reduction at the Hunter Campus Schools, and I will answer any questions on the Hunter Campus Schools that I can. The community colleges set aside $10 million in reserves, so the financial plans that colleges submitted to my office held those funds aside and no doubt on your campuses you felt the impact of that reserve. Well, now the campuses will be able, if this holds and there are no further reductions, to release some of that reserve they already established. They established it to make it simple; if you had a $1 million reserve, now you only need to have $600,000 reserve, so $400,000 can go back to be redistributed in whatever priorities were held back by the college administrations at the time. We don’t expect any additional reduction at the community colleges because the community colleges have some measure of protection with respect to City funding. The State Budget of New York contains a clause in the budget for the City of New York, called Maintenance of Effort. It provides that the budget cannot go below the prior year’s funding level. And because the Bloomberg administration, unlike previous administrations, actually gave us new money to cover a number of things, we actually do have an exposure, a risk if you will, of about $6 million. So the Mayor’s Budget Office simply took what they could and stayed within the requirements of the law, so they really can’t go any further than that. At the end of the day, we don’t expect any additional reductions at community colleges.

Like the senior colleges, however, the community colleges also generated additional enrollment, and also therefore have additional revenue. It’s estimated on the low side there is $5 to $6 million in additional revenue going to the community colleges. And this is, by the way, unlike the senior colleges, a community college budget that saw, despite the bare-bones nature of the budget, for the first time in three years, an increase in State aid. If you recall, there was a $50 per FTE increase in aid to the community colleges. So the community colleges started the year with a budget that largely funded its continuing obligations, so on top of the State aid, on top of the City support that it received initially, it now has another $6 million in additional revenue. There will be some offsets between the cost that they’ve obtained and the additional revenue coming in. I think that’s not a bad situation, all those things considered, and if you consider the gore that’s in this budget, despite all the rhetoric about tax revenue being the center piece of the budget, when you look at some of the numbers and you look at the significant reductions that are being planned in other agencies, it’s not a pretty sight. The fact of the matter is that community colleges are going to fare pretty well in this budget environment except, I regret to say, the Hunter Campus Schools.

Let me just say that in discussions that we had all along with the Office of Management and Budget, we sort of expected that the Hunter Campus Schools would fare a little worse than the general public school system and that at the end of the day the City Administration would not accept reductions on the instructional side of the house. Let me just explain to you how the City rationalizes numbers with the Board of Ed. The initial cut of 7.5% to the Board of Ed, that was 7.5% of City funding to the Board of Ed, totaled $379 million. That was the number that the Board of Ed had as an initial challenge. That was their equivalent to our $11.7 million. But, to the extent of the Board of Ed’s budget, the City funding portion is only about 40%. The 7.5% was really a 3% cut. So that’s for starters. Then, as times went along and suddenly when you’re on the Board of Ed you don’t really want to cut it as much, the City administration decided "Well, $250 million was about all that was going to be levied on the Board of Ed." So at the end of the day when you include all the State aid that the Board of Ed kept, which is not the lion’s share but the greater share of the budget, the cut to the City Board of Ed amounts to about 1.5%. And we were sort of feeling that we would be treated the same way. Well, the voices started turning and they were suggesting that now the treatment of the Board of Ed in the Hunter Campus Schools would not be equivalent, and I really took it as a surprise because the Hunter Campus Schools is an awfully inadequately funded school. We’re looking at an institution, despite its being the jewel of the City of New York’s public school system, for which the State aid has not changed for as long as I’ve been in the budget area. And even before I was in the budget area, when I was a lobbyist, the number was the same. $1.3 million was all the State support that the Hunter Campus School obtains, despite a decade of increases in K through 12. Somehow, all that State aid never found its way to the Hunter Campus Schools, and that may have to do with the fact that they are not really part of the Board of Ed. But at the end of the day 90-95% of the budget for the Hunter Campus Schools is City funds, because they get $1.3 million in State funds but they get $9.6 million in City funds. So when you start tagging on 7.5% cuts, even if you’re treating them consistently with the Board of Ed, you’re really slaughtering them because you’re applying cuts of 5-6% on a half-year basis, which are 10% on an annual basis. On September 4 when we wrote to Mark Page we said that this would generate a retrenchment scenario, that there was no way that the Hunter Campus Schools could do this without laying off teachers. Let me just say, however, that at yesterday’s Board Meeting, and I think Susan will recall this, we spoke with Mark Shaw, the Deputy Mayor, and the Chancellor made a strong point to the Deputy Mayor that this was an issue that needed to get addressed and it needed to get addressed very quickly, because we could not imagine how the Mayor, who if anything said to the world that the way he treated the Board of Ed reflected his views that instruction cannot be affected, that he could he then turn around and do this. At this point I’m hoping that it’s simply just one bad bureaucratic mistake and that it really doesn’t reflect the intent, and I don’t really think it does because when we spoke with Mark Shaw we had a very good response from the Deputy Mayor that it was his view that instruction should not be affected and under no circumstances should there be any layoffs. We take that message from the Deputy Mayor to be a positive sign that at the end of the day, sooner rather than later, we’re going to fix the Hunter Campus Schools situation. But, as it stands right now, we’re just staring at a budget cut of nearly 10% that will require at minimum the separation in the current year of 14 instructional, or at least 10 instructional staff, and up to 14 full-time staff. I’ll be able to answer questions later on this. So that’s where we are, in a situation where for the community colleges things are pretty stable. We have an issue at the Hunter Campus Schools that we’re going to solve, I’m sure of that. The other thing that the Mayor did was to eliminate the Vallone scholarship program. That’s pretty straightforward. There was already a cut to that program of $1.5 million dollars that occurred in the beginning of the year. We had reduced therefore the award from $750 to $500 to deal with the reduction in the award level. Now that will go from $500 to $0, unless the City Council can figure out a way of restoring the funds. And right now, by the way, if you’re interested in what’s going to happen at the City Council, I’m hearing that they are going to act on Monday. They are not going to be sitting around deliberating this modification for a few weeks, so if there is any action that any of you are contemplating in order for it to be effective you have to move very quickly.

I’m going to shift now to the Budget Request and I’m not going to spend too much time going over the basic parameters and the framework because I think we all know that the Budget Request at the University is based on the University’s Master Plan. The Budget Request this year is not terribly different from the Budget Request of last year and the one before that. What I would like to do is simply, beginning on page 7, just start going over some of the numbers so you can get a sense of where the University is laying out the numbers and how we would expect to finance our priorities. The University is identifying, and by the way it was unanimously supported at yesterday’s Board Meeting, $101.9 million in additional needs. As you can see, those needs, if you look at the total column, are divided between $53.5 million in programmatic initiatives and $48.4 million in what we call mandatory needs, being largely those items that I mentioned earlier: pension benefits, increments that are part of the contractual obligations that we cannot shy away from and for which we have no choice but to finance. This is the number that reflects the current structural deficit we’re experiencing in the fringe benefit account of the University that we’re working in the current year to try to solve, but at the end of the day, if we don’t get a fix on this thing, in 2004 it is really going to be tearing into other areas of the budget because there really is no choice but to finance these obligations.

Let’s just focus on the programmatic needs for a moment. The $30.8 million in creating a flagship environment, that item is dominated by a $15 million request for 300 full-time faculty at the University. That continues to be the first, second and third priority…. [gap in tape].…is largely dominated by a $5 million request to assist the colleges in maintaining their facilities. It is not only BMCC, I should add, that is having difficulties, and it would take more than $5 million to address our infrastructure needs. There are infrastructure needs all over the University and there are also requirements to maintain the new facilities that we have. There is Baruch, Staten Island, the Graduate School; if we don’t make the investments now we’re going to be paying for it later, and if you have any doubts just go to BMCC. The next page will tell you how we are seeking to finance the Request. We break down the mandatory, the program and the total and we have five rows there, State Aid, City Support, Revenue Enhancements. $21.7 million dollars in Revenue Enhancements represents what we estimate would be the continuing enrollment growth at the University and we’re capturing the enrollment growth in this budget message. Productivity Savings, as you know, is what we at the University started last year, and I think Senior Vice Chancellor Allan Dobrin has already appeared before this body to basically deliver the message. In an era like last year where the University is levying technology fees, we have an obligation to be the most efficient enterprise we possibly can. And we cannot make the case to any of our funding partners that we need additional public funds unless we demonstrate that we are taking actions ourselves to try to be as productive as we can. Revenue policy changes of $7 million represents, if you recall, the decision from last year when the Trustees phased out the last semester free program. It was an expensive program, it was unfunded and it was costing us a lot of money. At the time when we phased it out we said that we would take the $7 million and fund full-time faculty hires, and that’s what we intend to do. So of the $53.5 million $38.7 million is effectively in our control. We already have that, we hope that the enrollment growth continues, not everywhere but we hope that it continues and it’s evenly distributed through the system, but we expect that it will continue and we expect to generate those revenues. We are only seeking a little under $15 million in State support, which is roughly evenly distributed between senior and community colleges to fund our programmatic priorities. This is our message to the State, our message says "you have to meet us a little bit more than halfway. We’ll figure out how to finance 40% of our budget needs, which in this environment is not unreasonable, but you have to be able to put $60+ million on the table for us to continue to grow the University." That is our message to the State.

On the next page you’ll see that we’re really requesting of the state appropriation authority only $84.9 million. That $17 million negative offset you see against the $53.5 representing part of the internal dollars that I mentioned, the $7 million in last semester free revenue that’s being generated and the $10 million in productivity. The other one is the $21.7 million in tuition revenue that still has to be appropriated by the State of New York because we can’t spend money that is not appropriated to us. We can generate, and we do generate almost $600 million in tuition revenue, but the State must appropriate that revenue in our budget. The next three pages are simply percentages and representations of what those dollars are of the base, and you can see the 1.9% increase in State support for program needs that I alluded to earlier. On page 11 you see the further breakdown. You have the $30.8 million divided between full-time faculty, you see the $15 million there, and you see the other two significant areas are doctoral fellowships and instructional equipment. We continue to seek equity with the State University of New York in order to maintain our competitive posture here and the needs for instructional equipment that cannot be met by technology fee revenue. Technology fee revenues are largely to support PC needs for the students, but the high end instructional equipment that’s required for some of our programs is very expensive and colleges need additional resources in that area. You see how the $5 million in facilities management infrastructure, and the academic support services and the collaborative program are again the significant areas that we’re seeking aid. Finally, there is the more comprehensive funding chart that lays out all the numbers beginning with our current base and breaking out the mandatory needs and program needs, so that at the end we’re asking for a senior college budget of $63.5 million or 5.8% increase, for the community colleges is a $21.4 million increase or 5.5%, for a total request of $84.9 million or 5.7%. That is the budget message for the University this year. We do this not unmindful of what we’re up against. It isn’t as though we believe that the State of New York is going to give us $60 million. I hope it does. I hope we make the argument. I know someone is going to get $85 billion in the State of New York, so it isn’t as if those resources disappear, that the State of New York doesn’t have choices they can make. Governor Gray Davis if I recall not too long ago decided in his budget message, despite what is a $30 billion dollar shortfall in California, that he was going to protect the public university systems and that there will be no reductions in the public university systems. There is no good reason why Governor Pataki can’t do the same and the legislature can’t do the same. So we have to make our best case, and we will make our best case, but the outlook is grim. The outlook is something that people are comparing, depending on how old you are, to 1976 or 1989. I remember the 80’s. I don’t remember the 70’s very much, but I do remember 1989. I was a lobbyist at the time and Black Monday hit in 1987 and all hell broke loose a couple of years after Black Monday in ’87 because there was a lag of a couple of years before State revenues began to get depleted, and the recession ultimately cost, no doubt, David Dinkins his mayoralty. It was during the administration of David Dinkins that we suffered tremendous losses in the community colleges. In about one year $50 million in City aid disappeared from the community college budget. The City and the State will at the end of the day take a very blunt instrument and start slashing because that is often the only option they have. It isn’t as though, if you look at Mayor Bloomberg, they can’t think of ideas to generate revenue. They’ll come up with ideas to generate revenues, and he’s got a good one these days and he’s going to generate substantial amount of revenues. You’re then going to have other leaders saying "no, you’re not," whether it’s Senator Bruno or some others, they’re going to say "no, you’re not going to go there," and so then there is very little that you can do. The City Budget that the Mayor has arguably under his direct control is only about $15 billion, and half of that goes to education and police and a couple of other things, leaving very little else for other services. When I, as Vice Chancellor or previously as Budget Director, get confronted with what I’m confronted with often, not too often but these days more often than not, a negative number, we have to make reductions. And we try to make them smartly, but at the end of the day we make reductions. There is a contraction and we’re likely, despite our best efforts, to be confronted with a contraction. The question for us at the University is whether or not we make the mistake we made in the 1990’s. When I think about the outlook I often think about how we’re going to handle this. Let’s just say somebody punches a $100 million hole in the budget, what do we do? They punched a $100 million hole in the budget in 1995 when they had a $5 billion revenue problem. Well, now they have a $10 billion revenue problem in the State of New York. It wouldn’t shock me if the Governor punched a $100 million hole in the budget, and then what do we do? That is what we’re going to be confronted with at the University, whether or not we figure out a way of managing that potential scenario in a way that does not leave us where we were in 1997, having suffered through the early 1990’s of budget cut after budget cut and tuition increase after tuition increase, which resulted in still a negative condition where we lost 1,000 full-time faculty. We went from 6,600 to 5,500 full-time faculty. We can’t do that again. I don’t think we can afford to do that again. I think going from 6,600 to 5,500 in full-time faculty is as low as one could go without doing irreparable harm to the University. But how do we avoid that is the question, how do we come up with a response to a budget challenge that allows you to get through this budget pressure, continue to make investments. How do we figure out how to spend $1.5 billion without decimating ourselves and our ability to grow and our ability to then grow even further when the economic downturn turns into an economic upturn and additional revenues become available, because there will be an end to this— it will turn around. The only question is whether when it turns around we are going to be in a position that "we wish we could get back to the budget level in 2003," when I really think we should be trying to figure out how to get back to our level in 1989. That’s our struggle and it’s going to be a difficult one because everyone is lining up and we know what’s going to happen. But I am committed, I know this Chancellor is committed, in a way in which he challenges the presidents when he reminds them that fundraising is an essential requirement of being a president for this University and there really is no way around that. At the end of the day we need to find the revenues. We took a hit when we decided that we were going to raise a technology fee, being a modest one for the most part. People said "you can’t do that," but the economic argument of the cost of not having a technology fee prevailed. We’re going to have a lot of challenges and we’re going to have to get through it together because if we don’t get through it together I can assure you where it’s going to end up. It’s going to end up exactly where we were in 1995-96 when we did not generate sufficient revenue and we paid a big price for it. So we have to figure out how to get through this together. I simply urge you to work with the University - I know the University is committed to working with you - to get through this struggle together. Thank you very much.

Professor Manassah (Electrical Engineering, City College) –Something you mentioned verbally doesn’t show up here. What are you anticipating all the college presidents that you hired to raise in terms of fund raising? When you mentioned the revenue enhancement of the $21.7 million, you thought mostly this is going to come from tuition. / Vice Chancellor Malave – It is all coming from tuition. / OK, so what are you realistically expecting in terms of numbers to come from fundraising? / Vice Chancellor Malave – At the prior to last Board Meeting, the Chancellor’s consultant in fund raising issued a report that suggested that we are at the $50 million fundraising capacity, and he believed that if we worked really hard we should be able to double that figure in about 3 years. So I think if we work really hard we’ll double that figure in about 3 years, and hopefully we’ll be at $100 million. The Chancellor in November had a retreat with the Presidents that was dominated by fund raising issues, including role-playing - the Chancellor was the star and he had the head of the Baruch College fund, who is the philanthropist and has given away much to Baruch and others - on how you seek this. On a practical level you have to do this. CUNY, for a lot of reasons - and this is something that is not just with CUNY; I think most colleges in the Northeast never figured out fundraising – needs to work on it. They need to work on it all the time and they need to constantly be reminded. You want to be able to, when you have a new recruit and you need start-up funds and the start-up funds aren’t there, to have a capacity to generate even a couple of million dollars that you don’t have today, but a couple of million dollars that if you work on you have next year; so that if we’re able to give you some money for new hires but you need some start-up funds for the laboratory work, and often that is required to generate and recruit that faculty, you have another source of revenue. Right now at the colleges, except for a few that are doing very well, it’s either tuition or whatever the State provides. That’s it. Well, you should be able to have a revenue source, a fairly substantial revenue source, that you could meet one time needs. And we hope that in 3 years we’ll at least double it, and hopefully better than that. / Professor Manassah – Just a number so everybody knows; the faculty is raising $212 million in grants and contracts. I think it is very important for everybody in this room who doesn’t know this number to realize this number. It’s $212 million this last year in grants and contracts. We basically are just asking the president to do just as well. / Vice Chancellor Malave – Sounds good to me, particularly unrestricted ones. / Professor Manassah – The indirect recovery in that, what goes back to the Colleges, is about $22 million. / Voice from the audience – That could be used for start-ups. / Professor Manassah – Absolutely, if people decide that they don’t want to have to slush funds.

Professor Philipp (Chemistry, Lehman College) – Before I ask my question I should note that, in the case of some presidents, the fundraising ability seems to be declining according to the figures that were recently released, not increasing. So it’s a little depressing. My question is this: There have been reports that SUNY is considering a tuition increase. Do you have any comment on that kind of issue for CUNY? / Vice Chancellor Malave – I don’t think they’re considering it in their budget message. I know that they’ve been pressing for one for several years now. The SUNY Chancellor has made no secret of his desire to have a tuition increase, and he’s done so for several years now, and he’s been restrained by the Governor who keeps telling him "you can’t do that; you can’t submit a message that has a tuition increase; we won’t allow it, we won’t permit it." From what I can tell he continues to press for an increase, and I think the Governor is still continuing to tell him that he can’t have it, but you never know. / Professor Philipp – Thank you.

Professor Crain (Psychology, City College) – The increased enrollment has brought in more tuition. It’s illusory in the sense that educationally we can’t serve the students very well and we just have more students based on the tuition increase. At City College the composition classes went up from 25 to 30, and to run a good composition class that number is way over what it should be. So you’ve got all these students coming in and it’s not working out. And also, we did increase tuition as you notice already. That last semester free, getting rid of that is a tuition increase. / Vice Chancellor Malave – For some students, yes. / Professor Crain – All those who plan on getting to the last semester. / Vice Chancellor Malave – I agree. / Professor Crain – My main question is, everybody speaks as if "I don’t want it on the backs of the students," and everybody speaks as if the deficit, this financial situation, is inevitable, that it’s like the law of gravity or something, but it’s not. There are $13 billion in tax cuts in the current state budget. $13 billion, that’s what it was, I never saw it changed. In each executive budget since ’95 there have been tax cuts. It’s a plan, it goes all the way through 2004, and if we just leveled off and didn’t continue with tax cuts that would be money. There are all kinds of sources of money: the stock exchange taxes source of money that’s never explored. There’s enormous tax cutting going on and it’s a long-range plan. Why don’t we all say, "let’s not continue with the tax cuts?" It’s not fair for all the services people need. It’s not fair to people. My question is why don’t we change our attitude and say, if we’re all going to work together let’s work together, and say it’s not fair to have tax cuts? I never heard anybody lobby against tax cuts. Never. I haven’t heard the Democrats lobby. /

Vice Chancellor Malave – I think the Democrats voted for those tax cuts. And at the end of the day it’s not just Governor Pataki who runs the show. The Assembly supported every single one of those tax cuts. First of all, I don’t know, when you said this budget contains $13 billion in tax cuts, I recognize that figure to be the cumulative effect of all the tax cuts since 1995. / Professor Crain – No, this year. / Vice Chancellor Malave – There is not $13 billion in new tax cuts. / Professor Crain – I’ll send it to you. It’s the executive budget. / Vice Chancellor Malave – Send it to me. I saw the budget and I know from 1995 to 2002 it adds up to $13 billion. / Professor Crain – That’s $100 billion. / Vice Chancellor Malave – Send it to me. It’s a difficult number to grasp because after all the Governor did not…maybe you know exactly where that $13 billion came from. In this budget, in this bare bones budget, where did the $13 billion in tax cuts come from? / Professor Crain – The tax cuts were statewide. / Vice Chancellor Malave – $13 billion is a lot of money in a given year, given that the entire general fund is $40 billion in the State of New York. When you’re saying that all that occurred in this year, I think you need to look at the numbers. / Professor Crain – I’ll send it to you. I think it’s for corporate tax cuts…[break in tape]. / Vice Chancellor Malave – I am and have been for a robust University system all my life. The Governor is the elected State official who proposes, the legislature disposes. Every year they are together doing it. Would I love the State of New York to generate and that $13 billion to get redistributed somewhere? Yes, I’d love to have it! I’m the one who witnessed 10 years of budget erosion at CUNY. The Governor is not going to listen to me when I tell him "by the way, can you take those $13 billion back." He just got reelected by overwhelming numbers notwithstanding this tax cut. All we can do is continue making our case.

Professor Savage (Sociology, Queens College) – I’m encouraged to hear you speak tonight about the absolute necessity of increasing the number of full-time faculty, and I’m also encourages to read on the Listserv that Benno Schmidt is saying the same thing. The Chancellor said the same thing on at least two occasions, but the record is not good on this. If we start with the 11,500 back in 1975 and we look, every year we’ve seen a cut. So I would like to know a little bit more about the basis on which you are saying at 80^th Street that we simply can’t go any lower and what is the nature of the set of mechanisms that you’re thinking about setting up to ensure that we really do make some kind of more serious effort to increase the number of full-time faculty. It’s always going to be the case on campuses that you need another counselor, more security, you’re going to need people to take care of some kind of buildings and grounds maintenance, you’re going to need all those things, and these are going to be real needs, and this is what we’ve been confronted with all along, and you know that’s what’s going to happen. So what is there at 80^th Street that is an analytic back-up to this expressed desire to have an increase in the number of full-time faculty? And then very specifically, is this possibly something you might consider including in the presidential performance guidelines? /

Vice Chancellor Malave – Sure. And in fact they are already there. The Chancellor did at yesterday’s Board Meeting also indicate or reveal to the Trustees his performance measures that the Colleges are held to. Among those are the goals of increasing full-time faculty and the percent of instruction taught by full-time faculty. Colleges submit their goals and objectives and they have these targets, and they often time seek to increase the percentage of instruction and those things are measured. At the end of the day the Colleges were measured on meeting a set of nine goals and objectives, two of them having to do either with flagship hires, or increase a number of full-time faculty, or the percent of instruction by full-time faculty. So that’s already there. When the Chancellor said we wanted to generate $10 million in productivity savings, he said to me and others that we have to establish a baseline of what we define to be general administrative expenditures, and that we need to see Colleges make $10 million in investment this year in student instructional related expenditure, largely in the area of full-time faculty. Colleges have been asked to identify that $10 million and to demonstrate what initiatives they are financing with that $10 million to generate support for the instructional side of the house. The instructional side of the house of course is more than merely full-time faculty; it’s support, it’s equipment. And we just added $10 million to that, in a continuing push to move and make the system as efficient as possible, because any new dollars that we can get we don’t want it going to administration, to security, if it can be avoided. Security is a different matter and we can talk about that again in terms of the cost of security in this new environment, but that is the Chancellor’s mechanism for showing that the Colleges maintain that. At the Budget Office, when I was speaking with the Committee and the faculty earlier, we have a faculty maintenance of effort policy at the University that we created a number of years ago that requires colleges to maintain a level of full-time faculty in order for them to keep the dollars. That’s how we have kept the faculty going up a little bit, not as much as we would like but steadily. Since 1998 the faculty ranks have in fact risen at this University. There are several hundred more full-time faculty today than there were a few years ago, and I consider that a tremendous accomplishment given the environment that we’ve been having to deal with. How we move forward is my goal. When I say "how did we get to 5,000," and why do I consider that number to be a magic number is because I witnessed the 1990’s. It just happened to be in ’89 when I came into the Budget Office, and I saw Queens College used to have almost 200 more full-time faculty then than it has today. And I saw the erosion. I saw the effect when I looked at the indicators about the percent of instruction taught by full-time faculty - it used to be in the high 60’s-low 70’s; at the graduate level it used to be in the mid-80’s – and how that declined. That matters. Right now we have some campuses where it’s 30-40%. That cannot be sustained. We have to be on the other side of that. I don’t think it takes a lot for me to know that we’ve hit bottom. That’s a fact in every campus. Some campuses are a little bit better off than others, but I’m just convinced that we can’t go any lower than this thing, and the challenge for us will be either through internal redistribution or to figure out the financing scheme that will enable us to continue to make modest improvements. We can’t in this environment generate a lot of revenue because the states and the cities are going to be in a contracting mode, but we need to be able to make some modest progress while we get through the downturns. And we’re positioned to grow substantially when the downturn comes to an end. I’m convinced that we can do that. I really am, because I’m convinced that the alternative is suicidal, and I’m not playing that game.

Professor Beaky (English, LaGuardia Community College) – When you were talking about the Community Colleges, you said that you felt that we would fare pretty well and that our situation was pretty stable for this year. / Vice Chancellor Malave – Relatively speaking, yes. / Professor Beaky – Relatively speaking, yes. And I guess it’s that relative speaking that I want to bring up and ask you about, because the fact is that for the last 10 years or 20 years, and some of us do also have a very long perspective, at Community Colleges the faculty is composed of a majority, a very high majority of part-timers, class sizes are huge. I want to say to Bill Crain "only 30 in your composition class? Not bad!" And you didn’t mention the capital budget, but the capital budget is, I know, putting off some of the Community College projects into outer years, and so on. /

Vice Chancellor Malave – When I looked at the budget condition I saw that the Community Colleges had obtained an additional $5.5 million in State Aid this year, that in addition to an additional $6 million in tuition revenue coming in, and that the reduction that was being imposed was no more than $5.9 million. In that context, I think many folks were preparing for a lot worse than that. And no, of course not, when you look at where they are today. I don’t know if Bill Friedheim is still here, he was my old professor of history at BMCC, and I remember when I was at BMCC I never saw an adjunct. They were never in any of my classes, except maybe one or two in some seminar courses that were highly specialized. I know the difference and I can tell from personal experience as well as what I hear from the larger community that at the end of the day a core of full-time faculty is essential in order for you to maintain quality. It’s not like the sanitation department where you can simply turn it on and off when you have a budget cut, or a precinct where you can simply reduce the patrols. When you slash Higher Ed, when you’re unable to make the investments, those things begin to show up years later. I’m sensitive to the issue of having knee-jerk reactions where you say "oh yeah, we can just cut in ‘cause we’ll be able to turn on the switch next semester." We can’t turn the switch on. Incidentally, I failed to mention, in part because it’s not a responsibility of mine, but Vice Chancellor Macari did report – she’s the Vice Chancellor for Construction Management – that in addition to everything else, on the operating end the Mayor was recommending taking 30% of the dollar value associated with the capital projects in the current New York and moving them into the outer years, which is effectively a reduction for the current year. The only hope is that even next year those dollars are there. The way that generally works is, if you’ve begun the project, you’re OK, but if you’re still trying to figure out how to get the design done you’ve probably lost it for the year and it will go on into some other year. But that’s an area that I imagine that Vice Chancellor Macari will report on in more detail in writing that could probably be posted on the Senate Forum.

Miranda Nelson (Hunter Campus Schools) – I have a couple of questions. First, on the short term: I’m a little confused about what exactly is happening now, and whether we’re looking for the Mayor’s Office to change the budget and try to restore some of that cut or whether we have to wait for the City Council to do it, and whether the City Council is likely to restore some of the money. What exactly is going to happen? /

Vice Chancellor Malave – My initial hope is that the City Administration recognizes that they didn’t really need to treat the Hunter Campus Schools differently from the rest of the Board of Education, and that they will reduce the reduction to the Campus Schools to a level consistent with what they did with the Board of Education. That is clearly the first option, because I don’t really think that the City Administration wants to be engaged in a public discourse of this kind, because obviously it has already made a commitment to education. If it says no and for whatever reason just pushes the envelope here, it will be up to the City Council over the next few days to either accept or reject the Mayor’s recommendation, and I imagine that the Councilwoman Eva Moskowitz, the Chair of the Education Committee, will have a lot to say about whether or not that occurs. I imagine that Speaker Gifford will get the pressure that often accompanies reductions to education. The City Council made education its priority and I can’t imagine the City Council not dealing with this, because at the end of the day, in the large scheme of things, to me it’s not even a rounding error, the cut to the Hunter Campus Schools. It’s $616,000 in the current year, which by the way cannot be met. It is not possible to make the reduction. They may be able to make some reduction but they cannot nearly do that. And so I think that, one way or the other, in the current year, if for no other reason that they are contractually obligated to maintain that personnel there because the contract requires 6 months’ separation, at the end of the day the cut in the current year will be minimal. It’s next year’s budget that really worries me, and whether or not the City Administration really intends to cut 10% of the budget. In order for us to be able to make those changes next year we have to begin, that is Hunter College needs to begin making the notice of separation in the next few months. So we’ll have a lot of drama about next year in the next months because that’s how the calendar works. I just got to tell you that the Chancellor, myself, and the Chief Operating Officer seem pretty aghast at what’s going on here and we’re committed to reversing it. I really think that, of all the things that we can do and that we can fix, this should not be that hard, and that we will. /

Miranda Nelson – That’s good to hear. Also, on the long term, is there any prospect for us getting money from the State and being funded at parity with the Board of Ed, because having 95% from the City is kind of ridiculous. / Vice Chancellor Malave – I think that President Raab at Hunter and others began 5 or 6 months ago to try to unravel and understand the funding of the Hunter Campus Schools, and I believe they are right now in the process of researching the issue of what the options are, determining whether or not it’s a good idea to be a part of the Board of Education, or whether or not perhaps it’s a better idea to be some charter school, or some other option. I think it’s incumbent upon both the parents at the school and those who are part of the governing structure to really examine this thing, because you can’t have a high school having to deal with this kind of turmoil on a year-to-year basis. But it’s an old story the Hunter Campus Schools. I think the current governing structure has to do with the fiscal crisis in the City of New York, and I remember years ago wondering, "Who governs the Hunter Campus Schools?" I asked that question rhetorically, and people didn’t really want to talk about it a lot because you don’t really start unraveling that because you’re going to find things you may not want to know about why it’s currently organized the way it is, and who does it really belong to, and what are the interests that are forcing the current situation. But I suspect that all that is sort of off the table at this point and that the administration at Hunter is going to have to look carefully and, if for no other reason, the parents will force that issue as they often do at the Hunter Campus Schools. / Miranda Nelson – Thank you. / Vice Chancellor Malave – You’re welcome.

Professor Cooper (History, College of Staten Island) – You took my line. I was going to announce everyone that you were a BMCC graduate and brag about you. One small fact: Some of us in this room are parents, Hunter College Campus Schools parents, and went through a pretty nasty business in the 70’s that was just about as bad as you can get. At that point what turned it around, apart from cake sales, which I think raised 12 cents per parent, was frankly the fact that there were a handful of parents with political connections on the East Side. There were a few parents who pulled in the State Assemblymen and two or three Council people, and that was the end of all those talks. I really was going to ask something that was raised by Bill Crain tangentially. I’m trying to figure out how tuition income is not offset by expensive education, except if we stuff students in larger classes and have a handful of adjuncts teaching some of them. You’re counting the increased tuition from increased enrollment on the plus side. Aren’t there any minuses that go with that? Or do we expect not to have any minuses? / Vice Chancellor Malave – It’s hard. It’s not a direct one-for-one offset depending on how you manage it. Every campus has different levels of faculty productivity. Depends on where that enrollment goesIt’s not always clear whether or not additional enrollment translates into additional cost. Like I said, it varies by campus. I would guess that in general it does, but it’s not a one-for-one depending on what campus you’re at and what programs those students are feeding into.

Professor Vozick (Science, Borough of Manhattan Community College) – First of all, I want to express really deep respect for the passion and discipline that you’re showing today and continuously in support of our University. I think it’s very strong and it moves me. / Vice Chancellor Malave – Thank you. / Professor Vozick – I have two questions in mind, and I’d like to let you select how you want to respond. They are very diverse questions. The first one is to explore more deeply the terrain around the dangers or risks of a tuition increase in the near future. We saw so many pundits in the newspaper saying that as soon as the election is over we were going to face increased charges and all kinds in the state, including a tuition increase. You probably know much more about it than the people in this room, and it affects our future a lot. I’d be interested in your thoughts about the terrain around what makes it more or less likely, or anything you can help us to see how we might move to prevent it. That’s the first question. The second is that it’s my duty here in this body, difficult duty, to somehow represent the adjuncts and CLTs in the University from BMCC. While I support the idea of full-time lines, I’m extremely cognizant of the overall analysis – you say it as well – that if we get a single digit percentage increase, something under 10 % increase in the number of full-time faculty, that would be a great success. We’re not looking for a huge expansion. So we have to face a future in which we’re going to have a large number of part-time or contingent or adjunct faculty as a part of the future of the University. Unpopular and unhappy as we are about it, that’s just the reality. So I’m interested in your long-term thinking about how to plan for the optimization of this resource, if you want to think of it in those terms, or how to help these people who are a critical part of our University do a better job and make the University better. /

Vice Chancellor Malave –Let me tackle the second one first, in part because it’s easier, and I don’t mean to suggest that I don’t have a thoughtful answer, but I’m not all that well equipped to talk about the deployment of adjuncts on the instructional side. I think that all of our employees at the University need to be well regarded and respected and treated the same. What I mean by ‘the same’ is that I’d like to think that anyone who goes before our students in the classroom is someone who we have a great deal of respect for, and that under any circumstances therefore if I walked into a classroom I better know that that Provost and that Chair thought a lot about the person they put before me in that classroom. I sort of approach it that way. So I think that, if you’re in the classroom, I’d like to think that more often than not the right decision was made and that you belong in that classroom. Having said that, we know that that isn’t always the case, but that isn’t always the case with full-timers as well. When people tell me "while we have all these adjuncts we really can’t search for full-time faculty, it’s going to take me a year to search for full-time faculty, or I don’t really want to hire substitute full-time faculty" I say, "What are you talking about? If you’re one of those colleges that have 500 adjuncts you mean to tell me that they’re OK to put in the classroom but they’re not OK to give them a substitute full-time position?" Something’s fundamentally wrong with that. Someone made a decision; someone arrived at a decision that, at the end of the day, that person may be adequate to serve as an adjunct but not as a full-timer. In that respect I’m not qualified to speculate as to why one arrives at that judgment. All I think is that if you’re in the classroom somebody made a considered judgment that you were qualified to be in that classroom, and that whenever even substitute positions become available it can’t be the case that they’re in the classroom but they’re not qualified to be substitute full-time faculty. That’s how I approach that question.

On the question of how I speculate about tuition and what I think the parameters are for a tuition increase, I start with the hopeful notion that Governor Pataki did not take advantage in the first 8 years of his administration to be very supportive of Higher Education, and that it shows, and that he would perhaps as part of his final administration decide to make an investment in Higher Education for the future, and that between Chancellor Goldstein and the Governor’s former colleague Chancellor King maybe public Higher Education could be put on a higher radar screen. I think we’re working hard to do that. The Governor made a number of stops to CUNY during this election campaign; I think you all saw him. I think he almost hit every campus; I suspect he has a greater connection to the University than he did 8 years ago. I think CUNY has gone a long way of sort of "changing the conversation," as the Chancellor would say, and getting State support for CUNY. The mere fact that the State Budget Division is helping me get through a very difficult fringe benefit problem that I’m managing is I think an indication of a different sort of approach and view of the University. Whether that translates into significant revenues, I don’t know. At one level I would just say "just leave me alone; since you didn’t invite me to the party don’t invite me to the wake." If you can maintain the level of funding for the University, that alone would be sufficient funding. If we get, for example, $48 million to support our fringe benefit obligation I would be very happy with that, because I know I’ve identified $38 million already to support program needs of the University. Now, what happens if none of that occurs and they punch a $100 million hole in the budget? Then we have a choice to make. I know how to find $100 million: we either raise the revenue or we do a retrenchment. There’s nothing more complicated than that. / Voice from the audience – We could close a college? / Vice Chancellor Malave – We could do that but that requires an act of the legislature. At the end of the day that is what we confront, and we’ll have a choice to make. We will either say, "all right, we will raise tuition," and reluctantly raise tuition - and we reluctantly raise tuition because we’re committed to preserving the infrastructure of this University - or we’ll say, "you know what, it would be great enough to redo the retrenchment in ’95; let’s do it again." We could do that. It would cost 500-600 jobs, because that is what would be required to do; or as you suggested we could just simply get rid of a college, but while we’re growing our enrollment I can’t imagine that happening. That is what we face, and that is what we may face sooner than we think. Like I said, we’re going to make our best possible case, but those are the only real choices. There really aren’t any other choices. Sure, we’ll scrape by, we’ll cut more administration, we’ll make our campuses less safe, we’ll do all of that, but then no one will want to come here and no one will be willing to come to the University or send their children to the University, and then we’ll be back where we were in the throes of the mid 1990’s. I can’t imagine why you would want to go back there, because I think we can afford to do that only once. I think we can afford the 1990’s only once. We need to recognize that and just get beyond the issues that we often confront. No one likes the choices that they’re confronted with, but I think we have a responsibility to the people of the City of New York to maintain a public Higher Education system for the future of the people of the City of New York. I have little cousins out there and we should have a University system for them 10 years from now. And what we do and how we do it, we’ll make that determination.

Professor Benenson (Mechanical Engineering, City College) – Within the last year or two we’ve seen the effects nationally on the corporate level of bad or not existent accounting. My question is, the indirect cost recovery money that comes to the colleges are largely raised by faculty and, except for the cut that goes to the Research Foundation, spent by the administration. Sshould they be required to account for how they spend those funds? / Vice Chancellor Malave – I’m a very big proponent of all-funds budgeting and reposting, so the answer is yes, yes, and yes. On the tax levy side, we’ve already produced numerous reports on how we spend our dollars. Right now I’d just like to get full, complete, scrubbed, clear accounting of the tax levy revenues, and even some of the other auxiliary type revenues, which would be 98% of the revenues. I would consider that to be a major accomplishment. But no, I don’t think there’s any revenue that we should not be able to account for and that we should not publicly account for. / Professor Benenson – Does 80^th Street have the authority to require that? / Vice Chancellor Malave – I think that we are moving toward a system of disclosure and of accountability. There are many things that we’re doing at the University, and we’re absolutely committed to doing that. I know the Chancellor is, I know I am, but it’s kind of hard when some of your basic infrastructure management information needs…we have a desire at CUNY to overhaul our administrative infrastructure, so we can even count our faculty and our employees and who they are. We have 25,000 employees at CUNY. We don’t know where they are and what they’re doing. We spend $1.5 billion and we’re not always absolutely certain how we’re spending it to degrees of levels that I think that are essentials. We’re working on it and it costs tens of millions of dollars to build the infrastructure and the reporting systems to get to that level. Right now we’re confronted with submitting those choices. The capital budget of $2.6 billion includes a considerable sum to help us overhaul our information systems in order that we can be able to generate this kind of information quickly in a meaningful way, not 3 years later. But it’s tens of millions of dollars, and that’s at the low end of these costs. So I think our job is to figure out how to - forget about not doing it because it’s going to cost so much money - but how do we figure out a way to, at a low cost, get the best possible information systems, including the financial disclosure of all funds. I’m fully supportive and I expect that we’ll unveil something sooner rather than later, but it’s kind of hard from my position, because often times people say " you can’t get more administrators at CUNY." Those things don’t happen by osmosis. They only happen when you have talented people who work for you, who are not always engaged in trying to deal with mid-year reductions and the trauma that affects the system whenever it’s under stress like it is today, where instead of doing the management that you would like to do you engage in treading water just to stay alive, so things get deferred. It’s a real challenge to do that. At CUNY, where we’re undergoing some kind of a transition, early retirements, we lose good people. We should have the ability to extract that information. But we’re doing the best we can.

Professor Petratos (Political Science, Economics and Philosophy, College of Staten Island) – You said you couldn’t remember the 1970’s. Let me take you back and see if you can imagine the 1950’s. I went to City College. We had a president, a provost, and a dean of student affairs. There was nobody else around. I agree with Bill Crain in that the education provided at the City University is good and cheap. Whatever it is, $1.5 billion for a couple of hundred thousand people, it’s very inexpensive and very good, and I think you’ve helped in that effort. I’ve heard you three or four times and I commend you for all that. What percentage of our courses are taught by adjuncts, even though we have the highest respect, they actually teach the bulk of the university; I think it’s about 50%. I haven’t’ seen a number on the students. I think the students is much higher because they teach the introductory courses. The percentage of students taught by adjuncts comes out at about 60%. Therefore, the situation is bleaker than you think, not that the adjuncts are bad, I want to emphasize that, but because we put the burden on them. / Vice Chancellor Malave – It’s not evenly distributed. When you say 50%, that average number at some campuses is closer to 65%. / Professor Petratos – That’s even worse. I managed an airline for a number of years. It’s about $150-180 million operation, and I found out that they were over-ordering meals, over-paying rents, over-paying themselves the managers, wasting on lavish parties and so on and so forth. I’m not implying anything here. You remember the Senator when they asked him what do people do in Washington and he said, "let me tell you, one half of them studies what he other half are doing." I want to suggest an incentive and then I’ll ask a question. The incentive is this: suppose that you told the presidents of the colleges that every time they reduced a line in the administrative structure they can hire two full faculty members. That would be a good idea, and see what the results would be. My question therefore is, without micromanaging – I don’t know your turf; I know your expectations and your competencies, I don’t know how far you can go – can we have some reallocation? Is there an effort to have a reallocation? I’ve asked several presidents, four or five of them. I’m not implying anyone in particular. I said, "how about the administrators?" "Well, the other campus has more than we do," and they start quoting numbers. This is in fact true. Has there been any effort to reallocate, has there been any effort to see what savings can be done, any frugality, has there been an effort to see where soft money goes, has there been any effort in those directions, which are essential? It doesn’t cost us $2,500 per course. If I throw a party for $50,000 that means 20 human beings or 20 courses for that matter, and so it goes. Has there been such an effort? I’m looking at the reallocation, having failed to get the revenue, which I think we ought to get in any event for such an inexpensive, great institution that produced you and produced me. What more can I say? /

Vice Chancellor Malave – Let me just try to attack that. I’ll just focus on reallocation because I saw Bill Crain sort of smiling about reallocation, as if most people think the money should come from City College. We at the University, particularly at the senior colleges, have grown an allocation system that is not and has not been enrollment sensitive. We have some of the older senior colleges that had their base budgets well established in the 1970’s. That basic infrastructure remained the same, so when Tech and John Jay started growing their enrollment they never saw any reallocation of dollars. It’s probably the one thing at CUNY that causes the greatest civil strife, and that is reallocations. It reminds me when President Carter wanted to raise the BTU tax. When OPEC raises your oil prices, nobody seems to complain about that. It’s amazing; something goes on in OPEC, gas went up 20-30 cents a gallon, everybody goes "that’s OK, what are you going to do about it." But heaven forbid that you raise 5 cents BTU tax and you do that yourself, because then you’re engaged in conflict. You’re taking from one class and you’re giving to another. It’s OK if OPEC did it, but it’s not OK if we do it to ourselves. So it’s a very difficult thing to do. CUNY had a minor experience in 1994 with the base level equity proposal, and we thought it was an interesting idea that the Colleges that had growing enrollments can take vacant lines. Heaven forbid there are vacant lines. It’s not like we’re taking real bodies; we’re taking vacant lines and we’re moving those dollars to those campuses. Lo and behold there was significant turmoil. I’m not interested in having significant turmoil at the University. I’m not interested in taking money away from campuses, even that are at the high end, so called well-funded institutions, and diminish their capacity because of some of the other institutions. I think what we need to do is, whenever we obtain new dollars we allocate those dollars accordingly. But at the end of the day, when you start toying around with allocation models and you start using percent of instruction taught by full-time faculty… well, less than 50 % of instruction at both Hunter and Baruch are taught by full-time faculty. They’re right there with John Jay and New York City Tech. I think that we will make every effort to create an allocation system that’s rational, but I’m not interested in launching enterprises that I know are going to result in a tremendous internal strife, if for no other reason than that people don’t understand the numbers. And let me tell you, people will look at a set of numbers and they’ll say "look at the periphery you’re funding here and periphery you’re funding there, and I’m getting screwed and you’ve got all the money," and they have absolutely no idea what’s going on. I find it amazing that colleges have administrators or faculty who have little knowledge of their own budgets but have a great deal of knowledge about somebody else’s budget. And they say, "look at the money that they have over there." You don’t even know your own budget! I just wish people would stop worrying about somebody else’s budget and just focus on their budgets, on their needs, and how to improve their lives. That’s how I answer that. /

Professor Petratos – How about reallocation within each individual college? / Vice Chancellor Malave – Those are presidential decisions. You have a governing system on every campus. Some campuses have a highly functional governing system, I hope, some I know are not as functional, where you have a governing system that is collaborative and people really understand where all the dollars go, and other places where there are a lot of improvements that are necessary. I hope you don’t want us to pay the presidents what we pay them and then not have them make their own decisions.

Professor Manassah (Electrical Engineering, City College) – Just one clarification with respect to the indirect cost recovery. You were implying that you need a big MIS system so you know where the money is going. Let me just tell you something, the Research Foundation is in a position to send you all that data. However, it requires that the Chancellor and the President release it. So rest assured you don’t have to use any of your MIS, you just have to use your Internet and basically your photocopying machine. That data can be provided to every campus if there is a decision to do so. / Vice Chancellor Malave – OK, I think I was trying to answer a broader question, but I also think that I can only speak for things that I can control, and the Research Foundation is not something that falls under the purview of my office. So the Board of Trustees and the Research Foundation have their own obligations and they have their own disclosure systems, and I’m worried about my own disclosure system before I worry about theirs. / Professor Manassah – I was just clarifying a fact.

Chair: Larry Hanley is the editor of Academe and he’s our very own. And this is a great honor, to have the editor of Academe as a member of CUNY.

Larry Hanley – Susan asked me if I would talk to you all and I said, "about what, about Academe?" And she said, "well, think of something." So I thought of something and you’ll have to let me know if it’s going to work. I thought I would just run through how an issue gets put together to give you some sense of what happens, some of the things I’ve learned editing Academe about you, my colleagues, and then some information about future issues and what to do if you want to submit an article to Academe. The hardest part of editing Academe is actually finding good contributors, so if you want to contribute or if you have a colleague who would love to contribute, please let me know and at the end I’ll give you my contact information. We have a great University and a great faculty, and I have tried to take advantage of that as I edit the magazine.

Academe has been around since basically the beginning of the AAUP. It’s the bulletin of the American Association of University Professors, which means that it carries a lot of the censure list, committee reports etc. In addition, in the past couple of decades it’s added a more magazine superstructure, which is what I’m in charge of. I don’t take care of the committee reports, etc. but the magazine articles. This is also the first time I’ve done a PowerPoint presentation in stereo, and I want to thank you for that happy initiation. Let’s move on. Oh, no that’s the wrong photo. That’s my summer trip to Havana, or alternatively what did on my sabbatical, if I got one.

Making an issue of Academe: These are basically the steps of how the issues of Academe get made. I’m going to run through them very quickly, touch on a couple of small points, and then move on. Planning the issue: Academe is planned around themes. As you may have noticed, this is Questions and Controversy, Intellectual Property, etc. Finding contributors, that’s the hard part. I send out about 100 e-mails per yield of about 5 or 6 articles. Getting product -- you would think would be the hardest but it’s not. People are very good about producing copy generally. Editing is the kernel of what I do as the editor, although not entirely everything I do. I’ll just give you and example of what a basic edit looks like. Hopefully this will work. As I’ll talk a little bit later on, Academe is basically for a general audience. Even though it’s academics, it’s not people who share the same disciplinary expertise, so sometimes it’s hard for people to figure that out and what that new audience means. This is an original version of an excellent article that’s going to appear in the next issue of Academe, and here is the first edit of it, which usually has to do with structural issues and then also some sentences. There you go. Oftentimes when you submit to an academic journal you don’t get this kind of editing. It’s usually either accepted or rejected, you make some modification in the structure of it, add some cites, etc. So it’s a different kind of experience, I think, both as a writer and as a writer who is going to be edited.

The other thing that I do is take care of a lot of the details that go along with the articles. I don’t do the proofreading. We have people down at the AAUP office who do that, but one of the things I do is send out requests for bio, bio blurbs and photographs, and I often get a lot of very interesting photographs people send in to include with their articles in the magazine. On the top left hand is the vacation genre. I actually had a guy who sent me a photograph of himself on top of Mount Hood with goggles on and his hands on the pitons. To the right on the top is the glamour shot, which are somewhat rare but appreciated. The lower left hand is what I call the pretension shot. That fellow is actually not an academic but he’s trying really hard to look like one. And then of course in the lower right hand side is the headshot. Everybody in this room should have a headshot on reserve in case you publish an article in Academe, get named to come to the White House, whatever. It’s always good to have a current headshot, too, I might add, so people are not too much deceived.

The other thing that I do is take care of the titles, decks, quotes, etc., and then I write the editor’s introduction. It all comes together in an article that looks like this. This is from the issue this summer. You will recognize I believe the author there as a CUNY colleague, Joanne Reitano. It was a real pleasure to work with Joanne. She’s an excellent writer. This is an article on LaGuardia Community College, and basically this is the finished product, which looks really nice I think. And if you could just put your hand over the title and your hand over the picture and imagine your own picture and your own title there, that would be a good thing to do perhaps.

Some things I learned about my colleagues through editing Academe: Academics commonly don’t read the journals they submit to. Let me give you an example. If you’ve ever looked at Academe you know what kind of a journal it is.

"Sir,

My colleague and I at State Research University have recently completed an intensive study of sabbatical policies in comprehensive two-year universities across the nation. Our report, which includes several dozen pages of graphs, is ready for publication. In the report we apply Laurel’s Regression Analysis to refute contemporary studies that rely on Hardy’s Binomial Extraction Derivative. We are sure the readers of Academe will be eager to read our results.

Thanks."

And that is not too far off. Many of the article proposals I get, often times out of curiosity because this is like a foreign planet to me and I’m an avid tourist, I’ll e-mail back and say "sure, send the paper along," and the reply I get back is "oh, the paper; yes we will have that done actually by June." Anyway, as I said, Academe is a general journal and magazine, actually a bulletin, but this would probably be a bit much for Academe.

Some things I’ve learned about my colleagues thorough editing Academe: Some academics have odd senses of temporality. You all have obviously submitted articles to journals, and in my field you typically wait 4 months, 5 months, 6 months, who knows how long to get the initial response back. This is not true in Academe. I guess because it comes out bimonthly people have a shortened sense of temporality.

"Sir,

Last Thursday I sent you my manuscript New Advances and Regression Analysis for the Statistical Study of Sabbaticals. It is now Tuesday. I have not heard back from you. Please notify me immediately whether you have accepted my manuscript."

I kid you not, you laugh, but this is an actual timeframe which I was asked to work with. The next e-mail, which I got on Thursday, was very aggressive. I don’t know what it is about Academe, but for some reason folks think that as soon as I get anything it’s either going to go into print or not.

Some things I’ve learned about my colleagues through editing Academe: By and large faculty play well together and take criticism well. Folks in the large are really very happy to get something published in the magazine and are really eager to help make that article as good as it possibly can be.

Things to remember when thinking about contributing to Academe: Audience. We have 50,000+ readers. That is the biggest audience you will ever have for an academic product, article or book, and that’s very important to impress upon people. The readers are not only nationwide; they’re around the world. I get great letters from folks from everywhere from South Africa to Hong Kong about articles that appear in Academe. General interest style vs. scholarly style: again, Academe is for the general audience, it’s got to cross disciplines. Often times you have to think outside the box of the style you’ve developed for your own discipline into more general interest terms. Faculty experience vs. disciplinary expertise: that is Academe articles, while they draw on some disciplinary expertise that you’ve developed over your career, really have to be rooted in faculty experience. That is a common experience that we all share as faculty members. In terms of topic, you have a delicate balance between the too personal and the too professional; that is articles that want to talk at length about hazardous materials engineering and the problems therein, and the kind of "what I did on my sabbatical articles," which are not necessarily bad, but can sometimes veer towards the sentimental, or an article about "why my president is not as good as he should be," which I got one about two weeks ago that was very interesting. Also, in terms of topic, the thing to think about is intersections between the particular and the general; that is your particular experience and general issues within the profession. It may be true that you’re having problems getting promoted, but that may be related to more general trends going on in terms of the profession. The other thing about topics is floater proposals. It’s always wise to float a proposal. If you have an idea for an article, let me have the proposal. I’ll be happy to read it, I’ll give you plenty of feedback, I will try to help you shape it into something really interesting and meaningful. And don’t forget we do provide now a $50 honorarium. That can help you qualify for a home office deduction on your taxes because you’re generating outside income through your writing, in addition to whatever else you purchase with that $50 honorarium.

A few words about future issues of Academe: The next planned issue, the January-February issue, is going to be on liberal learning. That’s already in bed. The one after that is going to be the economic report in the profession, which is the salary survey, and that is March-April. May-June will have a special issue on academic freedom. As you know, the AAUP has created a special committee on academic freedom in times of national security etc., part of Committee A. So this issue is planned to articulate that loosely. It’s going to be a really good issue; it’s going to be a lot of fun to read. The next issue will be new majorities on Higher Education, and the idea behind that issue is that there all kinds of new majorities that Higher Education has had to manage, deal with, think about, and relate to in the past 10 or 20 years, from older students to gay and lesbian faculty etc. So this issue is planned around that idea of new majorities in Higher Education in general. And then we’re going to have an issue on doing Science. I do teach at City College, which is the flagship environment - is that the correct terminology " the flagship environment for Science and Technology?" I happen not to be in Science and Technology and therefore I’m the dingy trailing along. But in any case, one thing about teaching at City College is that I have met a lot of great people in Science and Engineering faculty, who I probably never would have met elsewhere. I think one thing about Academe is that it tends to be dominated by humanities types, which is both a good and a bad thing. So I would like to try to get a different perspective on the University that focuses more on Sciences etc. The fourth one is popular academics, which is an issue that I’ve been trying to get together for quite some time and eventually will come together, and that is an issue about popular representations of academic work, academic identity and the profession, whether in movies, in speeches, politics, etc. So those are four issues that will take me through hopefully another year, a year and a half.

I just have a question about the academic freedom issue. Are there any articles addressing distance education and how it relates to academic freedom? / Larry Hanley – No. Would you like to write one? If you would like to write one here is what you do. This is me: hanley@bway.net. Write that down, send me an e-mail, tell me about the issue, tell me about the topic, etc., and we will commence a dialogue, you and I. /

Based on a meta-analysis of your presentation, have you thought of including cartoons in your magazines or jokes, and I am serious in my question. / Larry Hanley – No, I don’t think so for a variety of reasons. However, in this issue on popular academics I would like to look at the professions from some other angles. / My other question is a technical one: What’s the length range of your articles? / Larry Hanley – The length of an Academe article is 2,500-3,500 words. When you send me a topic proposal I will send back to you editorial guidelines, which include things like the typical length, style concerns, etc. / Thanks.

One of the things I miss in the journal is short articles about the history of the association, like when it started and why. I just mentioned the reason Committee A is called Committee A is because it was the first and only committee; and then Committee B, then there was Committee C…These are short historical facts. After all, all the people who were there originally are dead, and then the next generation is pretty close to dead. / Larry Hanley – Well, I think the thing about those…I like those articles. We have one coming up in the January-February issue on the history of the censure list. The thing is the people best equipped to write those articles are often AAUP staffers themselves. They have a lot of experience with the history of the AAUP, how it operates, etc. So really what I try and do is bug them to keep giving me good stuff about the history of the AAUP. I think I’m averaging now about once every two issues kind of a historical reflection on AAUP. In the issue on governance there was one on the history of AAUP’s involvement with governance.

In those headshots you’re supposed to send in, the guy in the lower right corner looked sharp in his coat. / Larry Hanley – That’s the official headshot. / I know that nobody pays any attention to me when I talk. You think if I dressed like that, if I dressed sharper with a coat and tie, that I would have more of an impact on the administration. / Larry Hanley – Yes, Bill, you would. / All of us should do that? / Larry Hanley – Yeah, Bill, everybody. Especially you, Bill.

What’s your rejection rate? / Larry Hanley – I can’t tell you what the rejection rate is because the way Academe generally works is I solicit contributions from people. If I solicit an article from somebody we work together to publish it. The rejection rate for over the transom articles, when people just send you something, is pretty high. I believe 97.2%. However, if they’re accompanied by a nice headshot we got something to negotiate.

I am serious about contributions from CUNY faculty. I would really like to get more CUNY folks into the magazine, so if you know somebody who’s saying some interesting things or you have something interesting to say, please do send me an e-mail. Thank you.