MINUTES OF THE TWO HUNDRED AND THIRTY-SEVENTH PLENARY SESSION

OF THE UNIVERSITY FACULTY SENATE OF THE CITY UNIVERSITY OF NEW YORK

October 1, 1996

Chair Cooper called the session to order at 6:30 P.M. in the Harold M. Proshansky Auditorium of the Graduate School and University Center. Present were Senators from the following campuses: Baruch: McCall, Otte, Pollard, and Alternates Freedman and Hill. BMCC: Reid, Resnick, and Friedman. Bronx CC: Cummins, Galub, Riley, and Alternate Skinner. Brooklyn: Bell, Fairey, Hager, Jacobson, London, Shapiro, and Tobey. City: Connorton, DeJongh, Grossman, Reitz, Sank, Sohmer, and Weil. GSUC: Baumrin and Alternate Kieser. Hostos CC: Canate, Italia, Martino, Vasillov, and Rosario-Sievert. Hunter: Matthews, Neville, Rodriguez, Sherrill, Steinberg, and Alternate Baxter. John Jay: Bohigian, Brugnola, Kaplowitz, Rodriguez, and Stevens. Kingsborough CC: Goldfarb, Martinez, O'Malley, Richter, and Alternate Staum. LaGuardia CC: Boris, Gallagher, Mettler, Reitano, and Alternate Beaky. Lehman: Avani, Feinerman, Mineka, Nathanson, Pohle, and Alternate Knobloch. Medgar Evers: Harris-Hastick, Johnson, and Umolu; NYCTC: Donoghue, Hernandez, Hounion, Norton, Walter, and Alternates Cermele and Richardson. Queens: Frisz, Kulkarni, Landazuri, Seley, and Speidel. Queensborough: Dahbany-Miraglia, Gellman, Greenbaum, Martin, and Mullin. CSI: Levine and Yousef. York: Cooper and Perry. Professors Barsoum, Brady, Dombroski, Jaffe Mo., and MacLennan were excused. Faculty Governance Leaders present were DeJongh (City), Hamptom (Hunter), Levine (CSI), Kaplowitz (John Jay), Kurzman (Hunter), Mandelbaum (Queens), Specht (Queensborough CC), and Friedman (BMCC). Ex-officio Senator Reynolds attended an was accompanied by Mr. Diaz (CUNY Legal Counsel) and Dr. Pulliam. Professors Wasser, Picken, and Berenson were invited speakers. Professor Primus (Hostos) and Mr. Grotch observed the meeting. The Parliamentarian was Richard Staum. Executive Director Phipps and Administrative Assistant Pasela also attended.

I. Honoring David Valinski. Invited Speakers: Henry Wasser, Robert Picken, and Mark Berenson.

[Will be summarized]

II. Adoption of the Agenda: The agenda was adopted as proposed.

III. Adoption of the Minutes of the 235th and 236th Plenary Session [May and June, 1996]: The minutes were adopted as proposed.

IV. Reports: [recorded in Reports & Deliberations.]

a. Chair (oral & written).

b. Chancellor (oral).

c. Reports of Faculty Members of Board of Trustees Committee (written).

d. Treasurer David Speidel (oral).

REPORTS & DELIBERATIONS OF THE TWO HUNDRED AND THIRTY-SEVENTH PLENARY SESSION OF THE UNIVERSITY FACULTY SENATE

OF THE CITY UNIVERSITY OF NEW YORK

IV. Reports:

a. Chair: [written report will be added]

Professor Eva Richter (English, Kingsborough) -- I just want to point out that in this business of course equivalencies, it's not really a matter of equivalencies, it's more a matter of comparability. The term was used advisedly in order to try to avoid the straight jacket of having courses be exactly the same from one campus to another. That is what the committee tried to avoid. Actually common course numbers will be assigned on a campus-by-campus basis. If a campus decides with another campus that courses are equivalent then that particular course will receive a University number. Other colleges will sign on individually. The question then is a question of trying to be as vigilant as possible to try to get as much input through your governance bodies as you possibly can. The report calls for a representative to be elected or to be appointed through the governance body. That is, in each field, and that I think is a matter that should rest with the vigilance of the faculty.

Chair Cooper -- Thank you. Another task force was appointed late in June by the Chancellor to deal with issues of library and educational technology. It reflects two different resolutions in the June 1995 package. This task force is charged with the job of providing an overall policy for the next century in the use of educational technology at CUNY. The faculty on this task force recommended by the Senate include Eva Richter, Dean Savage of Queens, and Michael Kress from Staten Island, who is quite knowledgeable. The librarian Dan Rubey from Lehman is on it, who has worked with us in the past. I'm going to make one more factual point, then I'm going to ask Bernard Sohmer to take the microphone on another matter and then David Speidel for the budget report. Just to tell you that the search committee for the academic vice chancellor is still receiving applications. If you know anyone you should put them in. Cecelia McCall of Baruch and I are two of the three faculty on that committee. It's headed by Matthew Goldstein of Baruch; it has a lot of presidents on it. I think we are expecting to come up with a recommendation by the end of this semester. I would like to ask Bernard Sohmer to deal with the issues raised by Professor Karkhanis of Kingsborough, who has made a rather large public demand for an investigation of the head of this body as an improper representative of the faculty. That's me.

Professor Sohmer -- Essentially on my own initiative, I've created a committee which will study the accusations against the chair of this body and write a report for this body. I have so informed the vice chancellor that this is going to be done. I was hoping for mid-October, certainly by late October. The committee consists of me, Professor Speidel of Queens College, Professor Hager of Brooklyn College, and Jay Appleman of Queensborough Community College. We will be convening within the next two weeks, and I hope we will be able to write a report which is responsive to the documents that I believe all of you have received in the mail at least once.

b. Chancellor:

Good to see you all. Welcome back for this academic year. We're handing out to you the final enrollment, the flash enrollment responses from our campuses for this fall. That's one of the most important things that we focused on during the late summer. As you are aware, the budget came in achieving a record for its lateness, and then we all started to work very hard in August in trying to make sure that we got word out to students that tuition assistance money had been restored in full, and they were indeed welcome at CUNY. We put extra financial aid people on phones. We had 19 people working a phone bank from eight in the morning until eight at night. We kept testing the phone bank to make sure that incoming calls were being welcomed. We also tested admission offices and financial aid offices on our campuses to make sure that we were getting rapid response times, and that things made sense for our students. We were able to get on the Yankee's score board during their winning streak, which broadcast repeatedly, ACUNY celebrates a hundred and fifty years in New York City, Call CUNY (Phone Number),@ which really let everybody know that they should be in touch.

The sheet is now appearing in front of you. We have preliminary information just today. We don't have the data or numbers that the enrollment levels at SUNY are seriously down. So it is even more a miracle that we did materialize this enrollment, and these are, of course, good students, our students, New York City people that wanted to come to higher education, and I am pleased that the campuses did as well as they did. I would call your attention especially to two or three campuses, and let me explain the way this chart works. The first number on the left is preliminary, flash, enrollment. That actual number will drop a little bit. There is some loss, some students who do not actually pay, who do not actually come through for us. ABudgeted@ is what the agreement was with each campus, what they wanted to have and what they anticipated having for this fall. And fall 1995 is the actual fall enrollment that did come to the campuses and persevered and paid last fall.

You will note that Bernard M. Baruch College is awfully close to its budgeted enrollment. Brooklyn College is down a little bit, but still in the framework. City College is seriously down. We're worried about the situation at City College, and we'll be spending some extra time with City College administrators over this particular issue. Hunter College rebounded a bit. I would remind you that there were some mix-ups in admissions in the spring of 1995, these were rectified this last spring, and they came in well and are in good shape. John Jay College is both ahead of budget and ahead of last year. Lehman College, which has developed a very active enrollment and outreach program, came in not quite where they wanted to be, but ahead of where they were last year. Medgar Evers College similarly, not quite where they wanted to be, but ahead of last year's. New York City Technical College. Both ahead of last year and ahead of budget. Queens College down a bit from budget targets and down a bit from where it was last year. College of Staten Island ahead of last year, not at budget. And you can figure out the rest of these for yourselves.

Community Colleges. Borough of Manhattan Community College is overcrowded and until we get Fiterman renovated we'll continue to be overcrowded. It's a little bit ahead of last year, down from budget. Bronx Community College is seriously down. We are going to be spending some time with Bronx Community College this year to work on some enrollment outreach. They of course have a new president, and she is very eager to get into this. Eugenio Maria de Hostos Community College, heavily hit by both the cut-backs and the length of time of tuition eligibility, and home relief recipients, and AFDC is down. Kingsborough Community College ahead of last year, a little under target. Fiorello H. LaGuardia Community College both ahead of budgeted target and ahead of last year. Queensborough Community College -- which I think has one of the most competitive and difficult enrollment situations because nearby Nassau Community College has tuition $200 a year less than the tuition at Queensborough. So they have a special and unique problem there that they are trying to work on fairly eagerly.

Let me move on to a couple more things. We are now in very active negotiations. Usually you have a couple of months to get your mind prepared and work with the campuses on budgets. We did not have that luxury this year. We are all of a sudden in very active negotiations with the State Department to budget. The budget call letter came out a week ago. I should mention to you that when the State sent us our first allocation, they deducted 5% from it. They sent us 45% of our money to our account. So far there is no effort to do a mid-year cut. We are hoping that the bargain struck between Speaker Silver, Senator Bruno, and Governor Pataki will hold this year.

There was every effort possible by Speaker Silver to make sure that it was clearly understood that this was part of the final bargain. It was not to be a restoration to us and to SUNY that would then be cut again immediately. I'm sure that we will be all right through the election, four weeks away or five weeks away. But I worry after that. We will monitor it of course very, very carefully. The budget letter from budget director Woodworth, basically insists on budget cuts. You know, come in with very modest budgets, try to self cut. We are not. The budget we are coming out with, which should be ready tomorrow to be mailed out, will have its first review at the Fiscal Affairs Committee, the Board of Trustees, a week from yesterday. We'll be asking for an increase. We have tried hard to keep it down so that we are in ball park figure, but we will be asking for more money than we had in that budget last year.

I think that you would all agree with me that that is the top priority in the University at this time. It is carrying library acquisition requests, which we desperately need. And involves its being done in kind of a new technologically sophisticated way endorsed by our librarians. It is carrying a request in particular for school leadership and teacher education programs. Our colleges of teacher education have been decimated somewhat more than the rest of the University. We have had the college of education, dean's meetings.

City budget. About a month ago, we got a letter notifying us that we would not sustain any real changes in this year's budget so far, and we are pleased about that. That was at the time that the Mayor was cutting the City budget by $500 million. We are protected there by maintenance of effort. However they have notified us that they plan to cut the community college budgets by $11.7 million next year. They will do that unless we get the maintenance of effort provision once again in Albany as we lobby. So we will clearly be out actively this next winter, trying very hard to make sure that we have maintenance of effort provisions in the State budget documents.

The student financial aid picture on the Federal side is a little bit brighter. The Pell Grants, work-study, Supplemental Educational Opportunity Grants, and Perkins Loans are all getting increases for the fiscal year 1997. Some you may have followed that. The Federal budget just came through yesterday. The Pell Grants go up to $2,600 a year; they had been $2,470. So that is a slight increase for our students, but every penny is needed. The Higher Education Act re-authorization discussions are now beginning. Formal Congressional hearings move at a late pace, but the Higher Education Association in Washington D.C., at One Dupont Circle, are starting to get testimony read. There will be hearings in February. As you are probably aware from the media, Congress has really stopped now. They are going back to their districts, focusing on this re-election campaign.

It is very important of course to officials out there who are seeking re-election. We view the State situation as continuing to be fairly quiet until that election has occurred. There is one interesting side-bar issue. I don't think that it is at all side-bar for CUNY, but it has gone somewhat noticed, but I am awfully pleased and elated at the outcome. I kept this group apprised of it, and I think to a member you have all been sympathetic with this effort, and that was legal immigrants and their ability to attend CUNY and their ability not to have onerous demeaning provisions assigned to them. Those provisions and inhibitions of higher education assistance to legal immigrants were in the early bills. When I was talking to you about this a year ago at this time, I was deeply worried. They kept popping up and at first we had good help from Senator Feinstein and some other senators from around the country. They fell away. Senator Feinstein got into an interesting alliance with Senator Simpson that I do not understand. Senator Simpson, who was the architect of all of the enormous effort against both illegal and legal immigrants, is from the state with the smallest immigrant population in the United States. He is from Wyoming. It's difficult to understand.

In any event it was an amazing collaboration, and it essentially pulled Senator Feinstein out of a sympathetic vote. However, and I must give credit where credit is due. Senator D'Amato we appealed to, about this time last year. I had two or three meetings with his chief of staff. They really committed to us, and they did those kinds of things behind the scenes to protect higher education for legal immigrants. We kept one full time lobbyist, really tracking higher education benefits. Because the Higher Education Association has kind of abandoned us, they were not helpful. There was one Congressman from Miami, Congressman Shaw, a Republican, and the combination of Senator D'Amato and Congressman Shaw was actually enough to make sure. You can very often in a hot legislative situation, if you don't try to pick off too big a part of a bill and just focus on the educational benefits for legal immigrants, they were able to bring it through.

There were others that deserve enormous amounts of credit. Senator Edward Kennedy never gave up. His staff was excellent; they always kept alerting us and always kept protecting that part of the bill. Senator Simon, whose influence has waned, is not running for re-election and I am very sorry about that. He had been a very fine pro-higher education Senator from Illinois. Of course, he was very helpful and very supportive. There were other Democratic senators that were very helpful on this. But I have to say that Senator D'Amato was right there on this issue and played a very major role in making sure that legal immigrant higher education benefits were protected, and I thought that you all should know that.

I think I will stop there. I am happy to respond to any question and issues that you might want to bring up at this time. We've had quite a good beginning to the school year. We have met several times with the presidents. They're enthusiastic. I think this strong enrollment showing we had this fall, kind of against all odds, has been a boost to everyone's morale. We look forward to this academic year with optimism.

Professor Hernandez (Student Affairs, New York City Tech) -- With regard to welfare reform. The new regulations stipulate basically that higher education is no longer an option for people on public assistance. My concern is, how will the University step out of the paradigm that says >we give up on those students'? And really begin to look at constructive ways to make sure that we are able to provide university level education to that population. For example, I think it's too easy that Hostos lost >x' amount of students because of the home relief issue. The question is, how do we get those students back? How do we design programs and day care services to a population of about 20,000 students.@ / First of all, to go back to the first part of the question. In the original iterations of the welfare bill, there was even some confusion in our office, and we are still working through our various interpretations of that bill. I think even Bob Diaz has taken a look at it, and we're still analyzing it. Trustee Cooper, why don't I bring in the final analysis? We talked about bringing it in tonight, but we're still not totally sure. It looks as if it does say that vocational education and job training is allowed, and you can have 25% of your welfare recipients in vocational training. I probably shouldn't make any definitive statement, but you can have a certain percentage of your welfare population in vocational training or job training exercises, which certainly would fit the community colleges. The American Association of Community Colleges is working hard on that issue, for that interpretation, and we're in the process of interpreting that as well. In New York City, to allow a significant percentage of the welfare recipients to be in vocational training would allow us to achieve a fair amount of protection of welfare recipients in our community colleges. So we are working very hard on that component and I'll have to come back in here with the exact wording. I kept this body informed all last year, I thought I probably bored you all, of our real struggle with the City over first of all home relief recipients and then AFDC recipients. After long struggles we were able to get two work sites added at I believe Lehman College, in negotiation with the Mayor, and I have forgotten the other, it could be LaGuardia. There is now pressure to expand those because, for example, there was no work site in Brooklyn. This means work fare recipients are able to work on our campuses while they are receiving home relief. AFDC recipients are now supposed to go to work, so we are gearing up to struggle on that issue as well. Pointing out that we provide the extra boost to AFDC recipients by providing good child care for them. So we are not at all done with this issue yet, and we are working very hard to keep these individuals coming to CUNY and to keep their children coming to our child care centers. Our family colleges where we do take welfare recipients with children and care for the children and the mothers are still being funded. We will have three, there is one at Kingsborough, there is one at Bronx, and there is one at LaGuardia, and we hope to do yet a fourth within this next year. So we are keeping going.

Professor Hernandez - I'm just going to keep mentioning it to you every time, it's very important. Thank you.@

Professor O'Malley (English, Kingsborough) - My question is pretty much the same. Do you have any suggestions how we can get the other community colleges besides LaGuardia to be work sites for our students? Because what's happening now, we have students coming to Kingsborough and then they have work in upper Manhattan or the Bronx, and it's crazy. Just any ideas you have. / You see that struggle really moving now, and we of course have much work on our campuses, and I happen to think that they are awfully good sites for welfare recipients to work on, to learn additional work skills and to be in a campus milieu. Borough President Golden is on a real campaign to get work sites identified in Brooklyn. So he is trying to push that, we are eager to do it, and we will keep the pressure up. It has not garnered us, how would I put it, it has not created a great love for us down at City Hall. Our noisy insistence that we should be work sites and that these welfare recipients should be able to go to college, but we are undaunted.

Professor Baumrin (Philosophy, Graduate Center) -- For an explanation, in particular an official explanation of the reasoning behind the ad hoc working group on doctoral program planning and doctoral faculty replenishment. Deleting philosophy from the list recommended by the Graduate School of priority 1A programs. I understand that many people here might not know all the details, and I don't want to burden them with the details, but the proposal was made by the Graduate School to the central administration, earmarking ten programs for priority 1A treatment for doctoral faculty replenishment and nine were approved. Only philosophy was deleted. Although this is a draft, I asked the acting Vice Chancellor Martin for an explanation and she declined to give one. So I am asking you now officially as liaison for the Graduate School faculty, and also as a philosopher, for an official explanation of that. / I would be glad to give it to you but I don't know. I don't know the answer. / Baumrin - It's a little bit troubling to the faculty so you might be as interested as I am to find out what the thinking was on a group the names of which are listed in the document. / That is a group that is more or less come together to set up the procedures to review doctoral programs. All I have done is read their final report, and we're not deeply into it yet. It kind of sets up a process and I can ask Vice Chancellor Martin, who is on a medical emergency leave for about a week, but she will be back in a week. / Baumrin - Plenty of time. If there is an animus of the part of the central administration toward philosophy...we could have been left on the list. / No, if you want to know was the decision at my level, the answer is honestly >no', I don't know anything about it. / Baumrin - I'm not hurling accusations... / Chair Cooper -- If you have a follow up question, could you focus it, we have a list of speakers... / Baumrin - I'm sorry to say it's the same question. Many individuals are very interested in what would go on behind the changing of a recommendation by the Graduate School based on quality, at the central administration. They would like to have a response and I will wait for the Vice Chancellor to get me one, please. Thank you.@ / Surely.

Professor Bell (SEEK, Brooklyn College) -- I appreciate what a difficult year it was for financial aid with all the uncertainties of TAP and PELL. And all of the efforts put in by financial aid people, I know on our campus... / They worked very hard. / Bell - But we had enormous problems at the beginning of the semester administering book checks to SEEK students, SEOG, direct loans. Something happened at the central packaging and processing of students' checks that brought in book checks that should have been there on the first day of class in the middle of the fourth week of the semester. Which is inappropriate if anyone is going to get the right start in school. It seemed to have been that the central processing center decided to change its procedure concurrent with the start of the semester, which seems to be a bad time to do that. No matter how I pushed, I can't figure out what's wrong, and I would hate to see it happen again. Many students who couldn't get the money they needed, not so much the TAP to cover their tuition, but the cash they needed out of their SEOG or their book checks to start the semester, were in very bad shape. We generated at Brooklyn 750 emergency book checks, which is really enormous man power. / There are two things and I don't know the specific answer to that, Professor Bell, but we will try to look it up. They have been in a real mess, you have probably read about it, down at the Department of Education. The Federal checks, the Federal money transfers to us, were delayed and held up. And you're quoting a couple, SEOG, and a couple of other programs, Federal programs. / Bell -- There were three or four programs, some were State, some were Federal. I couldn't get a handle on it and I wondered if you could find out. / We'll try to see. / Bell -- I'd very much appreciate that.

Professor Barbanel (Basic Education Skills, Queensborough) -- My concern is very relevant to the question that was just raised regarding money. And that is regarding the CUNY I.D. card. There has been a great deal of speculation as to the new alliance between CUNY and CITIBANK. I think that it is fairly clear to us in what way CITIBANK is benefiting from this. Could you shed some light as to the University's role and what way we are benefiting from this? / We just prepared a long letter because some of this came and I shared it with Dr. Cooper, which would be worthwhile sharing with everyone. / Chair Cooper -- It came about two hours ago; even I can't Xerox that fast. / I'll just tell you very quickly, there had been internal discussions about getting to a card system to be helpful to our students. We learned that SUNY was quite far down the line in the bidding process and so forth, and also it involved Cornell, so to save money for ourselves and since they were doing it according to State procedures, basically we threw in with both SUNY and Cornell. We all bid it together and it went out, and heavily bid, and followed all the State procedures back and forth. That was the process; that was the reason CITIBANK was chosen. The card is of considerable benefit to students. It deals with some of the cash problems we have been having and some of those Professor Bell was just referring to. Some of you may be aware that we have serious robbery up at City College where people were used to cashing checks. This helps get our students on more of a plastic basis, which is actually useful to them. The details are in this letter. / Barbanel -- Is every unit of CUNY part of the I.D.? My understanding was that Brooklyn College is not participating. Is that correct? / Not that I knew about. But anything is possible in CUNY, and as you can tell there is a lot I don't know from time to time.

Professor Sank (Anthropology, City College) -- Chancellor Reynolds, I think that we at City College share your distress at seeing this terrible drop in enrollment. But I wondered, do you have statistics, I presume you do, on the number of faculty in these two periods, the fall of 1995 compared to the fall of 1996. Do you have that? / Of course we have that data. I don't have it with me. I would indicate though that the City College is not particularly down in incoming freshmen. You are down most significantly in continuing students, which is also a great concern. The faculty/student ratio at City College is one of the lowest throughout the system. You have the most faculty per students. Our faculty/student ratios are very high at campuses that have grown the most recently such as John Jay, Baruch, Medgar Evers, and so forth. So you have one of the highest faculty cadre in relation to your enrollment. So I don't think that it is possible to say that this was because of loss of faculty. In fact, this last year, your faculty loss was really pretty small. The year before if I remember correctly, there was a greater... Is Professor Sohmer here? He usually remembers all of that off the top of his head. The year before there was greater early retirement. / Professor Sohmer -- about fifty last year. / And about how many the year before? / Sohmer -- some place around a hundred. / Yes, it was more the year before. / Sank -- Then maybe we should go back two years. But I didn't finish what I wanted to say and you brought up something interesting about the faculty/student ratio. We do have special schools, like the school of engineering, and in terms of our large science program which brings in a tremendous amount of grants. And those programs do necessitate having smaller classes where you have laboratories. Perhaps we are suffering as a total college because of those programs which bring us tremendous esteem, bring tremendous esteem to the University. As far as your point about incoming freshmen versus the present students, we are losing students now and I think that is what I want to refer to. By eliminating the school of nursing, by eliminating programs, by changing departments into programs, what we have done is lost the students that we do have. They become demoralized. They can't get the courses they want. We have many students who wanted to get into the school of nursing, so we had to attract a tremendous amount of students a large amount who came in for that purpose and then seeing that there is no school of nursing, have also left. So that is where I think the retrenchment factor comes in. What I wanted to ask, seriously though it might sound not too seriously, is if in your investigation of the situation at City College you find that the fact that is causing our major drop in enrollment is because we lost so many programs, the school of nursing, physical education, and so forth, would you reinstate those programs if you found that that was the good reason for it. / The decisions in those programs were made at City College. They were not made by us. We respect the individual decisions made on campuses.

Professor Kaplowitz (English, John Jay) -- My question is about the board of trustees meeting last night. Chair Cooper hasn't yet had a chance to report, so I don't know if it's part of her report, but it involves something that one of the trustees said. I would like to preface it by noting, this is 20 years after the 1976 crisis, and you have told this body over and over, and its heartening for us who lived through that time, that you do not believe in closing colleges.

/ That is absolutely true. / Kaplowitz -- One of the new trustees, Trustee Price, said that he believes in closing colleges, that CUNY is too big, and he feels that there should be only 14 CUNY colleges. This was after Trustee Marino, a new trustee, questioned the wisdom of amending the York College master plan to include the possible new student center and child care center. I'd like to know a lot about your thoughts about this. Was this unexpected? It seems to me that a trustee wouldn't say something like that unless he thought other trustees privately supported such a position. / Chair Cooper -- I wouldn't assume anything about these trustees' talking to each other yet. / Kaplowitz -- All right. / I would just indicate, I work for the board of trustees. You saw me avidly defending the York College master plan. And those who attended the Fiscal Affairs Committee meeting about three weeks ago saw me avidly defending the York College master plan as well as some other projects. And I will continue of course to do that. I will continue to indicate and give my best advice to the board of trustees, which is that our campuses are really pretty big. We have considerable enrollments. This has no meaning other than comparative purposes, but I was interested, there was a front page New York Times article over the weekend about charging off-rate tuition, off-peak tuition, at small SUNY campuses, and I was struck by what small enrollment some of them had. I don't pay as much attention as I should. The campuses cited there had enrollments of like 2,000 students, very, very small enrollments. We have very big enrollments. Our campuses are very big. We really, if given adequate resources, I am convinced, would have been up significantly in enrollment if students were given enough tuition assistance and campuses had enough funding. You are all aware that the public schools are growing at the rate of 20,000 students a year. So you will see me continue to advocate that all of our campuses are really critical to CUNY's mission. If we cut a campus, all of those students would just flock to some other campus and need access to education. I will continue to advocate for each and every campus. / Kaplowitz -- I was hoping you would say that. And I did not get a sense that the comments last night had anything to do with the enrollment at the colleges, but was really a philosophical attitude toward public higher education, unfortunately.

Professor Richter (English, Kingsborough) -- My question concerns the SEEK and CD students who are coming in this fall. During the summer the University undertook a new policy according to which SEEK and CD students had to be in attendance in the summer at the various colleges for at least 45 hours. Allocations at our campus, for example, were extremely late. I think that part of this was due to a rather massive foul-up of centralized testing. Many of the students were not allocated to CD programs until very, very late in July or beginning of August when the final sessions had already begun at various colleges. Very few exemptions were given to such students. I think maybe five across the entire University and some of the CD students must have missed out on becoming SEEK and CD students and getting the stipends that they would otherwise have been entitled to. Now my question is, first of all could you tell us why this policy was undertaken, and secondly, is this policy likely to continue? / The data coming out of those programs this summer are very solid; they show really solid academic achievement and solid academic improvement. We are caught in a bind of diminishing eligibility for tuition assistance and I think that it behooves us to do everything we can to get students prepared to get through school while they are still TAP eligible. That is what we are really scurrying to do. We are trying to focus to make sure the students get the best possible deal and can complete an educational course of study with as much support possible. On the other problem about the centralized testing, we did that honestly to see if we could save some money and have it function better. We are taking an honest look at that to see if it can work better. We have heard complaints about it. We are trying to analyze the complaints to see how valid they are, to see how many students were affected. We are trying to honestly look at benefits and potential damage, and to see what the right thing is to do next year.

Chair Cooper thanked Chancellor Reynolds.

c. Reports of Faculty Members of Board of Trustees Committees:

d. Treasurer David Speidel:

For those of you who do feel that you want more details, I would prefer to stay afterwards talking about some of the details I have given you. I tried to provide enough information and some guidelines for you as to the kinds of things you ought to be looking at. There are a couple of new things, and if I can just highlight those for you. The way that the base budget is distributed has not yet changed. This is still primarily a historical development that where it is changing is around the margins and with some of the new initiatives that are showing up. What is happening is that money coming into the University in lump sum form, such as adjunct dollars which for the last five years, six years, have been controlled completely centrally. New initiative dollars such as Academic Program Planning dollars, base level equity dollars, graduate teaching assistant dollars, are handled by a formula method that is completely dependent upon enrollments and enrollments in particular disciplines. One of the things that we still do not know is whether the central office is defining upper division by students who are taking courses at a particular level, that is, courses that have one or two prerequisites in front of them. Or whether they are strictly being defined as students with fewer than 60 credits or students with more than 60 credits.

We have found out that starting this last summer, on an emergency basis, the entire instructional staff teaching load report was completely re-done. New ways of handling this were done and that for each and every course that is offered in the catalog in the registrar's list of courses for all enrollments whether or not the student is upper division, that is junior or senior, or lower division, that is freshman or sophomore, has been indicated. For the community colleges, by definition, everybody is lower division so that the arithmetic there is a little bit easier. The particular problem that we have is that previously that it was the overall college distribution of upper division and lower division that was applied across the board. The more detailed it is there, of course, the more information can be put forward. The overall enrollment, the last page that you have on that, gives the indication, fair or unfair, doesn't matter, this is the official numbers that have been used by the University for approximately 20 years. It shows the relative difference in staffing ratios for upper division versus lower division. For those of you who are looking for any sort of sense in this, I draw your attention to education, which will completely disabuse you of finding any sense in this.

I think off hand that is the only one that has a higher ratio for upper division than for lower division. The argument of course that is made, is that this takes care of the discipline variations, that if you have a studio art class or a nursing class or a geology laboratory, that these ratios already compensate for the difference in the discipline. Psychology can take 30 students no matter what; clearly at my own institution where psychology prides themselves on being a physical science as opposed to a social science, this creates some massive problems. You will also notice that those of you who are in art benefit because the art history courses, if it belongs to your department, get lumped the same way as the studio.

So while there are some minor variations in this, this is at least across the board applied to all of the particular institutions. This particular ratio generates what the number of faculty at your institution ought to be based upon the teaching that they are doing. They then subtract the number of full-time faculty that you presently have. That gives you a number which is your short fall in teaching. They use that number for a variety of things. Proportionately it is used, they decide first of all, how much adjunct money is going to be distributed. It is never as much as is available from the State. It has never been that way. It has always been less than that because some of the money that comes in is used for other purposes. So approximately $30 million of the $36 million is distributed. Of that $30 million for adjunct money, a certain amount of that is taken off of the top to deal with summer session. Summer session is a historical thing as well, those of you who have big summer sessions receive it, it's handled as a separate pot, and it is distributed proportionally.

The approximately $24 million that are left in adjunct dollars, this is once again distributed proportionately with higher amounts going to those colleges with less full-time faculty and smaller amounts going to those with more full-time faculty. Similarly, base level equity, which is the ideal that was put forward two years ago to come up with dollars that would adjust the base budget in some sort of a permanent way, and indeed it has. The base level dollars each year do indeed get added into the base so that what has happened is that this also is dependent upon your shortfall in full-time faculty. The $10,000 graduate students are also distributed on a formula basis, based on the distribution of these full-time lines.

Most of the other stuff is straight forward. I'm not going to talk about the Academic Program Planning dollars. We have the same problems that we talked about at the Senate last year. I am trying to prepare a score card as we did last year so that those of you who are still in the poor graces of the vice chancellor for academic affairs can see indeed exactly where you are relative to Baruch, which still rates number one.

I was asked in the June meeting in the minutes you approved a little earlier by Steve London whether or not it is possible to find out exactly how the instructional are distributed. I found out that indeed theoretically this information ought to be known from the individual, instructional, and staff work load report that is made to central by each of your campuses. The particular faculty member, correlated through the Central Personnel University Management System (CUPS), is assigned to each and every one of those listed courses I mentioned earlier.

For those that do not, what CUPS has is all of those individuals that are paid on tax levy dollars. So what we have then whether it's full-time or part-time, if it's tax levy dollars, it shows up on CUPS. And by subtraction we would then have the relative proportion of courses at each and every institution that are covered by non-tax levy dollars. Whether that would be Research Foundation or some other set of dollars is to be determined, but we would have the first step as to what is not covered by tax levy dollars. Vice Chancellor Rothbard is in the process of determining whether or not he is in a position to share that information with us in a direct way. Professor London's summation at the end and his surmise that this would be indeed available at each particular institution, is indeed correct. Whether or not it would be easier to get there or to perhaps have Vice Chancellor Rothbard make it available finally seems to be the easiest way.

If there are no real technical questions, if there are just sort of general questions I'd be happy to answer it, otherwise I would be willing to stay afterwards.

Professor Alfred Levine (CSI) -- David has done an excellent job summarizing what is here. What he has carefully left out is what is not here. In particular the State has told us that we should spend $36 million on adjuncts, and they have allocated $31 million, reserving $5 million for something else. The State has told us we should spend $5.7 million on equipment replacement, which is probably pathetically small. They have allocated $1 million, which is laughable, and on down the line. What we are trying to do is find out what has happened to the money they haven't allocated.

Professor Speidel -- First of all, the information was not excluded. It is indeed included for you, but you need perhaps a highlight for it. The second page gave you a list of the things that the State approved by dollar amount in different categories. What you would have to do is page back and forth between the senior college allocation for these different things and those particular numbers to pick up exactly what Professor Levine is talking about. However there is one correction; these numbers are not written in stone. The allocations that come from the State are given in response to a particular budget request. But there is not the specific obligation on the University to spend each and every one of those dollars in the way the State has put forward these particular sets of numbers. In fact, historically the University has always said that the flexibility that is needed to handle the programs the State has not funded, such as security and continuing Academic Planning dollars, overrides the need to spend the dollars in some of the categories that they had already given us. Therefore in their opinion it is more important to spend the dollars this way. The State has always recognized that the University has the right to do exactly this. If the University steps too far out of line, then what happens is that the next time that the budget goes in and they ask for $36 million in adjunct dollars, and the State says but you only spent $30 million, then what happens is that the University has to dance around, that this is indeed the case, but this is what they did with the money. It's not that we don't know what these things are being used for. We do indeed know where it is coming from, we do indeed know that you can think of all of the initiatives that are not being funded that are sizable initiatives, such as security, such as Academic Program Planning, and the continuing in the out years. These are the things that have to show.