THE TWO HUNDRED NINETY-SEVENTH PLENARY SESSION

OF THE UNIVERSITY FACULTY SENATE

OF THE CITY UNIVERSITY OF NEW YORK

September 23, 2003

The meeting was called to order by UFS Chair O’Malley at 6:30 p.m. in Room 9204/5 at the Graduate School and University Center. 66 voting members were present:

Baruch: Present – Hill and Myers. Absent – Freedman, Giannikos, Majete, Onochie, Pollard and Wiley. BMCC: Present – Friedman, Martin, Price, and Alternate Rani. Absent – Aymer and White. Bronx CC: Present – Fergenson, and Lopez-Marron. Absent – McManus and Skinner. Brooklyn: Present – Bell, Cunningham, Shapiro, Tobey, and Alternate Cranganu. Absent – Antoniello, Haggerty, Jacobson, London, and Romer. CCNY: Present – Benenson, Connorton, Sank, and Sohmer. Absent –, Broderick, and Buffenstein, and Crain. Vacancies – 2. CSI: Present – Cooper, Foleno, Klibaner, Levine, Petratos, and Alternate Kaser. Absent – Yousef. CUNY Law School: Present – McArdle. Absent – Andrews. Vacancy – 1. Graduate School: Present – Baumrin and Alternate Burke. Absent – Katz-Rothman, Khuri, Kulkarni, Nair and Ofuatey-Kodjoe. Hostos CC: Present – none. Absent – Canate (on leave), Italia, and Rivera. Vacancies – 1. Hunter: Present – Doyle, Finder, Friedman, Kaye, and Krishnamachari.. Absent – Matthews, Sherrill, and Wimberly. Vacancies – 2. John Jay: Present – Kaplowitz, Napoli, and Wylie-Marques. Absent – Holder, Kadir, and Mandery. Kingsborough CC: Present – Barnhart, Farrell, Fridman, Galvin, Goodkin, O’Malley, and Alternate Fridman. LaGuardia CC: Present – Beaky, Gallagher, Lerman, and Mettler and Alternate Davidson. Vacant -- 1. Lehman: Present – Jervis, Philipp, and Wilder. Absent – Heching, Hosay, and Mineka. Medgar Evers: Present – Barker, Donohue, and Harris-Hastick. Absent -- Patwary. NYCCT: Present – Cermele, Dreyer, Horelick, Hounion, Richardson, Walter and Alternate Gavis. Queens: Present – Bird, and Moore. Absent – Brody, Erickson, Habib, Savage, and Sukhu. Vacancies – 3. Queensborough CC: Present –Barbanel, Dahbany-Miraglia, Pecorino, and Alternates Ansani. Absent – Weiss. Vacancies – 1. York: Present – Frank, and Lewis. Absent – Moss. Vacant – 1.

Governance Leaders present: Baumrin (GSUC), Cooper (CSI), Dreyer (NYCTC), Fridman (KCC), Friedheim (BMCC), Kaplowitz (John Jay), Kuhn-Osius (Hunter), Levine (CSI), Mettler (LaGuardia), Sohmer (CCNY), and Tobey (Brooklyn). Executive Director Phipps, Administrative Assistant Pasela, and Secretary Blanchard were present. 

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

II. Approval of the Minute of May 2003: The Minutes were adopted as proposed.

III. Reports: (Recorded in Reports & Deliberations)

                              A. Chair.

B. The Chancellor.

C. Representatives to Board Committees. (written)

IV. Approval of UFS Standing Committees: The standing committee slate was approved as presented. (appended)

V. New Business:

The Resolution on Distinguished Professorships was moved by Chair of the Status of the Faculty Committee, Prof. Morris Hounion, and adopted unanimously by voice vote:

Whereas, the University Faculty Senate wishes to ensure that all faculty are

knowledgeable about the Distinguished Professor appointment process,

including criteria, eligibility and nominating procedure, and

Whereas, a number of CUNY documents that offer guidelines and information on Distinguished Professorships has been posted on the UFS website at (http://www.soc.qc.edu/ufs/Distinguished%20Professors.htm),

Therefore Be It Resolved, that the University Faculty Senate advertise the availability of these documents on the UFS website so that all CUNY faculty, department chairs, P and B governance bodies, and administrators, may be well-informed about University policy in order to ensure the integrity of the Distinguished Professor appointment process.

On another matter, there was agreement in principle, unanimously except for one dissent, to several propositions arising from the latest program offered by the School of Professional Studies ("Earth: Inside & Out" in conjunction with the American Museum).

-That if a course is to be offered to CUNY matriculated students, it must be submitted to appropriate college curriculum committees for formal approval or be run initially as an experimental course

-That faculty teaching in this program and other similar programs in the future be formally approved by college P & Bs

-That courses run by the School of Professional Studies should not be offered to matriculated students at CUNY campuses.

The Executive Committee was charged to put these thoughts into written form, to be distributed to all concerned parties.

There being no further business, the meeting was adjourned at 8:45 P.M.

Respectfully submitted,

Bill Phipps, Executive Director

THE TWO HUNDRED NINETY-SEVENTH PLENARY SESSION OF THE UNIVERSITY FACULTY SENATE OF THE CITY UNIVERSITY OF NEW YORK

September 23, 2003

Chancellor: [tape began late]…Next year’s outlook also looks somewhat grim in that the State is facing a $6 billion deficit between obligations that are continuing and anticipated revenue. This may result in some kind of an adjustment to our current operating budget, although we haven’t heard anything as yet, and if it is I would imagine that between the 2% reserve that we created at the beginning of the budget year and the revenue that will accrue beyond our revenue estimates as a result of a very robust enrollment picture for the fall of this year, we should weather that OK. I don’t have any particular information about whether there will be an adjustment and if there is what the magnitude would be, but we are in a relatively strong position because we took the necessary steps early on and worked hard with all of our presidents to get our enrollment to where it is. And if I could editorialize for just a moment, I think the enrollment increase is a great tribute to our faculty across the University because I believe in coordinates. When I use words like this people often time get upset, but the marketplace responds by looking at CUNY as a place relatively affordable relative to private institutions and a reputation that has been improving over the last four years. And that, the reputation and the price, has given greater value to the degree, at least the perception of the degree in the marketplace of people who are choosing where to study. And we are out of sync with respect to many state universities that are seeing enrollment declines and, while we have weathered the financial storm so far reasonably well. I think it’s the reputation of the University that is really driving the people making decisions. I’ve often used the term that I think higher education is an efficient market, and by an efficient market people are all having the same information to choose and they’re making decisions to come to City University at a time when our enrollment is being characterized by students who are better prepared to study across our four-year institutions, and that’s a great tribute I think to all of you who are moving this on your campuses. So I applaud you for the work that you continue to do.

There are two highlights of the senior college allocation that we have instituted this year. We have allocated $5 million, this is at the senior college level, for new full time faculty and we are including a $2.5 million change in our budget allocation to reflect what I would call a historic inequity in the way that some of our senior college campuses were configured fiscally when they were first chartered many years ago. This started with a committee several years ago called the Base Level Equity Committee, and we have merely changed the senior allocation model to more equitably reflect the historic imbalances among some of our campuses and we will continue to do this to the degree that we can. We are also in the first year of a multi-year plan for tuition remission for Ph.D. students engaged in research or part of the teaching force. Let me underscore, there has not been any new money that the legislature put in for tuition remission. There are rumors going on here that this group, that group, got tuition remission. There’s no new money. This was a directive that was given to Ernesto Malave after a couple of years of working with Frances Horowitz and we started it this summer with a group of students whom we would have lost to other universities had we not intervened. To the degree to which our resolve is continued, we will continue to do this because I think it’s an important thing for this University to invest in its doctoral program. When the doctoral program was first organized it was organized not in the most thoughtful way. The notion of the consortial model was a brilliant idea for a system but that was not built into the financial underpinnings of the model for graduate students, the kind of support that one sees at most universities. In most universities there are core graduate students that when they were admitted to a PhD. program were given different levels of financial support. That is the way the world works and we have just never worked that way, and we have to start moving in that direction. So this is the first year of that effort and hopefully it will last over several years as we institute this appropriately.

Moving to the community college budget, currently the City budget is in balance, but as the State sees choppy waters ahead, so does the City. The City is facing someplace between $2-3 billion deficits for fiscal year ‘05 and that can be complicated by the refinancing of 30 year debt that still has not been resolved. All of you have read about this, so there is no need for me to go into any of the technical details. It is what it is and we will see how that transpires. As a result of, again, strong enrollment at our community colleges, and because the current year is in balance, the only justification for making adjustments is to create reserves against next year. This is what the State will do and the City may do the same thing, but we are insulated at our community colleges in a way that our senior colleges are not because of the maintenance of effort provision in State Law. So the maximum that can be cut this year from our community colleges is about $5 million.

The big and exciting news for the community colleges, of course, is the $25 million investment program, which I think is long overdue and it’s going to result, I believe, in a transformation of our community colleges if this is done well. All of the Presidents are on record that we need to be very much in charge of how we effectuate the changes and hiring practices that I envision here. We look to hire about 300 new faculty. This will result in about a 20% increase in full-time faculty at the community colleges. It is the largest infusion of new faculty in decades for the community colleges. We envisage 90 new academic support positions including librarians, 60 new student services positions and millions of dollars for instructional equipment, library books, periodicals and, I believe somebody asked me a question at the governance leaders’ meeting, yes, there will be desks provided for the faculty. Someone said "if you hire a faculty will he have a desk?," and I said that all things considered that’s a relatively trivial problem. Obviously the Board is aware and very supportive of the community college investment program, since this is really such an important step in the life of our community colleges. We’ll go into some detail about the safeguards that we’re going to be putting into the hiring practices. Ultimately, the Executive Vice Chancellor for Academic Affairs, Louise Mirrer, will be responsible for working with the Presidents to ensure that we get the maximum potential from the amounts of dollars that will be provided.

We still don’t have a capital budget. There is really one primary reason why we don’t, but a secondary reason as well. It is the secondary reason that I’d like to get your support for. Sandi Cooper and I had a slight conversation about this at the governance meeting and I think we have to be more vocal than we have. The primary reason we don’t have a capital program is that SUNY never lined out their capital budget request. If you’re a legislator either in the Assembly or the Senate and you’re going to approve a $2.5-3 billion capital budget for SUNY, you want to know where these projects are going to be built, and SUNY was holding this a little close to the vest. That would create a fissure between the executive and the legislature. Bob King and I have had several conversations about this. They are essentially near or completing the lining out of the budget and once that happens I think the process will move very quickly. We lined it out immediately. When we go to our Board and get approval for a capital budget, if I were a Board member I would never have approved the Chancellor’s request unless I saw it lined out. With that kind of money you can’t expect for people to take this on good faith. So that really is the primary driver.

The secondary issue is that three years ago the Commission on Independent Colleges and Universities, known as CICU, quietly floated the idea that the State should support a capital program for the private colleges and universities in the State of New York. This was so quiet it really went no place, so nobody really knew about it. But the new President of CICU, Abe Lackman, who is a friend of long standing and a very able fellow who was Budget Director in the City of New York and more recently was Joe Bruno’s Chief of Staff, floated an idea with the legislature and it’s had some traction. And that idea was "how about providing $250 million over a five year program for the independent colleges and universities, $50 million each year." Now you know and I know that if that happened it would not be new money. It would come out of the hide of CUNY and SUNY. I don’t care what anybody says, in the environment that we’re looking at here I don’t see where the State assumes the debt obligation for a quarter of a billion dollars. But that is still out there and it’s complicating the political process of getting a capital program for both SUNY and CUNY. We at CUNY are the only ones speaking out about this. I had another call from Abe Lackman today, and I made it very clear that I am unalterably opposed to this. I think this is very bad public policy. Private universities are private universities. That does not mean they continue to dip into the troth of money provided by the State to support their operations. They get Bundy Aid, the students get TAP, and that’s fine. If a student wants to go to a private institution, I think there is nothing wrong with getting them financial aid, which is in part supported by the State of New York. But providing a huge amount of money for capital programs is someplace where I have to draw the line. SUNY is not taking a strong position but I think I’d like to see this body become vocal on this because the more we are heard on this I think the better we are.

Two or three quick items. We are about to start the process of developing a new Master Plan, 2004 to 2008; that’s a five year plan. Our plan sunsets June 1, so we have to have a new plan. Louise is starting the process of providing an outline of areas to look at. Louise was largely the architect of the last Master Plan. She will be working quite collaboratively with this body, and I know, Susan, you and Executive Vice Chancellor Mirrer, have been talking about this. I look forward to a full engagement because we use the Master Plan this time in a very real way. Every one of the budget proposals that I’ve brought to the Board in my administration has been based upon the Master Plan. Master Plans are not to be written and put on shelves. There’s plenty of stuff on shelves; we need a living document. So I want all of us to take this seriously and thoughtfully. There are wonderful ideas that have surfaced and we look forward to developing a good Master Plan.

On Monday of next week the Board, Benno Schmidt, our Chairman, will announce two search committees, one for seeking a new president for John Jay. I will be giving the charge to the search committee tomorrow. I met with faculty groups, student groups, and administrators last week and it was a wonderful session and I think really good ideas were exchanged between myself and representatives from the college. I’ll be doing the same thing at Kingsborough. We will announce a search committee and we will get two new presidents that will be in place for September 2004. Just the Trustees, we don’t have the faculty yet.

The School of Journalism is the next big event that is also working its way through discussions. Louise again is taking the lead as the Chief Academic Officer in the University. And with that I complete my report, so I’ll be happy to take any questions.

Professor Levine (Engineering Science and Physics, College of Staten Island) – I’d like a clarification on the budget figures you gave. I thought I heard you say that there is $5 million in new faculty for the senior college and then it seems as if you were saying an additional $2.5 million. / Chancellor - No, $2.5 million is a reallocation of the budget. / Professor Levine - So within the $5 million it’s split into two parts, one of which has been allocated to the campus using base level equity and the other part is a competition…/ Chancellor - No, time out. Obviously it was my fault in the way I explained this. These are two different mutually exclusive issues. One is within the overall budget for the senior colleges, there’s $5 million dedicated to new faculty. Within the overall budget there has been a movement of $2.5 million that is reflected in the new budget allocation algorithm that we instituted for the first time this year. So they’re two very different issues. We’ll talk.

Professor Philipp (Chemistry, Lehman College) – Could you comment on the number of full-time faculty now working at the senior colleges compared to, say, a year ago, and also community colleges? I know the 300 additional faculty you said represented a 20% increase. Does that mean there’s a net increase in the number of full time faculty working at the community colleges? / Chancellor - There will be at the end of this hiring process a net increase of about 20% of the base that exists now. With respect to your first question, my recollection, and I could be wrong here, is that we have something on the order of about 5600-5700 full-time faculty. / U Executive Vice Chancellor Mirrer - There are close to 300 additional full time faculty at the senior colleges this year who are appointed beginning in September this year. I can’t remember how many retirements are this year. / Professor Philipp - So we don’t know if it’s really going up. Now some of the new faculty are also substitute lines who will then disappear in another year. / Executive Vice Chancellor Mirrer - The 300 represents assistant, associate, full time professors. Not substitute lines. / Professor Philipp - So it remains open whether we have an increase. / Executive Vice Chancellor Mirrer - We expect we will have an increase. / Chancellor - Between the commitment that I made to hire all the faculty that retired, this is a big battle that we had with some people in Albany and we indicated that we would not do that with administrators but with faculty. It would be a one-to-one hiring. So at the end of the process there will be an uptick and it probably will be somewhat significant.

Professor Barnhart (History, Philosophy & Political Science, Kingsborough Community College) - I have a couple of questions. One was about the process regarding the search for a new president at Kingsborough. You mentioned that at John Jay you had extensive meetings with quite a number of people. I wasn’t sure whether I heard that you envision the same thing at Kingsborough. / Chancellor - I’m going to do the exact same thing with Kingsborough, yes. / Professor Barnhart - The other issue, very quickly, was about the new hires. You were talking about the $20 million that’s going to be spent on new hires. I was wondering, amongst those new hires, were there certain distinctions where you couldn’t hire…there was some concern in the community college caucus that there might not be much hiring in education areas and things like that. Is that so? / Chancellor - I’m not in favor of hiring a lot of people in developmental education at the colleges. I would much rather see people in content areas, hiring in English, hiring in Math. But if a President or Provost comes in with a compelling reason for their campus, I’m sure it will be entertained affirmatively. But I think in general what I would like to see is an infusion of new faculty hired largely in the liberal arts areas where students first engage with a community college, in humanities, in social sciences, in natural science. And the reason that I would like to see this is that I believe that if we are serious in this University about giving students an opportunity to transfer seamlessly, without a lot of burden placed on their shoulders--and we want them to succeed when they transfer to a four-year institution--then we as a faculty need to ensure that those students are getting as equivalent a background in those subjects as they would have gotten had they started at a four year institution, that kind of same basic level of instruction. There are going to be, however, certain areas that we want to invest in. Nursing is an area, teacher education is an area, there may be others, and our Vice Chancellor of Academic Affairs is going to be working with each President and each President is going to be coming in with an academic plan that will be reviewed. I want to ensure that the Presidents take ownership to this because we could take the very easy approach and not do the kind of due diligence in hiring that I think we are capable of as a university. I think our students deserve the best in the classroom and that’s what I want to see. / Professor Barnhart - Is this going to be under the rubric of cluster hiring? Is that going to be an integral part of this hiring process? / Chancellor - I think this is largely going to be in general education for humanities, social sciences, natural sciences, mathematics, computer science. That’s really what I want to see and that’s not cluster hiring.

Professor Bell (Educational Services, Brooklyn College) – Last year you talked to us about foundations at the colleges and fundraising. Last we left it, you had brought in somebody to look at the fundraising at each of the campuses. Could you talk to us about what’s been happening with that and talk about in what sense the foundations need to be transparent in telling us what they’ve done and how they’ve done it. / Chancellor - Martha, that’s a very good question. Let me tell you what, and this is a long answer but I think it deserves a long answer because it is fundamental to a reshaping of the University, I don’t think that this University can achieve its noble objectives unless it generates a lot more revenue beyond what we get from the State and the City, which we all understand is insufficient. And that means that Presidents that are hired need to be hired with the understanding that a primary focus of their jobs is to raise money for their campuses and to use this to supplement the operating budget. This will be the third year when we go on our retreat with the Presidents where fundraising is a primary focus. In the last two years, yes, we have brought in consultants to do due diligence about how those foundations are organized, the kind of money that is being raised, and what are the levels of support that each campus President has given to the staff to work with the foundations to raise the money. Unfortunately, some of the campuses had really had very thin staffs, and we have worked with the campuses to try to bolster those kinds of supports and many of them had bolstered the supports. We have invested in technology; Razor’s Edge, for example, is a very good piece of software that enables people who work in development to not only track donors but to do the accounting and do all of the back office stuff that is necessary. In November, and the Presidents know this already because I’ve announced this, we are going to get ready for the first CUNY campaign in our history. At some point in the next few months I will be announcing with Benno Schmidt in some form a campaign for the colleges of CUNY and we’re just going to ratchet this up because we have to. And I’m convinced that if it’s done well and thoughtfully we will be able to take the University from where it is now. So that’s where we are. With respect to transparency, I think it’s very important that foundations work in a way that people understand how the money is coming in and how the money is being spent. I think the President has to call the shots, obviously being informed by faculties and their administrators with respect to how a foundation allocates money back to a campus. If that’s not the way it’s done it will have to be done that particular way. As I did at Baruch and I think many of our campuses are operating now, when a foundation provides a budget to the President to be used for various purposes, that is presented to the full community for them to know that this year the foundation is allocating $300 thousand, $1.5 million, whatever that number is, and this is the budget that has been approved and these are the programs and departments and other activities that will be beneficiary. / Professor Bell - So you think the faculty should be involved with the President calling the shots. / Chancellor - I think yes. The President needs to understand what the needs of the college are and the President is not at department meetings, doesn’t really know the needs of departments. However, the President gets the information and typically it’s through channels of his or her administration, but faculty certainly need to be involved. / Professor Bell - Thank you.

Professor Baumrin (Philosophy, The Graduate School and University Center) – I’ve been trying to remember whose was the first Master Plan we ignored. I think it was Chancellor Kibbee. The going tradition was it was a shelf deposit; all written up and then it wasn’t even looked at. / Chancellor - Correct. / Professor Baumrin - Now you and the Executive Vice Chancellor are changing the game and if we’re going to take it seriously then it seems to me that the faculty needs to make a certain investment in the construction of the Master Plan. So I would like you to ask the Vice Chancellor to circularize the faculty so that it will be forthcoming with ideas and initiatives in some appropriate way. /

Chancellor - I think that is the intention. Susan, you may want to respond to them. I know Louise and you have had several conversations about this. / Chair - In my report I’m going to address that and the setting up of focus groups and how we did some of the topics of which you are a part. / Chancellor - We’re just going to be very skittish about philosophers making comments, lawyers and philosophers. You just have to be very careful who you listen to.

Professor Pecorino (Queensborough Community College) – I congratulate you for recently returning to the highest ranks of a University. You’ve returned to faculty. It’s not many of us who would invite a reporter to the first day. / Chancellor - I didn’t invite the reporter. I was appalled to see one. / Professor Pecorino - My question has to do with this. Although I know that you spoke to us about this being one of many elements and a driver of the economies, how serious is this? As a faculty member who’s serious about teaching we try to do as best we can over time. We hone our skills. The University has ever developing, marvelous faculty developing programs, and we have informal programs where we swap stories. So can we expect you around the water cooler to tell you what worked and what didn’t work, because that kind of Arenson piece left a certain impression which couldn’t have been everything that was going on there, but I wanted to reach out to you and say, "Look, buddy, I can help you." / Chancellor - I can tell you after the session, as you would imagine I have a fairly full week, it goes on for many hours, and I was telling Susan and Karen that after that three and a half hours of lecturing I am absolutely spent out. I’m not thirty years old anymore and it is exhausting. And Bernie Sohmer and others here who teach those kinds of subjects will tell you, this is not a subject where there’s a lot of give and take; it’s not like philosophy where you sit down and you put your feet up on the table and talk about the great ideas. / Professor Pecorino - I do have the benefit of being in another discipline. However, I’ve learned over the recent past that there are marvelous alternative pedagogic methods that I bet you could relieve that three and a half hour stretch. / Chancellor - And I know you’re just the guy to do it. / Professor Pecorino - I look forward to seeing you in one of the faculty development meetings. / Chancellor - We’re using Maple and Mathematica and some of the graphics calculators, none of which existed when I studied this subject and certainly none that existed when Bernie did. / Professor Pecorino - I meant more the learner centered approach and learning groups and things like that. So all the best to you and if you need any support I’ll be available. / Chancellor - You’re very kind.

Professor Friedman (Developmental Skills, Borough of Manhattan Community College) – I didn’t get your exact words but I believe I heard you say that you were either not in favor of or in support of hiring in developmental education or developmental educators or something like that and that you would rather hire people who teach content. We have a bunch of developmental educators sitting here in the room. I myself am one of them, very proud to be so and a member of a department of developmental education that’s been existing for many years. I was wondering what your understanding is of what we teach, what your sense is of what our degrees are, what the scholarship is that we engage in, our research and our teaching, because when you said you wanted to focus on people who teach content I didn’t quite get the sense that maybe we were using developmental education with the same definitions. / Chancellor - I would like to hire people with Ph.D.’s in History, English, Languages, Math. That’s what I would like to see at our community colleges, and the degree to which we can make that happen, we will. If there are compelling reasons why a particular campus should hire people who teach reading and study skills or things that are needed for students who come in with very poor learning and academic skills, I don’t object to it but I don’t think that ought to be the focus of how you build the faculty . So I’m sure that’s not a satisfactory answer to you, but that’s what I envision really would be the result of this hiring. / Professor Friedman - I’m not going to ask you to answer this now but I get the sense that you’re not aware of the degrees that we hold. / Chancellor - That may very well be the case.

Professor Friedheim (Borough of Manhattan Community College) - There is a great need in my college for more student counselors. Reading the guidelines for the community college investment programs, the guidelines for hiring student support staff, it seems that there’s no mention of counselors. Do I misread that? If not, what is the rationale? / Chancellor - Do you want to answer that? / Executive Vice Chancellor Mirrer - I think that certainly academic advisors have been very much encouraged as part of this plan. / Professor Friedheim - And what about student counselors who provide psychological counseling, something very important in my college in the wake of 9/11. / Executive Vice Chancellor Mirrer - First of all, this investment plan is focused on academic issues and there is a reason why faculty hiring is the main focus. That’s what we promised our students and that’s what we intend to give our students. The support, librarians for example, academic advisers, the support package for this particular plan is around academic issues. That’s just the way it is constructed. That’s what we told the students we would be doing with the extra money. It is certainly up to a college to hire other kinds of counselors and they have positions that they’ve had for many years, but that is not the thrust of this.

Professor Benenson (Mechanical Engineering, City College) – It’s not my intention to open up old debates but I think in your comments about hiring at the community colleges I recall that one of the arguments that was made in favor of the end to remediation at the senior colleges was that it would be available to students at the community colleges. Your comments suggested to me that you’re less than happy with that outcome. I think it’s very important to recognize that a student who might require a developmental course or a remedial course might not be a very poor student, as you suggested in your comment to Anne Friedman. I could use my son as an example, who’s a student at Lehman and he failed writing. Against CUNY’s rules he was permitted to take it again and passed it after finding out how many pages he needed to write. That was the issue. And then passed composition and advanced composition with a B or better. So I think that there needs to be a dose of reality in thinking about who the students are that might need a remedial course or two. It does not imply that they are very poor students, as I think you suggested. And as Anne pointed out, remedial education is a discipline in itself in which people do research. This is true in your discipline, Math, which is close to mine as well. I think that in considering this issue there needs to be a greater sense of it. / Chancellor - I don’t disagree with anything that you’re saying and I think what you’re saying is very compelling. If I were to have somebody trained in Mathematics that was really interested in teaching remedial Mathematics at a collegiate level, I think that is a good thing. And there are many people on our faculty who have degrees in Literature but they enjoy teaching writing at a very elementary level and I think that’s a good thing. I’m not demeaning the discipline. I don’t know enough about the disciplines to speak intelligently. I just don’t think that that should be the major focus of our investment. I’m not pulling the curtain down on hiring developmental instructors who work in developmental education. It’s a worthy, noble thing to do. I just don’t want to open up the floodgates at all for this to happen, and indeed we may. So we just have to be very careful about how or who we invite to teach on our campus and to get the best possible people that we can. / Professor Benenson - One more sentence. I would hope that these decisions be made on educational rather than political grounds. / Chancellor - I don’t see how it be made on political grounds. These are Presidents who are working with their administrators and faculty to say, "where do we make the best investment in faculty at our college." I don’t even understand the question of why it would be political. / Professor Benenson - It certainly was in 1998. / Chancellor - What happened in 1998? / Chair - Getting rid of remediation in colleges.

Professor Price (Borough of Manhattan Community College) - I would suggest that a compelling reason to hire developmental educators is that we have an open admission to the University, and if we continue to take in students who need developmental education, either students from New York or students internationally, we have to provide faculty to teach the students the courses that they need. If they don’t get good educational backgrounds in our courses, all the faculty hirings in science and social sciences and whatever are not going to make any difference because they’re not going to be able to succeed in those courses. / Chancellor - Maybe yes, maybe no. I don’t know the answer to that. Thank you very much.

Chair - Thank you so much for coming and addressing our questions. We appreciate it greatly.

First we need to approve the agenda. Please take a look at your agenda. Any changes or anything you want to add? Don Davidson has asked to say something about the Disability Committee, which I’ve added. Approval of the May minutes?

Professor Cooper - I am quoted talking about Jeanne Ellis but her name is Jean. So would the spelling be corrected? It’s English, not French. / Chair - Thank you very much. Any other corrections? OK, can we have motion to approve? / Professor Cooper - Can you just send a copy of the minutes to her daughter? / Chair - Excellent idea.

Chair - There are two things that we need to do before people decide they want to leave. I do have a report that I want to give, but first we need to approve the UFS standing committee slate that was sent to you. We need that to be approved. First, if people want to add their names to a committee they may do so. I know for Academic Policy Laurel Cooley of York College, who has spent the last year in Spain, is eager to come back and work on that committee. I’m very pleased. Any other changes to the committee slate? OK, so we did that.

Also, because the resolution on CUNY distinguished professorships has actually been languishing now for quite a while I would like Morris Hounion, who chairs the Status of the Faculty Committee, to offer that resolution.

Professor Hounion - Good evening. In your packet that you received last week you got a copy of the resolution on CUNY distinguished professorships passed by the Status of the Faculty Committee and then by the Executive Committee. Let me just read it. It’s very brief. [It is read.]

Let me just mention the documents. One is a three page distinguished professor guidelines written in 1997 by a committee whose chair was then Professor Matthew Goldstein. Then there is also something in the Bylaws on distinguished professorships dated 1999. And finally a section from the union contract, article 23, also on distinguished professorships. So this resolution is about informing people because I’m sure that some people are not familiar with these guidelines or have questions about how the procedure works. So this is just as an information and I think that this would be very good to distribute to everybody in the University. Anybody has questions or comments?

Chair - Any discussion? As this is supported by the Executive Committee it doesn’t need a second, but I would like to hear if there is any discussion.

Syd Lefkoe (non-senator, Queens College, speaking with unanimous consent) - My only question is the issue of the format of the availability of documents on the UFS website. I think we need to encourage folks to put things out there not only in PDF format but in accessible format, and maybe the resolution could say that as well.

Chair - Bill, all right? Reluctantly, all right? / Bill Phipps - I will try. It’s not always possible. / Any more discussion on the resolution? Let’s call the question. All in favor. It is passed.

Morris - I want to thank the members of the Status of the Faculty Committee and Professor Friedman, who’s the liaison from the Executive Committee to the committee. / Chair - Also we should thank you, Morris, for being such a terrific chair.

Chair - Don Davidson wanted to say something from the Disabilities Committee. Why don’t we do that?

Professor Davidson - Yes, I just wanted to add something to what has been laid out as what the Disabilities Committee was doing this year. The Disabilities Committee met the night before this meeting and we decided that we wanted to develop a handbook with guidelines for faculty and staff at the University, since there is such a handbook and guidelines for the students. So we felt that it certainly was appropriate to do that for the faculty and staff because we have faculty and staff members who are disabled in various ways. Also, since we’re going to do that, I have already approached a couple of people about helping us in this task. I’ve approached our distinguished past Chairperson and our distinguished current Vice Chairperson to help us with this and they graciously agreed. I’m asking that you on each of your campuses ask for volunteers to serve on a committee to develop a handbook for faculty and staff members with disabilities and provide help with guidelines for people with disabilities that are faculty and staff. / Professor Kaplowitz - My understanding is that this handbook will also be for all faculty who have students in their classes who have disabilities as to what the students’ rights are and what their rights are not and the processes, because that’s not understood as well as it needs to be, both for the faculty members’ sake and for the students’ sake. Thank you, Don and Sid, the co-Chairs of the committee, for coming up with this idea. We need it.

Professor Phil Pecorino (Queensborough Community College) - At the meeting of the Committee on Information, Literacy and Computer Technology we came up with the idea of working with Don and his committee on a protocol for gaining computer access for people with special needs that should be promulgated throughout the University. We could work with the administration and with other branches. I think Baruch is one of the leaders in this area. But we want to establish a protocol and make that known in the handbook.

Professor Cooper - I was going to ask the body if it would authorize the Executive Committee to send a series of letters out to a series of political figures supporting the University’s position on ensuring that the expenditures on the capital budget go to the public universities. And I haven’t got the language at the moment in my hand but I don’t think we would have too much trouble writing such a letter on behalf of the Senate. Because I can’t provide language at the moment, I was asking to see if there would be a general support for this. And I think it better go out very fast. / Chair - Make a motion. / Professor Cooper - The motion is that the body authorize the Executive Committee to indicate to the political authorities the position of the faculty on the matter of spending the capital budget on the public institutions. / Chair - Why don’t you bring such a letter to the Executive Committee next Tuesday and we’ll work on it and get it out.

Professor Pecorino - In the letter you might make mention of this. You all know that I’m very disturbed about how we put the increase in tuition on students and how a great percentage of the operating budget is coming from tuition similar to the profile of a private institution. But I’m thinking about how do we maintain the quality that we do with so little public support. And it’s not just on the student’s back but it’s on ours, because as soon as you bring up teaching load we all know what ours is compared to privates. If public support goes to privates now that helps to maintain teaching loads that are more reasonable compared to ours we’re just slapping ourselves…/ Chair - This is the capital budget, so it’s different. / Prof. Pecorino - It doesn’t matter because the money is going there to support those efforts …/ Chair - Agreed. /

Chair: I want to go to what I think is the most important thing in my report, which is the Master Plan. We've been asked to propose faculty initiatives for the new Master Plan. What I did was to read the old Master Plan, and I was quite amazed how they have followed the old Master Plan. It used to be, as Stefan said, that they put it in on the shelf and ignored it. Now they follow it. So we've been asked to present faculty initiatives. I made a list of possible topics and it's in the back. People may add things, take them off, whatever. Next Tuesday in the Executive Committee the majority of the meeting is going to focus on what topics we should look at to develop initiatives. Then I hope all of you are on the Listserv, because the topics will be out and there's a series of dates for focus groups. What I want to do is bring people together in different areas. This will be with Louise Mirrer, and we will start putting initiatives together for the Master Plan and we will also send them to the Regents. I think it's very important to do this. Now if you want to be involved in this, tell me what you think are important initiatives or be part of a focus group. Focus groups will be on October 14, 15 and November 5 but this will be out on the Listserv [the final dates turned out to be Oct. 14, 21, and November 14]. Any discussion of that right now? There was supposed to be one last Friday, but I thought we were too unfocused to have a focus group and that we had to do a lot of planning to have a focus group that made any sense. Otherwise, it would be too random.

Professor Philipp (Chemistry, Lehman College) – I would suggest that we add one topic, that is the creation of new academic programs, because when they do that we should have some input. We just heard about the Journalism School. There are suggestions floating around for other new initiatives the University could undertake. We're one of the largest universities in the country and we certainly have room for this.

Chair - As you mentioned the new Graduate School of Journalism, I might as well mention that this will be a Master's program. The UFS appointees to the Internal Board of the Journalism School are Linda Prout of City College and Glenn Lewis of York College. Glenn is here and he better keep us informed about this initiative. Today Vice-Chancellor Mirrer has asked faculty from Hunter, Brooklyn, Baruch, John Jay and Queens. That's why I reached out to City College and York. But that's about as far as it's gone. There will be an external committee and an internal committee. The internal committee will be doing the curriculum. It has not yet come through the Board of Trustees. The location is to be not at a CUNY college, but at a new site so there won't be any territorial wars. Any questions on the new School of Journalism? It's in its infant stage.

At the next plenary, Rita diMartino, the new Trustee appointed by Mayor Bloomberg, is coming. She's a member of the Council on Foreign Relations. Also Ron Canestrari, the Assembly Chair of the Higher Education Committee, said he will come, too.

Committee night, as you’ve noticed, is no more. Instead it was replaced by a dinner for committee Chairs and the Executive Committee that was held last week and I think was a very successful meeting.

We’re having a conference on the Patriot Act and the University on Friday November 21 at Hunter School of Social Work. Ellen Schrecker is speaking; she’ll put the Patriot Act in historical context. Another speaker will go over the legal aspect of the Patriot Act and Patriot Act 2; you’ve been reading about that. Allan Wernick is going to speak about immigration issues. Carol Corillon, Director of the Committee on Human Rights at the National Academy of Sciences, the National Academy of Engineering, and The Institute of Medicine is going to speak on the implications of the Patriot Act for scientists. A librarian is going to speak on how the Act compromised librarians and the final speaker will address current cases of faculty members who have been charged under the Patriot Act and what we can do. Joan Scott has also been asked to speak but I have not yet heard from her.

Steven Penrod, a distinguished professor of forensic psychology who’s also a lawyer, from John Jay, will be chairing the Faculty Advisory Council of the Research Foundation and furthering the work of Jamal Manassah, who’s the previous Chair. Penrod has not been here for a very long time and he has great courage to do this job.

David Crook promises to finish going over the draft of the faculty experience survey that Dean Savage, Al Levine, Ken Sherrill], Karen Kaplowitz, and I put together by next week. We should be able to pilot the survey this term. This is a faculty experience survey in which faculty say what’s going on on their campuses, is there shared governance, does the administration respect you, all kinds of questions? Some are taken from a national faculty survey so we can also compare to a national survey. I want the survey to be part of the evaluation of the Presidents.

The academic integrity policy: there’s a draft of it that the subcommittee has put out and I got it today. I immediately said, "Can I give it out tonight?" They said no, but as soon as it goes back to the committee they will circulate it widely for your input. It’s not a done deal. I think it’s an improvement over the first draft.

Finally, School of Professional Studies. The governance committee met in August to approve four courses that are part of a credit certificate in literacy. The courses were developed by Charles Malone at City College. Only one course was offered this summer. It was taught by qualified UFT teachers at the high schools. The UFT paid for the courses and the University made some money. The course articulates with City College’s Master’s in Literacy. The course that is now being voted on is a course sponsored by the American Museum of Natural History called Earth Inside and Out. This course will first be offered to students in the Master’s programs in childhood education and middle childhood science education at Brooklyn College and then be open to the public. Professor Ellen Miele at Brooklyn College is the contact person. I have both course descriptions here if anyone is interested.

The UFS appointees to the committee are Barbara Weinstein from Lehman and The Graduate School, Fred Lane from Baruch, and me. The committee will meet again next month. I’ve done what I can with this. The courses are decent; they have been developed by our faculty. The whole thing still makes me very uneasy. The University is making money and the Central Office is making money. The money is supposed to go to graduate student tuition remission. So there it is. If you have any questions…I’ve fought several battles so far on this and that’s why I appointed myself to the committee because I’ll be there and I don’t mind fighting battles with them.

Professor Friedman (Developmental Skills, Borough of Manhattan Community College) – School of Professional Studies. / Chair - Better known as SOPs. / Professor Friedman - I have many questions but I’m just going to ask you about a couple of things you said. One is I think I heard you say that the course was taught by qualified UFT teachers. / Chair - Yes. Right here I have their resumes. You can look at them. / Professor Friedman - I’m still not clear, maybe I’m not listening, who determines that these folks, maybe super folks, I haven’t seen the resumes, I don’t know, but who determines that they are qualified to teach a course at CUNY, this particular course. / Chair - Professor Charles Malone and Dean Posamentier at City College approved them. He’s the Dean of Education at City College. They are also being observed according to the union contract. / Professor Friedman - I think we need to follow up with this in some way because this is not the way faculty are hired at CUNY, by one faculty person appointed and a Dean. I think that this is very problematic. / Chair - But this is interesting. One thing we might do is insist that the governance committee take a look at the resumes and that we technically do the hiring. It’s a thought. / Professor Friedman - I still think it’s a problem because hiring should be done by experts in the field, and I happen to be an expert in this field, not that I want to get involved with this.

Unidentified - Technical question on the finances: Had this course been offered by CCNY as a regular graduate course, would the UFT have paid exactly the same, more or less? / Chair - Less. Only $5 less a student. I checked that out.

Professor Bell (Educational Services, Brooklyn College) – We have a course being taught to Brooklyn College students who in order to take it would have to go on permit to The School of Professional Studies and the tuitions then would go out on permit from Brooklyn College’s campus, which according to our President has to raise 70% of the budget from tuitions. And this course has not passed our Faculty Council. Any course that’s counted towards the student’s degree seems to me has to pass our Faculty Council curriculum. And The School of Professional Studies, as we wrote it, and I remember writing the sentence very carefully, was not to overlap or duplicate any program that is already offered. We already have a program for early childhood and middle school and elementary science education at Brooklyn College. / Chair - How to answer this? If you look at it it’s with the Museum of Natural History. It is a splendid course. / Professor Bell - I’m sure, and we have such splendid courses at both the geology program and The School of Education have joint grants with Natural History and faculty have joint appointments. / Chair - See, what they did was get a certain faculty member to develop a course and then Dean Shanley also approved it. So what I did was I immediately called Brooklyn College and I went after this course to see if it had been approved, and it had not been approved. So then I said, all right, then The School of Professional Studies must approve it. They weren’t even going to have SOPS approve it. So now it has a course number from The School of Professional Studies. / Professor Bell - I think it’s pretty crazy that the students at Brooklyn can’t take it. / Chair - Yes, they can. / Professor Bell - No, they can’t if it’s not approved as part of our curriculum by the faculty. / Chair - It is the same as another course, that’s the way they’re doing it. It’s the same as another course that has been approved. That’s the way they’re getting through it. / Professor Bell - Remember, we approved it for students who would not be in regular degree programs. I think we’ve got to go back to that. They can offer it to the rest of the population but they can’t offer it on our campuses. / Chair - Only the first time it is going to be offered to Brooklyn College students, then it’s offered to the public. I know what you’re talking about. It’s a good point. / Professor Bell - They had agreed that this would be for other populations and would not replicate degree programs that we had and I proposed that sentence. / Chair - That’s a good point. Let me see what I can do with that. I should have thought of it last week.

Professor Philipp (Chemistry, Lehman College) – I think the other problem with this is that courses that are recognized as the equivalent to CUNY courses have to be approved by a personnel and budget committee. So if these become the equivalent of college courses there should be a process to do the approval, not just a single faculty member and a Dean. Deans on a campus don’t approve faculty that are hired. / Chair - This is Anne’s point that you’re stressing. I think it’s a good point. / Professor Philipp - Not in the individual coordinator of the course, it’s not a Dean, it’s a personnel and budget committee of that department that does the hiring, that selects who is going to be teaching, and I think doing it any other way means it’s open to the wind. We’re running a McDonald’s like operation. It’s a franchise. We’re giving our label to this operation, not our instructors but our curriculum. It’s McDonald’s recipe for the burgers. Instructors should be selected by a committee.

Professor Cooper (History, College of Staten Island and The Graduate School and University Center) – I would just like to suggest that the faculty here and the governance leaders take this issue up on every campus with their councils. My guess is most people are unaware of what’s happening. It takes about a year for information like this to percolate down. In effect we have, us, this body, signed off by recommending people to serve on that supervision committee. We have signed off on some kind of a hybrid between contract courses and courses for academic credit, which none of us have much control over. And we’ve done it because presumably our graduate students are going to get their tuition remitted. Now we hear there would have been $5 difference for students if the course had been done in a normal way through a school of education. I can’t believe that those few bucks are worth selling the whole thing out, but I would suggest to you that if you scratch surfaces on your campuses, it’s not the President of the administration that supported this or dared speak out about it, nor is there a continuing education program that’s happy with this because it’s walking on a huge number of feet, but the main thing it’s doing is it’s cheapening our courses, something which I have tried to say repeatedly. Anyway, I’m sorry to sermonize but it really strikes me that this is a subject we had better start educating on. It is an initiative, like the Honors College, that came from 80th Street with no discussion. You are invited to shape it by participating in an initial vision you had nothing to do with. / Chair - Just in response, the money from the City College course after the money was paid to Charles Malone and the teachers then went to the Central Office. I mean that’s the idea, that the money doesn’t go to the campuses, that it goes to the Central Office and doctoral tuition remission. But it’s an issue of control, I think.

Professor Tobey (Physical Education, Brooklyn College) - This is the first I’ve heard that this course is being offered at Brooklyn and my first question is why? If we have a course similar to this in our regular curriculum what’s the reason for adding this to the file? My second question, or statement, is that if there’s one thing Faculty Senates and Faculty Councils are involved with and have control of it’s curriculums. And in this case Faculty Council is being bypassed and I can think of no other reason or better reason that it might not pass Faculty Council is that it wouldn’t get clearance. And there is a long standing tradition at CUNY that the Faculty Senates and the Faculty Councils should be in charge of curriculum at their respective colleges and I see no reason for bypassing that at this point. / Chair - I agree. This course is offered by The School of Professional Studies, not by Brooklyn College. That’s what I was told. / Chair - Only the first time it is offered. I can see the real conflict there. I immediately went to the Provost and Dean Shanley. The Dean of the School of Professional Studies kept saying it’s such a good course, nobody needs to pass it. At that point I said some governing body has got to pass it, one or the other. And I had to fight with them to get them to agree to have the School of Professional Studies Governance Committee pass it. How do you want to proceed, Charles?

Professor Tobey - I would have motioned here that the course or courses should be presented to the Faculty Council at Brooklyn College if it’s going to be offered at Brooklyn College or the appropriate campuses. But the appropriate governance body must be given this course to approve or disapprove and we keep the tradition of what faculty senates and faculty councils are supposed to be doing. / Chair - I think Martha’s point is if it’s offered to Brooklyn College students, how can it not be approved by Brooklyn College’s governance? / Professor Tobey - First the Faculty Council at Brooklyn College approves a course, then the students take the course, not the students take the course and then they have to approve it. / Chair - The course starts being taught in October. Maybe there is some way you could block it. / Professor Tobey -I’m not sure I can personally block it but I think a motion from this group indicating that the proper governance body either approve or disapprove the course is in order right now. / Chair - Yes, let’s cite that sentence in the original plan./ Professor Kaplowitz - It’s a general principle, even if it’s too late for Brooklyn. / Chair - Martha, do you want to write a draft of it and bring it Tuesday and then we’ll work on it. OK? So moved.

[Tape was turned over.] Chair - The SOPS Committee consists of Fred Lane; Dan Atkins, City College; Leonard Ciaccio, Staten Island; Burt Flugman; Jerry Markowitz, John Jay; Vita Rabinowitz, Hunter; Gloria Thomas, Baruch; and Barbara Weinstein, Lehman College. That is the governing board plus a few administrators that they keep trying to expand. This Committee is voting on it right now because I insisted. But I think Martha’s point is that if they’re offering it to Brooklyn College students what are they doing? I think it’s an unusual situation. The first course offered by SOPS was articulated with City College, but the students were not City College students. This will be open to all students after they offer it the first time. It is a distance education course with the Museum of Natural History. I think it’s a very good course. However, that’s not the issue. It should be presented to Brooklyn College Faculty Council’s approval and they might approve of it if it’s such a wonderful course. It shouldn’t bypass that procedure.

Professor Baumrin - A variety of people whose names you’ve mentioned have a reputation and a history of not following the rules and of also being less than transparent with these funds. It seems to me that the governance documents have already been violated. That’s what I’ve heard from Martha and from other people. I’m only a general house lawyer but I recall the governance documents still have some force of law. It seems to me that the governance body of SOPS ought to write a letter the State Ed Department suggesting that the University is not following its own rules. Otherwise they are simply not going to listen to anything else that’s been suggested here and it seems to me that it ought to be documented carefully. The areas in which the rules have not been followed, the areas in which the money trail is not transparent, and the areas in which students are not being told about the true nature of these courses. A carefully worded letter to that effect ought to go to the State Ed Department and then let the University respond. I don’t think that we ought to be in business of negotiating with them or anything like that because frankly they don’t care what we think. / Chair - I need to organize the committee, send out an e-mail with what’s going on and see where I can get. There are several people on the committee that are excellent. The UFS appointees, Barbara Weinstein; I must say Fred Lane has been fearless, Jerry Markowitz is terrific, people have been really pushing back but some people don’t push back, that’s true. / Even without a majority a strong minority letter…/ Chair - I have a strong minority, I know, but do I have a majority? I’m not sure yet. / A strong minority report to the State Ed Department would carry some weight.

Professor Shapiro (Mathematics, Brooklyn College) - Didn’t the document that was passed to set up The School of Professional Studies say that the courses would not be offered to students in existing degree programs? / Chair - Yes, that was Martha’s point. And that was violated.

Professor Kaplowitz (English, The John Jay College of Criminal Justice) – I think we have to look at the actual language because my memory is a little different, but I don’t trust my memory. I think it said that no degree program shall be adopted by The School of Professional Studies if it already exists at another college or if another college plans to create such a program. I don’t think it spoke to specific courses, so I think we really need to look, and we have Executive Committee meeting Tuesday morning. Do you remember it that way, Bill? / Bill Phipps - Yes./ Chair - We’ll do our homework and figure out the best way of going after this.

Professor Baumrin – The point of all of this is to improve a principle, a resolution to be drafted by the Executive Committee to the effect that no course be offered at any campus that hasn’t been approved by the host institution’s governing body. / Chair - All in favor of this? All right. One is opposed. Abstentions.

Professor Philipp – There is one other issue here and that is for this course to apply to students at Brooklyn College in a degree program. The people running that degree program have to agree. / Chair - And they have. / Professor Philipp - They have agreed? / Chair - They have. Deborah Shanley has agreed. She’s the Dean. And Ellen Miele, a faculty member in education.

Unidentified - I’m somewhat bewildered: why didn’t any of this come up when the Chancellor was here? / Unidentified - Because Susan hadn’t yet given her report. / Chair - The Chancellor came awfully early, so I couldn’t give my report. The Chancellor doesn’t know a whole lot about this. It’s Louise Mirrer who does. We could have had her speak first.

Chair - I think we have a sense of what we’re going to do.

Professor Sohmer - As head of the City College delegation to the Senate I’ve been asked by Jamal Manassah to make a statement about the fact that he has resigned from the Senate and that he resigned earlier from the RF but he has resigned from the Senate and his reason for resigning is that governance has been transgressed both at City College and at the University often enough for him to be indignant. The proximate cause is Jamal’s being greatly mistreated by the administration at City College, and inexcusably so, and nobody has done anything to rectify that. The primary thing that has happened is that his space that he has had for years and is using has been cut twice, once in half and then once in half again. I figure if they do it often enough it will disappear. And many of his private papers have been dissipated by a destructive act of the buildings and grounds people. I promised him I would make that statement to you. / Chair - And why didn’t City College governance do anything? That’s an innocent question, I don’t know the answer. / Prof. Sohmer - No questions are innocent. The City College Senate has to adjudicate and we’re considering what to do but we have not as yet done anything. / Chair - Good. It’s pretty shocking.

Professor Tobey - One point of order and one statement. The statement is that I don’t think anyone should say that we’re trying to sabotage the course by having the course presented to Faculty Council for approval. In fact, if this is as good a program as you say it is, chances are the Council will approve the course. It’s the principle that’s involved. And the point of order is that we voted to call the question. / Chair - We didn’t vote on the question? I thought we did. / We just voted on the call. / Chair - All right, so the question is called. Before people leave make sure you take a look at the Listserv because we will be having a lot of discussion on it.

Professor Baumrin - I didn’t actually want you to raise this because now that we had a full debate, which we can really have about anything, the issue has been raised by three different people with respect to the question of approval of the faculty by a recognized collegial P & B. That was not included in the motion because we would have to get the original motion through immediately. The question of whether or not the body wants to instruct … [tape turned over]… which are to be approved for credit at an institution within the University must be approved by a P & B or other appointments committee is a subject that we should take up. So I’m going to make that motion. / Chair - Discussion? / Unidentified - Call the question without further discussion. A faculty member, however lowly, even when he teaches in high school needs to be approved by a P & B. For example, at the Museum many of the faculty are approved by the Hunter College Psychology Department; the people with primate studies, for example, and in the geology department. They’re perfectly respectable academics, they happen to work at the museum. I am sure that the P & B at Brooklyn College in Speech and in English and in Geology are perfectly capable of approving these instructors for teaching these courses and there’s no reason why they shouldn’t be so approved. / Chair - Right. Do you want to pen such a motion for Tuesday and bring it to the Executive Committee? I think we need to pass it right now, the sense of it. / Professor Philipp - First of all, I support this motion but the thrust of the motion is weakened a little bit by the fact that that department and presumably its P & B, and I say presumably because I don’t know for sure that the department at Brooklyn accepted this course as an equivalent, so in that particular instance it’s weakened, if they did, but I don’t know. But in any case we should still express this as a principle for this University. / Chair - All of those that support what Stefan just said, the motion, in terms of P & B hiring the people in these schools. Now let’s adjourn and thank you. I thought that was a good discussion. It helped me greatly in going back to see what I can do.