MINUTES OF THE TWO HUNDRED AND FORTY-FIFTH PLENARY SESSION
OF THE CITY UNIVERSITY FACULTY SENATE
OF THE CITY UNIVERSITY OF NEW YORK
September 30, 1997
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: Jaffe Mo., Otte, Pollard, and Alternate Hill. BMCC: Friedman, Price, Reid, and Vozick. Bronx CC: Belilgne, Cummins, and Alternate Fuld. Brooklyn: Bell, Jacobson, London, Shapiro, Tobey, and Alternate Pizer. City: Connorton, Crain, Grossman, Pearson, Sank, Sohmer, and Weil. CSI: Cooper, Levine, and Yousef. CUNY Law: Nadvorney. Graduate School: Baumrin, Berkowitz, Dauben, and Katz Rothman. Hostos: Canate, Rosario-Sievert, Vasillov, and Alternate Cardona. Hunter: Hampton, Kurzman, Matthews, Neville, Sherrill, Wonsek, and Alternate Baxter. John Jay: Bohigian, Davenport, Kaplowitz, Rodriguez, and Alternate Davenport. Kingsborough CC: Bellu, Galvin, Goldfarb, O’Malley, Richter, and Alternate Staum. LaGuardia CC: Gallagher, Ladden, Mettler, and Reitano. Lehman: Avani, Feinerman, Knobloch, and Mineka. Medgar Evers: Harris-Hastick, Johnson, and Umolu. NYC Tech.: Cermele, Hounion, Norton, and Walter. Queens: Cairns, Frisz, Kulkarni, Landazuri, Savage, Speidel, and Alternate Diamond. Queensborough: Dahbany-Miraglia, Gellman, Greenbaum, Marti, Mullin, and Alternates Allaire and Specht. York: Cooper, and Odenyo. Professors Brady, Galub, and Richardson were excused. Fauclty Governance Leaders present: Berkowitz (GS), Cooper (York), Feinerman (Lehman), Hampton (Hunter), Kaplowitz (John Jay), Kurzman (Hunter), Levine (CSI), Mandelbaum (Queens), Mettler (LaGuardia), O’Malley (KCC), Specht (QCC) and Tobey (Brooklyn). Vice Chancellors Rothbard and Mirrer gave reports to the Plenary. CUNY faculty attending were Professors Beaky (LaGuardia), James (CUNYLaw), and Italia (Hostos). Rob Hollander (GSUC), a student also attended. The Parliamentarian was Alternate Staum. Executive Director Phipps and Administrative Assistant Pasela were present.
I. Approval of the Agenda: Item IV.e. was deleted because Professor Seley was ill. The agenda was then adopted as amended.
II. Approval of the Minutes of the 244th Plenary, May 13, 1997: The minutes were adopted as proposed.
III. Greeting of New Trustees: Trustee Curtis was introduced to the Senate. His remarks are recorded in the Reports & Deliberations.
IV. Reports: [recorded in Reports & Deliberations.]
a. Chair (oral & written).
b. Mr. Richard Rothbard, Vice Chancellor for Budget (oral).
c. Dr. Louise Mirrer, Vice Chancellor for Academic Affairs (oral).
d. Faculty Members of Board of Trustees Committees, June & September (written).
e. UFS Committee Chairs, Professor John Seley, Status of Faculty (canceled).
V. Reports from Liaisons on Campus Conditions, Enrollment, Class Size and Course Availability (appended to Minutes).
VI. Approval of UFS Standing Committee Slate: The Slate, as approved, is appended.
VII. New Business: [Full text of New Business items are in the Reports & Deliberations section.]
Professor Sohmer (Mathematics, City) proposed a resolution concerning Campus Speakers, which was passed unanimously after friendly amendments. The full text of the resolution is in the Reports & Deliberations section. The resolved clauses are as follows:
"that the University Faculty Senate deplore the ruling of the Counsel to the Board of Trustees advising that there be such limitations on speakers, and
that all faculty wishing to invite current political figures to speak at their classes and at other campus forums be encouraged to do so."
Professor Bohigian (Mathematics, John Jay) read a statement he prepared called "Kick the Habit of Adoration of Administrators — Demand Performance Before Cooperation." Professor Grossman commented on the statement. The text appears in the Reports & Deliberation Section.
Professor Vozick (Mathematics, BMCC) commented about part-time faculty and asked other part-timers to meet with him at the close of the meeting.
Professor Friedman (Developmental Skills, BMCC) announced a conference being held on October 17th for which she had left flyers in the back.
There being no further business, the meeting was adjourned at 8:25 P.M.
Respectfully submitted,
Bill Phipps
Executive Director
REPORTS & DELIBERATIONS
OF THE TWO HUNDRED AND FORTY-FIFTH PLENARY SESSION
OF THE UNIVERSITY FACULTY SENATE
OF THE CITY UNIVERSITY OF NEW YORK
September 30, 1997
III. Greeting of New Trustees: Chair Cooper - We are pleased to have Trustee Alfred B. Curtis Jr. He was just named by the Mayor to replace Jerome Berg of Staten Island. Trustee Curtis is a graduate of my college, The College of Staten Island, where he majored in business and economics. Currently he is President and Chief Executive Officer of the United Nations Development Corporation. He has previously served as Commissioner in the Department of Youth Services. He was also Director of the Interagency Coordinating Council for Youth in this city. He has worked as a Vice President for Chemical Bank, and he has been President of the NAACP on Staten Island. As well there is too long a list of organizations for me to offer to you tonight without using up the whole time for his service. At the request of Chair Paolucci, he has agreed to serve as Parliamentarian for the Trustees. On the Board Committees, trustee Curtis is serving as Vice Chair of the Committee on Academic Affairs and he is also on the Fiscal Affairs Committee. I hope you will welcome him and I invite him to come up and say a few words.
Trustee Alfred B. Curtis Jr. - Madame Chair and to the members of CUNY faculty who over the years have helped me to become what I am today. I thank you for the time that you worked with me as a product of CUNY. Many times I have been introduced and my credentials have been misread. Someone would say, Al Curtis from Harvard, or sometimes from Yale, or I thought you went to Princeton. But the fact of the matter is that I went to CUNY. CUNY prepared me to hold a leadership role in this city. I can go out and say that I am delighted to be a product of the system and to be able to stand before you today and thank you. Let me also say that Sandy Cooper is a very able member of the Board of Trustees who represents you very well. She does this without shrinking from accountability or responsibility, without being quiet at times. But being an extremely vocal advocate for you. That is what she represents and that is very important and I think I should share that with you.
There are two very important commodities that really make the university system what it is today. Without these two commodities we wouldn’t be in existence. For me they are the things that make the wheels spin for the system. They are the students and the faculty. They are important, each needs the other, and working together you make the university system. I’m very delighted that the Mayor appointed me to the Board of Trustees. I’ve been on the Board for roughly three months. I’ve made seven official and unofficial visits to university campuses throughout the City. I’m prepared to do a lot more because I take my responsibilities very seriously. I’m also there to listen and learn. I’m there to advocate for faculty as well as students. And again, without the two commodities that I talk about, there would be no Board of Trustees. So the members of the Board of Trustees are not an institution to themselves. But we in part must work with you and everybody else who is a part of the university system. At the end of the day it is the things that you do, and the instructions that you impart to students that will make the major solid contributors to this City, State, Nation, and World. So you’re very important and I hold you very dear and precious to my heart.
When I received your invitation today, I accepted it first and then later on received a number of speaking engagements. This is an election year and I have to represent my boss in a number of places tonight, but I told Sandy that I would be here. To be in contact, to get to see and feel you. So if at any point in time you decide to call me, I can connect the voice to the face. And this is what this is all about, working together in partnership, one together to help the youngsters to become better contributors to society. Finally as a product again, this is historic for me because I can stand before an institution that I am a part of, it is a tremendous and big thank you. Thank you.
IV. Reports:
a. Chair:
I would like very much to do a little housekeeping business first before moving onto the real issues and the rest of the agenda. First, I’d like to point out that one of the documents distributed on the back table at my request is a thank you letter that Joanne Reitano of LaGuardia, who chaired our committee on research for five years. That is one of the toughest jobs we give out. A thank you letter that Joanne wrote to Stasia Pasela, the administrative assistant of the Senate, for Stasia’s service. I think that letter adequately describes what Stasia has put in trying to whip you all into shape. So I wanted to share it with you and make sure that it becomes part of the record.
Secondly, the Executive Committee and I are going to ask you to give your unanimous endorsement for the following two resolutions which we have not handed out. You will have to follow orally.
The first resolution is as follows, "Whereas CUNY-Talk was originally an initiative of the Faculty Senate, and whereas it has become a popular and useful forum for the exchange of ideas, and whereas it required an extraordinary technical effort to develop and maintain this forum, and whereas Professor Anthea Tillyer, an adjunct at City College and elsewhere, volunteered to undertake and maintain this effort, and whereas her devotion and labor deserve wide recognition, therefore be it resolve that the Faculty Senate express its unconditional gratitude to Professor Tillyer for this invaluable and lasting contribution to the CUNY community."
Since this is a resolution proposed by the Executive Committee, it doesn’t need a second. Is there any discussion? If there is no discussion can I ask for a vote? All in favor? Opposed? Abstentions? This is unanimous.
The second, "Whereas the Faculty Senate faced numerous obstacles to publishing its own web page for the use of its members, and whereas Dean Savage (Sociology, Queens College and the Graduate School) came to the rescue with technical assistance and an offer of space on his department server, and whereas he has offered continuing assistance in expanding this resource, therefore be it resolved that the Faculty Senate thank Dean Savage for lending his exceptional talents and valuable resources to this project."
Is there any discussion? Question is called. All in favor? Opposed? Abstentions? It is unanimous. Thank you very much. These people have moved us into the 20th century.
Housekeeping and organizational matters, please listen up so I don’t have to repeat this. This year we asked campus liaisons to provide written reports on the status of their colleges and we have some. They are out on the tables, rather than having them report orally, which we received many complaints about. We have circulated those that we received in advance. But in the process of inviting campus liaisons to provide these reports, it was discovered many of you didn’t know what a liaison was. A liaison is that member of your delegation from your college, whom you choose. I don’t choose and the Executive Committee doesn’t choose, but you choose. The liaison does a variety of tasks for you. This individual writes these reports for example, when asked. This individual receives information which we don’t have the ability to distribute to all of you, and we assume it is distributed to all of you. This individual frequently reports to your campus or Faculty Assemblies or Senates. This is the individual we get in touch with to create a telephone tree if there is an emergency. Please choose a liaison and then please tell us who it is. Without both parts the whole thing doesn’t work. In addition, in some cases the liaison is the individual you tell you are not coming to the Senate meeting so that liaison can get a hold of the alternate. This leads me to the point of making sure that you all know what an alternate is. Every delegation has alternates. If you become ill, if you can’t make it, if you have to take a semester off. It is your business in your college to get a hold of your alternate, otherwise your college doesn’t have the requisite number of votes. The Executive Committee does not pick liaisons, it doesn’t pick alternates, and it doesn’t call up people and say, ‘you’ve been absent, find a substitute.’ You have to do this yourself.
October, the next meeting, will be our committee night. You must sign up in advance, otherwise there will not be enough to eat. You will have the waiters running around like last year, like maniacs trying to feed all the extras who came. We are hoping to have the mayoral candidates as hors d’oeuvres. However, I cannot promise at this point, that we will have any of them because they are both playing the game that says ‘if he doesn’t come, I won’t come,’ and ‘if she comes I won’t come,’ and ‘if she doesn’t come I will come and my alternate will come,’ etc... At this point I can’t guarantee any of this, but we will see. So if they do come, we will be meeting upstairs in the 18th floor in this building in that large dining area. I have invited them for 6:30 p.m. The Senate has had in the past discussions and debates between the two of them. If they don’t wish to see each other, we can arrange for them to go up and down different elevators and come at different times. I can’t promise you at this point what we will have. I know that we can have their substitutes. The date is the 28th of October.
Please remember that the College Governance Leaders in your campus are all welcome to these Plenaries. They cannot vote unless they are elected to the Senate Delegation, but they have voice. It is very helpful if they come to these meetings. We meet twice a semester, the Council Faculty Governance Leaders. It is equally important for them to come to these meetings. At the last Council of Faculty Governance Leaders a few days ago, Louise Mirrer came. She has also visited with several discipline councils already. It is very helpful if your representatives are present here and come to the other meetings.
The Executive Committee has concluded that we also have to spend some more time at these meetings, focusing on the work of our committees. We had hoped to start tonight with a brief oral report from John Seley, who became ill. He was to give a report on the work of the Committee on the Status of Faculty in CUNY. Otherwise the reports of committees are in written form.
In November on the 21st at BMCC, the Senate and the CUNY Academy are sponsoring what I think is going to be one of the best conferences we’ve put together. The subject is ‘Public Higher Education, An Assessment for the New Millennium.’ This broad title is deliberately chosen to focus our attention on the issues facing us in this University. We have gotten Catharine Stimpson to give the keynote. She is leaving the MacArthur Foundation and coming to be the Dean of Graduate Studies at NYU. She will be followed by an extraordinarily good panel, all of whom are four experts in their fields. On financing public education, Fred Lane of Baruch. On the issues of governance, Saul Cohen who is a Regent and former President of Queens College. On faculty tenure and its challenges, Joan Scott, who is on the Committee of the AUW from the Institute for Advanced Studies. Joan is of course a famous historian as well. Finally, on the issue of pressures on the curriculum, we have Professor Torres-Saillant of the City College Institute on Latin American and Caribbean Studies. And then of course we will break up to have our usual workshops. This will start at the usual 9:30 a.m. The paper work for it is outside. Please pick up registration forms and indicate your willingness to come. The conference is being coordinated by the Committee on the Status of Faculty, John Seley and Anne Friedman in particular.
The Charter Revision issue. You will recall that last Spring we had something of a discussion over a revision of the charter. It would have permitted the Chair and the Executive Committee to occasionally authorize reassigned time to faculty who are not in the Senate for work that reports to the Senate. The amendment has probably passed by the last vote, but since the vote is close I am going to wait for one more college. Amendments of the Senate Charter pass when they have been voted on by colleges representing over 50% of the faculty in CUNY. Even though it is not absolutely 100% certain in my mind that it has passed, I intend to live by the spirit of its provisions and report to you what the Executive Committee and I have done regarding reassigned time. Reassigned time has been allocated as follows. There are four officers and five at-large-members of the Executive Committee. The Chair has traditionally received full reassigned time. The other three officers have received reassigned time for one course each semester. If anybody goes on sabbatical of course they don’t get it. Four of the five at-large-members have reassigned time for one course this semester and next semester the fifth at-large-member will probably get it for next semester. Reassigned time has also been given separately, not to the Executive Committee, through a special negotiation with the chancellory to the head of the Faculty Advisory Council person. That is again, John Davis, who has agreed to do it. And to the Chair of the Senate Committee on Academic Affairs, who has been charged with separate and special assignments. Therefore, for the current semester, 38 hours of reassigned time has been distributed. And probably the number will vary slightly in the Spring depending on if anyone has a sabbatical and as I mentioned the addition of that fifth member of the Executive Committee. According to the calculations done in the Senate Office, which I am still a little nervous about, the amendment has in fact been approved by a majority of CUNY faculty, but I would prefer to wait until one more campus votes on it. It has been passed at City College, Lehman, Bronx Community, John Jay, Staten Island, Queens, Brooklyn, and the Borough of Manhattan Community College.
Finally, I’d like to conclude by expressing my deep appreciation to Professor Joel Mandelbaum, who is hiding in the back, whose letter I hope I have distributed to everyone, I wanted it out in the back. He sent a gracious and very kind letter to other governance leaders which I have asked the office to give you. In response to a ludicrous campaign against this amendment and against the UFS Chair. I have distributed this letter because it is about the only public way I can respond to that campaign. It’s a nice letter and I’m grateful for it.
Discipline Councils. I would point out to those of you who think that you have been omitted, that I have spent a great deal of time trying to organize them in those fields where they do not exist. I’d be happy to help again. I have worked very hard to get them in Education, Economics, Psychology has finally born fruit, Business has not, Philosophy has not. There is some money in the Office of Academic Affairs for discipline councils. Existing ones should know this, and those who wish to get organized should also know this. It isn’t a staggering amount of money, but there is some. There would be for example, some ability to bring in a speaker or to have a lunch where some academic topic was discussed. I am not in charge of distributing that money, I am just trying to help people know what exists. Given the way in which the testing issue developed since last May, if we had not had a discipline council in English, we would really be in a lot of trouble. I think that the work they did was amazing. I think that the Math Council which will meet with Louise Mirrer in a few weeks, also is to be congratulated for having grabbed hold of these issues.
Professor Dean Savage (Sociology, Queens College) -- "I talked to Pat Reber at CUNY Central. She reported that their new list-serve software on their new server at 57th Street is now available for use by discipline councils. So if you are interested in having members of your discipline council up on a list-serve so you can communicate back and forth via e-mail, that’s now a possibility. We’re going to do it in sociology, we just haven’t gotten to it. But other people might be very interested as well."
One of the things that came up last year that I never really reported on because it was a very vague issue. When we were in the process of dissecting and discussing the ICAM question, it was brought to my attention that this kind of issue had been of great difficulty. It was troubling other university systems around the country. I got in touch with an officer at the University of Maryland who went through a very long description of the agony they went through, trying to line up two and four year colleges with numbers. They were under a legislative mandate. She pointed out to me that they persuaded the legislators to give up on that track and that attack. Instead they came up with a system of software which exists in all of the two year colleges around the State of Maryland. It informed the student of what courses that student ought to take at that two year college for whatever major that student might wish to take at the four year college. I had been trying to find out a way to get the Senate’s Committee on Educational Technology to take a look at this software. I’ve asked the latest coordinator of that committee if he would do it. I believe that we might be able to sell this idea to 80th Street. I’m fairly sure that we’ve got the talent in this University to put it together and to look at it. It sounds to me, unless I’m carried off by some fantasy, that this might go a long way to addressing some of the legitimate issues of complaints that our students have about moving around the system. It’s also obviously a way in which you can keep course changes up to date much more easily than a printed book which is out of date every time a college council meets. I believe that the new Vice Chancellor might be interested in it, but here is an area that I don’t know if we have a discipline council that can take hold of this. But here is certainly an area which would be useful if a cross-campus group of faculty would look into it.
The main news of course from 80th Street is that the vacuum has just grown a little larger than it was last night. There was no news last night, there was not the appointment of an Interim Chancellor. There was no Executive Session to do so as I would have expected there would be, because there was no consensus about the finalists. There were three finalists for the position. Alice Chandler, the former President of New Paltz, that had been at City College, I believe as acting Provost. Ed Volpe, who was retired as President at the College of Staten Island. And Ira Bloom, who is on the faculty at Lehman now and had been a previous Vice Chancellor for Faculty, Staff, and Administration in CUNY. They were the three finalists, but there was no agreement.
There was something of a standoff, and after last night when the Board ended its meeting I got the impression that they would try again in October, maybe. The Board members, at their committee and at the whole Board of Trustees meeting, continued to exhibit intense interest in issues ranging from air conditioning duct contracts to the nature of the Research Foundation and everything in between. They have strong opinions. Some of them have strong opinions particularly about issues about which they know little. One or two don’t think we teach enough, others seem to think that diagnostic testing as a graduation requirement except where it isn’t. Some don’t think there is any reason to hold outside searches for presidents if we already have one that we like. Some don’t seem to know that affirmative action requires public searches. They think that just because they are on the Board, affirmative action has been satisfied. I have a lot of difficulty getting from point A to point B with a lot of these people. It feels like driving with a blindfold in the dark on an unpaved road. You cannot predict what minor issue will become the cause celebre tomorrow. Most of September we spent after spending most of the summer on it, trying to patch together a resolution to address the testing fiasco that emerged from last May’s vote on the CWAT. Working on that resolution was a true test of Louise Mirrer’s patience. I have laid out, I think on the back table, what finally emerged yesterday as Resolutions D & E, out of the Board. Hopefully that means that the issue of placement, diagnosis, and graduation requirements will soon be put to bed. But I have no idea what is going to replace them as the next area of confusion.
I hope that in November the leadership of the English Discipline Council will appear at this plenary. I haven’t yet invited them, but I suspect they will come if we ask them. To explain what they are going to be proposing and working on so that it doesn’t come at you as if you had been mugged in the dark. Yesterday as well, a set of revised guidelines for presidential searches was presented to the trustees at the meeting. Most of them had not seen it before. It had just been finalized five days earlier by one of the Board’s subcommittees. Those trustees who hadn’t seen it wanted it reviewed by lawyers so they did not get voted on. I am attempting to circulate these guidelines around. They are very long and we can’t put them on the web because our machinery is collapsed, but when it gets running we’ll get it up again. I would certainly appreciate anybody’s input. I already know what’s wrong with them, but that doesn’t mean I’m going to have any impact in changing them. There are several basic really big changes in these guidelines compared to the past. There is almost no place for the Chancellor to participate in a presidential search in these new guidelines that are proposed. They are not passed, they are proposed. It is very possible under these new guidelines for the Board to go out and appoint somebody it likes without a search. Several of them you recall were talking about getting Colin Powell to come and be Chancellor. If he would accept they would abort any search, he didn’t accept. The guidelines that are proposed reiterate the power of the trustees to do anything they almost want to. They’re using the State Education Laws as the basis of that.
This is not the end of this discussion, but as a result of the fact that there has not yet been any consensus on these guidelines, my guess is that there will be very little consensus on how to find a Chancellor. Either an interim or a permanent one. I don’t really know where we are going to go at this point. With the departure of Larry Mucciolo in the next month or two, we lose the only individual at that central office who really knows where all of the skeletons are and knows what the laws and rules are, where to find the paper work. He has real institutional memory. I have no idea how many more of the senior vice chancellors will leave. Obviously they got a message that they weren’t welcomed if they had worked for the previous chancellor.
The issue that came up a little while ago about Ruth Messinger and the prohibition by Kingsborough of her appearance, burst on the scene. I don’t believe that too many of the trustees have the foggiest idea that it happened. I called several this morning to inform them of it, and they didn’t know what I was talking about. Susan O’Malley can give you a clear cut chronology, but in brief, a student and faculty group at Kingsborough invited Ruth Messinger to speak. It was originally approved. A college official then turned around and brought out a regulation that goes back to 1970. The Legal Affairs Office of the University apparently insists upon, and it has been University policy for a very long time. It cites the IRS 501C something, which insists that tax exempt organizations may not favor one side in a political campaign during an election period. Apparently there are some colleges who never heard of this regulation and in fact in the past, about ten years ago in this very Senate, had one or two candidates, I think it was in an election, Cuomo was running and the other side never showed up or maybe wasn’t invited. I guess it was invited, but didn’t show up. Had Kingsborough invited both sides there wouldn’t have been a problem. There are also several Vice Chancellors who muttered, ‘there are ways of getting around this,’ and then they kind of disappeared in the woodwork. The invitation to Ruth Messinger was rescinded. She was provided with the legal ruling from 80th Street. I just discovered all of this yesterday. I managed to get somebody to give me a copy of that legal ruling. The Messinger campaign has decided to challenge this and go into court and about 12:15 this afternoon, she held a press conference outside of 80th Street. Susan O’Malley spoke, I spoke, and the student from Queens, James Robinson, who heads the Queens student political strategy committee, spoke. The position I took was not a position in favor of any one candidate. Obviously it was a position in favor of the obvious significance of the 1st amendment over the IRS code. It struck me as the least a faculty member can say, and that is actually all I know at this point. If Susan wants to add anything please do. I was going to call on David Speidel who has some interesting numbers to go over with us, and then go on with the meeting.
Professor Susan O’Malley (English, Kingsborough Community College) -- "I don’t have a whole lot to add. I was just told to dis-invite Ruth Messinger and I was sent the ruling from Roy Moscowitz. I did call Roy to talk to him and he refused to speak to me and said that what I had been told at the college by Judith Fink, who is the Director of Public Relations, that that was law. So I faxed it to Ruth Messinger who was obviously very upset. If anyone has any questions I’ll answer them. I hope it will be taken care of tomorrow in federal court. The counsel is excellent, it’s Maury Nessin, who is a first amendment lawyer. Also David Rigney the previous Vice Chancellor for Legal Affairs, is also on Ruth Messinger’s side. So they will be in court tomorrow against the University."
I should read into the record of this fax that just came from Ed Sullivan to the office on this matter. It is dated today. I typed this into the CUNY-Talk just before I left to come here.
[Text of Ed Sullivan’s fax read by Chair Cooper] -- "The City University Board of Trustees dominated as it now is by appointees of Governor George Pataki and Mayor Rudolf Giuliani, has forbidden Manhattan Borough President Ruth Messinger from speaking at the Women’s Center at Kingsborough Community College. This is an outrageous violation of the free speech that all Americans hold dear. It is a political interference with the College in its attempt to involve students in current events. It is an attack on the right of students to seek words of wisdom from speakers of their own choosing. It is a manifestation of political paranoia on the part of the Mayor’s coterie that calls into question the ability of this group to govern New York City. The argument offered by the university that allowing Ms. Messinger to speak would jeopardize the University’s tax exempt status is nothing less than preposterous. I call upon the Board to rescind this directive forthwith and allow the students of Kingsborough Community College or any other College in CUNY, to invite speakers of their choice to address them."
If you have any questions, please go to the microphone so that we can get you on the record.
Professor Stefan Baumrin (Philosophy, The Graduate Center) -- "It is not a question, it is a statement. Professor Cardona of the Legal Affairs Committee faxed me the documents this morning. The 1970 document is a statement by the ACE (American Council of Education). It is neither law, nor is it a legal opinion, it is their take on some IRS interpretation of 501C3's effect on not-for-profit institutions. It is not directly on point with state institutions, municipal institutions, and it simply warns that the exclusive use or predominant use of facilities that would favor or support a particular partisan candidate for office, might raise the question of the loss of 501C3 status of the exempt organization. I believe that’s all that that holds. The subsequent re-writes by the geniuses in our Office of Legal Affairs, gets it to be more and more law than there is any law behind it."
That is a document I have read. The only other thing that I can add to this is that I had two hallway conversations with the current Vice Chancellor for Legal Affairs. He said to me, everyone of us has to do what we think is right and some of us have to do what we think is right and legal. That was as of about 10:30 - 11:00 this morning. So I did what I thought was right and he did what he thought was legal.
Professor Mike Vozick (Science, Borough of Manhattan Community College) -- "At the end of last semester the Board of Trustees took an action that denied associates degrees to several hundred students at a number of colleges. There was a law suit against them and the law suit was won by the students and then appealed by the University. I had wondered whether you had heard on the Board any sentiment for reconsidering their position. And I also wondered whether this body has considered this matter or any views on this matter to express to the Board." / Chair Cooper -- Shortly after the resolution was passed I happened to meet with the Council of Governance Leaders. We passed three resolutions, one of which was to ask them to rescind that for that graduating class. They not only refused the request from the Governance Leaders, it enraged several of the trustees privately. So that didn’t happen. I have pursued that, I’ve tried asking them to grandfather the students and they won’t. I have heard nothing further since then and as far as I know the thing is going to hang around court. If it follows the trajectory of our last law suit, it might take two years.
David Speidel, who chairs the Budget Advisory Committee of the Senate, reports periodically on interesting information and he has some now.
Professor David Speidel -- "I have a couple of interesting things to fill you in on. The Budget Advisory Committee has met twice already since the start of the year and a meeting is scheduled for next week as well. The first time we met with Vice Chancellor Rothbard and his budget staff. I think there were four or five people that came in. We then got a full run down on the distribution and we’ll have something prepared and distributed soon for you. You can see something that the college presidents don’t see. The college presidents only get their own budget, they don’t get the comparative stuff. Apparently last year several of the presidents chewed out Vice Chancellor Rothbard, that their faculty was coming home from University Faculty Senate meetings and coming in and saying, ‘how come we have this and they have that.’ The presidents didn’t know what they were talking about. We hope to continue with that. Vice Chancellor Mirrer met with us. She was, as you saw this evening, quite charming. She charmed us as well. She pointed out that she was perfectly willing to talk about how the funds under her office were distributed this year. But she had absolutely nothing to do about it since it was all pretty much pre-formatted and decided before she came several months ago. We then asked her two questions. We asked, ‘what had happened to the charge on the students that had been passed the same day that the 37 Points of Light?’ There was an increase in the students’ fee that was to go to a centralization of the billing process and the collecting process, and to cover the cost of the new set of tests. She said that she would get back to us. The third part was academic program planning. I am very encouraged that today, many of the things that she indeed said, were issues that were raised and discussed quite fully in the Budget Committee. She not only comes, she listens, and when she hears sense I think she responds. Professor Levine spoke well when he thanked Vice Chancellor Rothbard for the full service he has indeed provided to us. One of the things that we have learned over the last several years is what questions to ask. I think that Vice Chancellor Rothbard responds well when he is asked specifically about particular items. We still do not know what the particular leverage pattern is going to be. We have been asked by the Vice Chancellor to meet with him prior to going to Fiscal Affairs so that he have can our opinions as they go forward with some of this process. I must tell you, we are a fairly conservative fiscal group. We do not like the idea generally of going forward with promises of future dollars. We may indeed end up that way, but I should tell you that we may not necessarily come down fully on the side of future leverage. It looks like the score card that we have developed over the last several years for academic program planning is now defunct. This looks pretty much like it was an Anne Martin score card rather than an individual college score card. It does not appear that this will be valid so those of you who have the math set for the last two years, we would be happy to autograph them, but I think you can retire them at this point. The figures that were in the packet today were distributed at the request of the committee as something that is interesting. We are not sure at all what they mean. This is of course the page that has the three columns, the first column showing the college, the second showing the senior college budget, the third showing the targeted revenue, and the fourth showing the relationship between the two. I think what is interesting about this, is that it is not even across the university. There is a disparity here, what it means and what causes it or anything else, we really don’t know. Clearly of course, the bottom line, $368 million of income, does not go to funding the senior colleges. That goes into the general pot, it funds the central administration, it goes into all sorts of different things. This is a golly-jeepers chart as opposed to let’s take it to the wall chart. I really don’t have anything more specific to report on this, the vibes that I get about what the Board is interested in doing, are very comparable to what Vice Chancellor Rothbard indicated. That is, they do indeed talk about the real need for increased funding for full-time faculty. They couple this with saying that this is going to at least partially come from cutting dollars from full-time administration. Again, the Budget Advisory Committee has pointed out that this is not necessarily healthy for the particular institution. For example, if you have a science based program or something that is dependent upon college laboratory technicians. These show up as administrators, they don’t show up as teaching faculty. What we are trying to do is at least educate Trustee Marino, that it is a holistic problem, not a simplistic problem. That you cannot talk about just cutting in one area across the board."
Professor Kenneth Sherrill (Political Science, Hunter College) -- "If I remember the pie charts from the recent displays of the Board, tuition accounts for about 42% of the total revenue of the University. Yet it accounts for 2/3 of the total expense of the four year colleges. So it goes from 42% of the University to 67% of the colleges. What happens to the other 25%?" / Professor Speidel -- I don’t know. Some of it clearly goes towards central administration, some of it goes towards those things that don’t show up specifically in the allocation. But what they are specifically, at this point I can’t answer. The fringe benefits are a separate item and don’t show up.
[Unidentified Speaker] -- The largest single item would be fringe benefits which will not show up here but will show up in the total budget.
Professor David Speidel -- The consensus of several of my committee members is that the bulk of it can be explained by the Central Administration and by fringe benefits. I think that one of the things that we found of interest here is that if any of the colleges chose to privatize, that John Jay appears to be in the best position.
Chair Cooper -- I will point out that Trustee Marino who chairs the Committee on Fiscal Affairs has called a special meeting of that committee. I hope the Budget Advisory Committee people are listening. For Wednesday October 15th at 4:00 p.m. at 80th Street in that large room. Those of you on the Budget Advisory Committee who are interested in this might want to attend. I don’t know if he is going to permit an open hearing section to this. But this is to deal with the asking budget for next year and priorities.
b. Mr. Richard Rothbard, Vice Chancellor for Budget:
No handouts tonight, no slides, sorry. Lines are coming, I’ll talk about that in a minute. I’ll fill you in a little bit more on what I can at this point. The news on the budget is old news. So I don’t think that I will bore you too much with that. Of course we all know that the budget was extremely late in its adoption and extremely late as a consequence going out to the colleges. However we did make an effort to get it out as expeditiously and as completely as we possibly could. With the exception of the new faculty lines that were included in the senior college budget by the State. What I will tell you about that, to add onto what the previous speaker indicated, there will be both qualitative and quantitative measures used in arriving at the distribution of those lines. So we will be mindful of Board policies that are on the books such as those that are on the master plan concerning an eventual goal for the university of a 70%/30% mix of full-time and adjunct faculty across the university. That is a guideline, it is not a hard and fast rule. With other qualitative measures of institutional accomplishment. More than that I am not at liberty to say at the moment. There is an ongoing process lead by Trustee Marino, who is head of the Fiscal Affairs Committee. He wants to consult broadly and widely on this issue before final determinations are made. He does want to in the coming days consult with the presidents on this issue. So all of those things have to happen before any decisions can be made. Although obviously we are going through various scenarios to see how the numbers can work out.
In addition to the academic decisions that will be made by Vice Chancellor Mirrer’s Office in terms of the distribution of the lines, we have been working in the budget office to try to figure out how we can leverage that money into lines beyond what the Executive Budget and the Adopted Budget indicate. We think that through some creativity and through a commitment on our part to add additional dollars next year to annualize things we do this year, we will be able to get more than the 85 lines indicated. The way that we can do that obviously is that, here we are in the end of September and obviously not having had an opportunity to distribute any of those lines. The cash costs in the current year will be less than what the budget anticipated when it was initially proposed in January. A lot of strategies are being brought to bear to leverage those lines into more and to take into consideration various measurements and the distributions of those lines. In addition to that, we are going to try to be doing something similar for the community colleges. Although there were not separate resources made available in the adopted budget to do that. We’re seeing how we can cobble together a dollar here and a dollar there to do something in the community colleges which face every bit as big a problem. In some cases a larger problem than some of the senior colleges in terms of the need for full-time lines.
There is also a process moving forward on the 1998-1999 budget request. To address something, an earlier question brought up. I would argue with the premise that the Board is interested in downsizing the university. The Board consists of seventeen people. Each of them certainly has individual opinions. But I think that you are going to be surprised when you see this Board come together around the budget requests for the 1998-1999 year, that seeks substantial additional resources for the university. Particularly in the area of additional full-time faculty. I’m fairly certain that is going to happen. We’re going through the process now again of consultation with faculty, with students, with presidents, and others. This is in order to formulate the exact initiatives that we will be proposing as well as to arrive at some comfort level frankly, with the dollar amounts that will be involved here. But I think that you are going to be presently surprised in that regard.
Finally, I want to talk to you a little bit about enrollment. We have some good news there as well. As was reported at last night’s Board of Trustees meeting, we have something just over 200,000 in the university. That is a head count between the community and senior colleges. That might surprise some people. Given the trends of the last couple of semesters, given the headlines of the last half year or so. Now there are some pockets of concern. There are some colleges that are down significantly. On the other hand there are some colleges who have been on the slippery slope for the past couple years, who have seemed to have stabilized. That is a very positive development. These numbers are preliminary. The numbers tend to go down after the initial couple of weeks of the semester if students drop out. But it is consistent with patterns we’ve seen over the past couple of semesters, and we don’t expect to make a fall-off. So we think that we will be around the 200,000 mark. Maybe we’ll be a little under, but we’ll roughly be in the 200,000 range in terms of enrollment.
Colleges have been very successful in attracting first time freshmen. The numbers are up in a lot of places in that category. They have been successful in attracting advance standing transfer students, and they have been enjoying more success in retention of students. Retention is really the key. The colleges have been able to attract new freshmen over the past couple of years, but they’ve had a harder time holding onto the students that they’ve had. So they are making major efforts in that regard. Academic Affairs is working with the colleges on various retention initiatives to try to hold onto the students. It is a lot easier, it is a lot more cost effective, if I can be permitted such a phrase, to retain the students we’ve already attracted, than to invest in trying to attract more first time freshmen to take the place of students that we’ve already lost. Colleges have been and I hopefully will continue to be successful in that regard. Just let me give you a couple of more numbers to set this in context. The senior college enrollment is virtually flat, community college enrollment is down by about 2.5%. We do have some sharp declines, the most notable is at Hostos, where we have a 10.6% decline, a loss of nearly 500 students. We hope that will turn around in the Spring semester. We have strong special program enrollment. There are 39.9% more freshmen allocated to the SEEK Program. Twenty-six percent more first time freshmen allocated in the college Discovery Program as of the Fall 1996. Graduate head count is down a little bit, just over 1%, but FTE’s are up so we are racking up more credits per head, that’s up 2.8%. So overall it is a positive picture in terms of enrollment and of course that’s important for a lot of reasons. Not the least of which from my perspective is revenue. We have a university budget that’s now predicated on a three-legged stool, one of which is revenue, that is over 40% university wide. The days are long gone where revenue was 10-15% of the university’s budget. So every student in addition to the other contributions he or she makes to the university, makes a significant contribution to the university’s resources. That’s why you hear us time and time again talk about the importance of enrollment, of recruitment, of retention, and of collecting. Why we seek so strongly to protect the financial aid eligibility of our students, whether it be in proposed cuts to the TAP program, or supporting proposals at the federal level to improve PELL funding, or to oppose proposals to eliminate Perkins Loans Programs and so forth. So that’s about where we are at the moment. Rather than go on with any more boring details, I prefer to take any questions.
Professor David Speidel (Geology, Queens College) -- "Over the past number of years in the community college budget, funds have been provided for the community colleges to provide a sufficient level of hiring full-time people. Those funds this year were withdrawn from their base budget, but a promise was made, were they actually to come up with bodies, that the dollars would be there to hire people. This is very important for the community colleges. Could you expand on this please?" / Vice Chancellor Rothbard -- Yes, let me clarify that a little bit. The money that has not yet been allocated to the community colleges, is the money previously allocated for academic program planning, but for which colleges have to date made no full-time hires against. Those dollars as similar dollars in the senior colleges, which I was referring to earlier, will be allocated by the Office of Academic Affairs according to whatever judgments they make in that regard. The dollars will be forth coming, if and only when, the colleges actually do the hiring. Concurrent with that, we made another change in the allocation for the community colleges this year. For those of you who are unfamiliar with the method that we follow, we have an internal distribution model that we use for allocating funds to the community colleges. That model describes what in our view the ideal world should be for the community colleges. Naturally we never have enough money in any given year to fully fund the model and as a consequence we have to scale back in every area. We did something a little different this year, in the area of teaching, we funded the model at 100%. Everything that model says the community colleges should have for teaching based upon enrollment, based upon the distribution of that enrollment in different disciplines and so forth, we funded it 100%. Now obviously to do that, we had to take money from other areas to support that. So other areas are less well funded. Rather than doing across the board reductions to come into the available dollars, we did greater reductions in the non-teaching areas so that teaching can be fully funded. So at this point, based upon, not the actual enrollments, which are 2.5% down, but based upon our anticipated enrollment of the community colleges which is higher, the colleges have an allocation that provides 100% of what they need in the faculty area for the enrollment that they have. They will be getting additional faculty allocations for academic program planning to be consistent with what we are going to be able to do for the senior colleges. New resources will be provided for the senior colleges. That’s going to be provided for out of the dollars you described. But again, to ensure that those dollars are used for the intended purpose, the dollars will come once the hiring is done. So if someone hires mid-year, they will get the cash value that they need to continue that position through the rest of the year. But the insurance will be there, that in the subsequent year they will get the full annualized value and it won’t come out of their budget otherwise. / Professor Speidel -- "Were they to hire a full-time person?" / Vice Chancellor Rothbard - Were they to hire a full-time person or a substitute. / Professor Speidel -- "So basically the funds are available to hire full-time faculty and that they will be made available when those full-time people are hired?" / Vice Chancellor Rothbard -- Well, first an allocation will be done by the Office of Academic Affairs and then based upon that allocation colleges will be able to go forward and make hires. The commitment will be at least an 18 month commitment, almost always including the annualization costs.
Professor Susan O’Malley (English, Kingsborough Community College) -- "There has been no ruling from counsel at 80th Street?" / Vice Chancellor Rothbard - The first I learned of this is when I came back from lunch with my brown bag in my hand and I saw Ruth Messinger and a Channel 4 news crew outside the building at 80th Street. More than that I don’t know, other than what I read on CUNY-Talk this afternoon. / Professor O’Malley -- "Sandy you are going to speak to that later or am I going to be in federal court tomorrow? Oh, we’re going to be in federal court, o.k. thank you. I had other meetings to go to.
Professor Alfred Levine (Applied Science, College of Staten Island) -- "I’d like to start by personally thanking you for the help you’ve been to the Budget Advisory Committee in providing us with information and being open to our suggestions. I think we all owe you a debt of gratitude and I want to say it publicly. The previous Chancellor, whose name I believe was Ann Reynolds, would stand up in front of the room and talk about 100 new faculty and after all that was said and done, we would have 100 new faculty and 253 fewer faculty. We are all interested in hiring new full-time faculty and increasing the number. My question is, in preparing the 1998-1999 budget, when the lines are allocated, whether it’s 85 or 200, will that be included in the colleges base for the 1998-1999 budget so that they will be realized. That it will result in long term increases in the percentage of full-time faculty?" / Vice Chancellor Rothbard -- Well, the answer to that question is, we will request that, it is up to the State to adjust the budget technically to make that so, but we will certainly do that. That’s not the question you want to ask. The question you want to ask is, what are we doing to ensure that when we give these lines out to the colleges, they indeed add to the number of full-time faculty. Of course we have things going on like early retirement programs that make it difficult on the one hand to increase when we know people are going to be retiring. But one of the things that we are attaching to the allocation of these lines is a Maintenance of Effort Provision. We are going to take a snapshot at some point in time - college X has 300 faculty. If we give them 10 lines, at some point in the semester, they are going to have to have 310 full-time faculty. They aren’t going to be able to lose 10, 20, or 30 faculty over here and add ten over here and think that we have done anything meaningful. They’re going to have to maintain the effort that they have at that point in time in terms of full-time faculty and add to it, or again they will not receive the resources. This is going have to be used to augment and supplement what the current effort of the colleges is in the area of full-time faculty.
Professor Stefan Baumrin (Philosophy, The Graduate Center) -- "The annualization, I just didn’t follow it. The annualization will increase the number of lines, but you can’t be sure that the annualized additional lines will be in next year’s base budget. Did I get that right or wrong?" / Vice Chancellor Rothbard -- They will be in the budget, whether they are in the base is a matter dependent upon how the State chooses to cast the budget next year. We can request a base adjustment. We can request, that if give out a hundred lines, that in next year’s budget preparation, the State puts them in the colleges where we put them. Or what the State could do is re-centralize those as a lump sum. And they’ve done different things in different years with different initiatives in the budget. It will not disappear unless the State takes an action to eliminate that resource from the budget. So we will request that however Academic Affairs recommends a distribution of those lines, that the basis be adjusted consistent with that. That’s how it appears when the State does the 1998-1999 Executive Budget. But there is no guarantee that will happen. Let me answer the other part of your question about annualization. If we have $4 million for lines, I’m just throwing out a figure hypothetically, if we don’t fill those lines until January, and we spend the full $4 million between January and June 30th, when next year roles around, we’ve got an $8 million bill to pay. What we are saying is, we believe that by a combination of the timing now and the way the lines are going to be distributed, that we can spend the money we have available to leverage additional lines. Because it is into the year, but that is going to come at a cost. We will have an additional $2-3 to $4 million bill to pay next year if we do that. We are prepared to make a commitment now to do that and to find the money in the budget next year to make up the balance of the annual difference between the cash cost in the current year and annual cost in lines next year. Otherwise we wouldn’t allocate the full dollar amount this year because we wouldn’t be able to afford to pay the bills next year when they come due. So we will make the commitment now, whether the savings have to come out of fringe benefit savings, or energy savings, or whenever we are able to generate savings from in next year’s budget. We’ll generate dollars sufficient to pay the additional cash necessary to annualize those lines next year. So we can get more than the 85 lines that the State adopted budget addresses in this year’s budget now and carry them fully through an 18 month period. / Professor Baumrin -- "This is a commitment of the Central Administration and the Fiscal Affairs Committees? Or is the Central Administration...." / Vice Chancellor Rothbard -- Both, they are one and the same for this purpose.
Professor Jack Diamond (Mathematics, Queens College) -- "You referred before to a 70%/30% full-time faculty/adjunct split is the goal of the university. However I am aware of several mathematics departments where the split is almost reversed. Where only about 40% of the courses are taught by full-time people. I’m also aware of presidents responding to chairs by saying, ‘well for the whole school we don’t have a bad split so I don’t care about your department.’ Does the Central Office care about the kind of split there is in individual departments? Or can presidents who don’t care, hide it among 20 departments?" / Vice Chancellor Rothbard -- The answer to both parts of that question is ‘yes.’ Of course the Central Office cares. We care about a lot of things. The 70/30 split is for your information, from the 1992 master plan. In which the trustees adopted a provision that called for the establishment of a goal of achieving 70% teaching by full-time faculty across the university. We care about whether one department has equipment money and another department doesn’t have equipment money. We care about whether one department has money for software and another doesn’t. You are asking us whether or not we are interested in micro-managing a college enterprise. The reason that we have presidents frankly is to make those decisions. Why we care and why we would be quick to point out any aberrations that became apparent, we’re not going to direct a president to achieve 70/30 in every department. Or to take ten lines and give the ten lines to departments in a specific way. That’s up to a president or whatever local budgetary processes are in place to decide. What the president cannot decide, is to use those ten lines for faculty for something else, or to use the money from lines for OTPS, or for other purposes other than full-time faculty. We leave it to the powers that be on the campus to determine what the appropriate distribution of those resources will be.
Professor Mike Vozick (Science, Borough of Manhattan Community College) -- "I’m actually a little trepidatious about asking this question. It’s about institutional culture as you see it. I’ve worked in a number of different roles at CUNY, both community liaison, middle management, administrative roles, and now I’m a part-time faculty member. I’ve come to learn that there are a lot of part-timers that have given literally decades of service to this university in the most difficult entry level teaching roles. I wonder as you are thinking about new lines, whether there is any thinking about the appropriateness of creating a significant opportunity and climate in which part-timers who have shown skills are able to be advanced to some of these full-time lines?" / Vice Chancellor Rothbard -- I started out as a part-timer in CUNY as well, although not in the teaching ranks. There is a significant element of the proposal currently under consideration that would encourage conversion of adjunct lines to full-time lines. Now that does not mean that the people who hold those adjunct positions would necessarily be mandated or guaranteed a full-time position. But we will encourage the presidents to use some of the resources to convert adjunct lines into full-time lines. That’s one of the ways that we are able to leverage more than the 85 lines in the adopted budget. So we are very much aware of the issue you just raised and we’re trying to address that as part of the larger picture of the faculty allocations.
c. Dr. Louise Mirrer, Vice Chancellor for Academic Affairs:
I would first of all like to thank Sandi Cooper, who I think has been my rock since I’ve arrived. She’s still here and I’m still here, that’s a sign of something and I hope it’s something good. I’m very pleased to have been invited to come and talk to you briefly this evening. I don’t have an eloquent speech to give as Trustee Curtis did, and I’m sorry about that. However I would like to say just a few words about the directions I hope the Office of Academic Affairs will be taking during the coming year. As Sandi mentioned, an issue that I stepped right into was the testing issue. I believe that we are on our way to resolving some of the complexities of CWAT for various purposes as well as proficiency testing in general. I expect to begin discussions later on this week on the formation of a committee that will develop a new instrument for testing the proficiency of our students in writing. This exam as it is envisaged at the moment would consist of a college level reading which students would be expected to digest and respond to. I think it is an intelligent way of going about answering the question of how prepared our students may be for upper division work. On the other testing issues, there will also be a review of the freshmen skills assessment exams that are currently used for placement. I expect that at the very least, the outcome will be an increased number of prompts for the CWAT. There will certainly be an invitation for faculty input into that issue.
The next sort of hot off of the presses item that I want to mention is that of teacher education. As I’m sure all of you know, the results of our students on the Teacher Certification Exams over the course of the past year have some room for improvement. That would characterize really all of the campuses although there is some variation among them as to performance on those tests. Since the New York City Schools are in dire need and will be in greater need for excellent well qualified teachers, it is incumbent upon us that we work collectively to improve the outcomes on those tests. I expect to be working very closely with Sandi and with faculty leadership in addressing that issue through a task force and a conference on teacher education. I hope it will start up rather quickly. This is a segue into talking about really my vision for the Office of Academic Affairs. That would be to most certainly underscore the need to replenish faculty lines that have been lost in the core academic areas.
To pay very close attention to what has happened in our academic departments strictly on the academic side of the house. Across all campuses the situation is really in many respects quite appalling and I hope that this situation will be addressed rather seriously through the allocation through an increased number of lines for full-time faculty positions. There are some strategies that are being developed just about as we speak for increasing the ability of CUNY to make those appointments. To increase the number of lines that might be allocated to the campuses, to the departments across the University. I expect that very shortly there will be a resolution that will enable us to say, go out and recruit. I would underscore again, that my view of all of the issues that have been raised from the abilities of our students, to performance on Teacher Certification Exams, and so on, really relate very directly to core academic areas across the University. There is a very serious need to address improvements in all areas through the appointments of full-time faculty.
At this point it is a very limited vision, but it is my vision that during the course of the year we will be making specific targeted kind of efforts to really shore up the core academic areas. There are a number of other issues that will be addressed in coming months by the Office of Academic Affairs. I would certainly invite your input. There are some residual areas, for example the status of ICAM. I have received some amount of input from various quarters on how I might take a leadership role in addressing some murky and sticky issues there. In addition, I would like to achieve a streamlining of processes through which programs are suggested. Letters of intent are dealt with, program changes, and the development of new programs are expedited. I would certainly pledge to have some results in the very short term in terms of insuring that those processes, at least in so far as my office is concerned, will be rational.
There are a number of other issues that will be tackled throughout the year that are of a routine sort. We have this year, six Middle State Accreditation Team Visits to six of our campuses. This is an unusually large number, that will of course entail a lot of soul searching, a lot of thoughtfulness, and a lot of staff time on the part of my office. I would certainly like to stress again, my invitation to you to provide input in all of these areas. I have worked to some extent with the discipline councils. I look forward to working further with the discipline councils as a mechanism through which areas that really need to be worked on can be brought to my attention. I will try my best to reach to conclusions some of the proposals that have been made through those discipline councils. Again, I look forward to working collaboratively and effectively with the faculty who I have said many times before, is the true intellectual resource. Certainly the faculty should be and must be guiding us in our desire to have a truly strong university which I believe CUNY is. And to make sure that all of the tremendous strengths that faculty have are exploited fully and are allowed to flourish in the best environment possible. So I thank you.
Professor William Crain (Psychology, City College) - "I just want to ask in the form of the concern. We know now and it’s acknowledged that the CWAT and the other skills tests are inadequate. That’s why we are developing a better test. Yet in the meantime these inadequate tests are going to be used to really determine whether students can stay in college or not. Wouldn’t it be appropriate, rather than rigidly enforce the rules on these skills tests, to give the colleges more flexibility. So that they may use other criteria such as grades, consider how long the student has had to learn English, issues like that. I think that the colleges need to have restored flexibility in their judgment. Similarly, when we do have a new test, it still is going to be only be one test. High stakes testing, when you make big decisions on the basis of one test, most authorities in this field think that a single measure is inadequate. So once again, I think the colleges would need flexibility and be able to consider things like grades, the language, and various variables in making decisions about students futures. So would you be open to giving the colleges this kind of flexibility?" / Vice Chancellor Mirrer -- I understand the question and I certainly respect the thought that has gone into many of the colleges’ decisions to look more holistically at student progress. I have reviewed a number of strategies in place across the campuses. I think they do represent certainly some of the best and latest thinking on assessment. I really hope to mine that expertise in going forward with reviewing the testing program at CUNY. I think however that CUNY really does have to be responsive to outside or really inside forces. I think the Board of Trustees is quite concerned to insure that students, I don’t want to be crude about this, but that students measure up to some standards. I hope to straddle the fence in the best way. To meet those concerns in the development of a new instrument which is not a foreclosed discussion. It is unknown at this point what exactly that instrument will look like. I certainly will entertain all suggestions including those that you have made along the way. I could not at this point guarantee anything. The ultimate resolution will be up to the Board. The Board will have presented to it, whatever new instrument or instruments are recommended. I could not guarantee the outcome of that discussion. I do respect your concern.
Professor Stefan Baumrin (Philosophy, The Graduate Center) -- "The absence of questions comes from the fact that everybody wants to be very nice to you." / Thank you, I appreciate it fully and I hope it continues for a good long time. / "At the present rate that we are losing senior administrators, it will last as long as you’re here. I am going to couch these two questions in a non-confrontational way. Would you care to make any comments about your present view about academic program planning distribution of lines and its likely future? In some core areas we don’t have discipline councils, are you intending to encourage the creation thereof through the Senate? Or is that something that isn’t necessary?" / Vice Chancellor Mirrer - I’ll answer the second question first if you don’t mind. I understand that has been a prerogative of the Senate and I would certainly be happy to work with any group that is duly constituted. I don’t think that it is up to me to form those groups, but I’m quite certain that they will emerge through this body. When those groups are formed I certainly intend to work with them. I hope I’ve answered that question. I am also happy to hear from the faculty-at-large. I think I have heard from quite a lot of faculty-at-large already. It is easier more responsible to work with groups that have been charged specifically with representing their disciplinary areas and their programs. My preference is to work through whatever councils have been developed. If there are more to come, that is obviously fine, I’ll be happy to work with them. The first question, I have addressed many times. I think that probably before I even officially arrived at CUNY. I had a very nice introduction by Frances Horowitz, who said that I am not a bureaucrat. I’ll repeat it, ‘I’m not a bureaucrat.’ I’m not in favor of bureaucratizing processes unduly. I certainly intend to be supportive of the core academic areas. How academic program planning will be carried out in the future, I am quite sure will be very different from how it was carried out in the past. You can expect changes there.
Professor Brian Gallagher (English, LaGuardia Community College) -- "I have two very closely related questions. I suspect that I speak for everyone in the room when I say it is commendable that you are making an effort to increase full-time lines at a university that’s seen its full-time faculty decrease by more than 50% over the last twenty-two or twenty-three years. Maybe without tipping your hand too much, we would like to know some of your strategies in the face of a Board of Trustees’ attempt to downsize the university. Along with that, does this mean that there is going to be an attempt to move remedial courses into immersion institutes and having non-faculty teach them?" / Vice Chancellor Mirrer - I’d like to separate the two issues that you have raised. I believe that there is a happy coincidence of perspectives among my office, the budget office, the central office as a whole, and the Board of Trustees. There is, I believe, a very serious commitment to replenishing full-time faculty lines in the most expeditious manner possible. I really do deeply believe that is a commitment and we will see the fruits of that commitment. I would like to say that first of all. The second issue of how remediation is done, is carried out, is an issue that has been raised in a number of quarters. It has not been dealt with in any public forum by the Board of Trustees. However, the Board has formed two committees that will address the issue of remediation.
Professor Jane Matthews (Mathematics, Hunter College) -- "I’d like to get back to the issue of testing. I as a woman in mathematics, am concerned with the new trends that we include all students and that has not been the case in the past. When we got the last CUNY math test, it was the floor of the basement. It was CUNY’s own test. I hope that your office thinks of the public relations value, if nothing else, of using a standardized test, maybe MMA, so there can be comparisons with other colleges. Rather than an in-house CUNY test that is then not so comparable. That we take account that some schools are changing. Unfortunately many of the minority students in New York City may not be able to participate in those changes. So that we don’t just give old types of things like remedial arithmetic or algebra when there is a sequential integrated approach. That we be open to the future and the role of technology." / Vice Chancellor Mirrer - I will be meeting with the Math Discipline Council shortly. I think later in October. The reading I’ve done on the literature in writing assessment suggests that the faculty closest to the students are probably in the best position to develop or at least to participate in a very important way in the development of assessment instruments. If there are other measures appropriate in mathematics I would certainly be willing to learn about them and listen. / Professor Matthews -- "In the past mathematics was more of a male and small group picking out who is able to go into math and science. The world has changed. I hope we think of the lower schools and the new approaches that may not have changed within the disciplines at the colleges."
Professor Kenneth Sherrill (Political Science, Hunter College) -- "...Something has occurred over the past couple of days at CUNY that raises a question about someone like me would go about teaching a course [in political parties and elections]. In the past, it’s been my practice to think that it would be a good thing for students to see a living, breathing candidate, and to ask that person questions in a class period. Inviting such a person into class in no fashion indicated an endorsement. Rather it was like choosing a movie for the students to see as a good example of something. Is it your sense now, that a faculty member would have to invite every person running for that office? Or do you think that the faculty member might be trusted to exercise some academic judgment about what appropriate classroom examples would be?" / Vice Chancellor Mirrer -- I think you’ve asked the wrong Vice Chancellor that question. Of course I’ve been a faculty member for almost twenty years so you’ve really trapped me. It’s going to be very difficult for me to distinguish between administrative roles, which I think have to be responsive to legal implications. I haven’t studied the issue. If you ask me as a faculty member, I know what I’d answer and I’m sure that you know what I’d answer too. But I think that on this I have to waffle.
Professor Susan O’Malley (English, Kingsborough Community College) -- "I’m just going to say that I was going to save that question for Richard Rothbard. Because I’m the party that Moscowitz ruled against for inviting Ruth Messinger to the campus."
VI. Approval of UFS Standing Committee Slate
Chair Cooper - The Approval of the Slate on Standing Committees has been distributed. In general the membership on these committees reflects requests that you have made. Where we find too many of you from the same college who want to be on a committee, if there are not enough people for a committee, or too many of you have asked for the same thing, we have gone to your second choice or moved you around a bit. If you find that insupportable or if you wish to overthrow the government please line up at the microphone. Otherwise this list that has been given to you reflects by and large what the Executive Committee recommends for committee slate. I therefore am moving its adoption. Is there any dispute, discussion, complaints, arguments? Please go to the microphone.
Can I have a motion for the adoption of the Senate Committee Slate? All in favor? Opposed? Thank you.
VII. New Business
Professor Bernard Sohmer (Mathematics, City College) -- "Because of the actions of the Board, it seems to me that, because we happen to be meeting tonight, we should have a resolution about the terrible thing that is going on at Kingsborough. I prepared one and I will read it to you.
Whereas the very definition of the University involves freedom of expression and association. Any ukase to eliminate the appearance on a campus of individuals for the purpose of expressing their political views is antithetical to the nature of colleges and universities as we know them. Therefore be it resolved that the University Faculty Senate deplore the action of the Council and the Board in advising that there are limitations on speakers and that all faculty be encouraged to invite current political figures to speak at their classes and at other campus forums."
Chair Cooper -- Is there a second? Any discussion?
Chair Cooper -- The motion of Ruth Frisz of Queens was to leave it to the English Professors on the Executive Committee. To which I believe there are four, to revise the language and accept the sense of the motion. Second? That was a friendly amendment. The maker of the motion accepts the criticism of his English. Any further discussion? All those in favor? Opposed? Abstentions? It seems unanimous.
Professor Haig Bohigian (Mathematics, John Jay College) -- "I have a statement that I think is appropriate at this time in our history.
"KICK THE HABIT OF ADORATION OF ADMINISTRATORS - DEMAND PERFORMANCE BEFORE COOPERATION
The main function of administrators is to facilitate the role of the instructional staff in their primary function of providing education to college students. Too often, the focus in CUNY has been on its administrators, and the role of administration rather than on our main function of educating our students. Now that we are between chancellors it is urgent that we reevaluate the relationship between administrators and the instructional staff.
The life expectancy of service as chancellor of CUNY is relatively short. In fact, the average time served for the five CUNY chancellors is just 7.2 years, with a range of two to eleven years. The actual figures are: Everett, 2 years (61-63); Bowker, 8 years (63-71); Kibbee, 11 years (71-82); Murphy, 8 years (82-90); Reynolds, 7 years (90-97).
Most of us have far more time in service to CUNY. Our commitment is for the long haul, whereas chancellors, vice-chancellors, university deans, and most college presidents act like skipping stones over administrative water ways. Such administrators slither through CUNY, seldom establishing roots or making contributions to the long-term well being of the institution. Chancellors and their ilk often arrive like hurricanes, and their eventual departure can be tumultuous, ruinous and damaging.
When new administrators arrive there is a typical whirlwind of activities and requests that have major impacts on the instructional staff without providing the additional resources needed to handle the new workloads they generate. Most of these new demands are in the form of surveys and projects that administrators deem necessary to justify their status in the administrative hierarchy. Regrettably often, when unrealistic demands are made on the instructional staff they blindly obey thinking it unprofessional, impolitic or impolite to do otherwise.
The reality is that by acquiescing to unnecessary administrative demands, the instructional staff cuts into its precious time needed for job performance, instruction, research, scholarship, college and community service, and to serve, council and educate students. Furthermore, administrators enter CUNY and expect our immediate and unconditional support and cooperation. It should be our position that they must first prove that they deserve our cooperation and trust. Administrators must first demonstrate that they respect the rights and privileges of the instructional staff, the Professional Staff Congress, the University Faculty Senate, the AAUP, the principles of academic freedom, and the traditions and practices of CUNY. They cannot assume that they can dictate and impose their views of education on the CUNY instructional staff.
Administrators must carefully cultivate our opinions, needs, positions and approval before they can expect our cooperation. We should not be pursuing or fawning over them. It is they who should become accustomed to soliciting and accommodating our needs before they can expect our cooperation. Instructional staff members should not participate on any new committee, research group, commission, fact finding body, search commit tee, etc. unless they have a clear written statement of principles and purposes before meetings begin Instead of falling over each other seeking favor with administrators, instructional staff members should demand that their needs be met, prior to the start of any new initiatives. To ignore this new stance is to condemn us to the trivialized role that we have experienced for the past fifteen years."
Professor Mike Vozick (Mathematics, Borough of Manhattan Community College) -- "I’m a new member of this body but not at all new to CUNY. I was a little surprised in my perusal of all of the materials, that I didn’t see any structural entity of this body that’s concerned with issues related to part-time faculty, though they represent a very significant part of the faculty of this University. I guess I wanted to inquire about that, what the thinking had been. I also wanted to issue a call to any part-time faculty members who happen to be in this room in the moment, before we leave to at least meet one another so we can begin to open dialog and make our common interests known to this body. I also would appreciate some minimal formal responses to what the history had been in this area."
Professor Anne Friedman (Developmental Skills, Borough of Manhattan Community College) -- "I’d like to invite you all to pick up on your way out, if you have not already done so, one of these yellow flyers. To invite you to attend a forum at which we have invited the mayor and the democratic candidate for mayor, Thomas Ognibene, City Council Minority Leader and member of the General Welfare Committee, and Guillermo Linares on the Education and General Welfare Committees of the City Council. We will be dealing with issues such as admissions policies, developmental skills and ESL programs, Workfare, and assessment policies. We are very honored to have as our moderator Ms. Sheryl McCarthy who is a twenty-year veteran of newspaper and t.v. journalism. She is a columnist for Newsday. We met with her last night for about two hours to kind of brief her on some of the hot issues of CUNY. I think that it is going to be an outstanding event. It is Friday October 17th, 10:00 a.m. - 1:00 p.m. at BMCC. There is no charge. There will be continental breakfast. We hope that four year faculty, two year faculty, and students will attend."
Professor Ruth Grossman (Elementary Education, City College) -- "I’d like to thank Professor Bohigian for that wonderful statement. I am looking forward to being able to reproduce it when it appears in the minutes, for my faculty and my administrators. In my thirty-three years at the City University, I’ve frequently had to get up and remind administrators that a university exists for the purpose of transmitting and further of knowledge, through the interaction of faculty and librarians with students, through faculty teaching and research. The only reason for the existence of the administrators is to enable this to happen. They don’t get it. They are suppose to raise the money, put the roofs over our heads, provide the funds, they are supposed to work for the process of learning that we are engaging in with the students. I thank him again for that statement, and I hope it will help to convince people."
Professor Heather Rosario-Sievert (English, Hostos Community College) -- "I wanted to clarify something that you said earlier, Sandi. You referred to Dr. Torres-Saillant as being of City College. He is indeed a full fledged member with tenure of the Department of English of Hostos Community College. And it is the Dominican Studies Institute, not the Caribbean or Latin American, but the Dominican Studies Institute at City College that he also works with."