Draft: Subject to Senate Approval


MINUTES OF THE TWO HUNDRED AND FORTY-SECOND PLENARY SESSION OF
THE UNIVERSITY FACULTY SENATE OF THE CITY UNIVERSITY OF NEW YORK

March 25, 1997


Chair Cooper called the session to order at 6:40 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, and Alternate Hill. BMCC: Jaffe Ma., and Friedman. Bronx CC: Cummins. Brooklyn: Bell, Hager, Jacobson, London, Shapiro, and Tobey. City: Connorton, DeJongh, Grossman, Sank, and Sohmer. Graduate School: Berkowitz, Rothman, and Alternate Kieser. Hostos CC: Caņate, and Vasillov. Hunter: Matthews, Neville, Sherrill, Steinberg, and Alternate Baxter. John Jay: Bohigian, Brugnola, Kaplowitz, and Rodriguez. Kingsborough CC: Goldfarb, Martinez, O'Malley, Richter and Alternate Staum. LaGuardia CC: Gallagher, Ladden, Mettler, Reitano, and Alternate Beaky. Lehman: Avani, Feinerman, Mineka, Nathanson, and Pohle. Medgar Evers: Harris-Hastick, and Umolu. Mt. Sinai: Levitan. NYC Tech: Donoghue, Hounion, Norton, Walter, and Ceremele. Queens: Frisz, Kulkarni, Landazuri, and Seley. Queensborough CC: Barbanel, Dahbany-Miraglia, Gellman, Greenbaum, Marti, and Alternates Allaire and Specht. Staten Island: Cooper S., Levine, and Yousef. York: Cooper A., and Odenyo. Professors Barsoum, MacLennan, and Weil were excused. Faculty Governance Leaders present: Berkowitz (GS), Cooper (York), Davidson (LaG), Friedman (BMCC), Hampton (Hunter), Kaplowitz (JJ), Levine (CSI), and Specht (QCC). Chancellor Reynolds gave a report and was accompanied by Dr. Pulliam. The Parliamentarian was Alternate Staum. Executive Director Phipps and Administrative Assistant Pasela were present.



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



II. Approval of the Minutes of February 25, 1997: The Minutes were accepted.



III. Old Business: The Resolution to amend the UFS Charter, Article V, Section 3A and Article VII, Section 4 was passed by a vote of 46 in favor, 11 opposed, and one abstention. The resolution would be forwarded to faculty governance bodies at all colleges for ratification. Full text of the resolution and the discussion appear in the Reports & Deliberations.




IV. Reports: [Recorded in the Reports & Deliberations section.]
a. The Chancellor (oral & written).
b. Chair (oral & written).
c. Faculty Members of Board of Trustee Committees (written).


There being no further business the meeting was adjourned at 8:30 p.m.


Respectfully submitted,



William Phipps
Executive Director
REPORTS AND DELIBERATIONS

III. Old Business - Resolution to Amend the Charter, Article V, Section 3A and
Article VII, Section 4

Chair Cooper: We have structured this agenda to finally get to the item that's been floating around for a few months, the Old Business of the proposed Charter amendment which the Executive Committee brings to you. We discovered that in going through the Charter, it not only required an emendation of Section V, Section 3A, but also a small emendation of Article VII, which was simply a reference to earlier material. This is the Charter amendment which you will recall we spoke about some last month. I would refer you to the minutes of last month's meeting, pages 8-9, which have a written version of my remarks on the subject. That written version was in response to a request for data. To summarize what's on pages 8-9, you will recall, I believe we calculated that something like 19 credits in re-assigned time have been allocated in the past six years to faculty who are not members of the Executive Committee or the Senate. It seems to me that since this occurred over the terms of three chairs of this Senate, it doesn't reflect a pattern of abuse and corruption, but people have different definitions.

In any case, the Executive Committee is again placing this resolution before you. As I said, the revision of Article 7 is required if the first part is to be passed. It deals again with the issue of reassigned time. I believe that if the Executive Committee moves a motion it doesn't need a second. So the floor is open for discussion. Basically, the change is that the Executive Committee on occasion as needed would like the authority to assign and reassign time to other CUNY faculty. It would file an annual report with the body on actions taken under this item. Is there any discussion? If so, would you please line up at the microphone.

Professor Kaplowitz (English, John Jay College) -- "If I were not a member of the University Faculty Senate's Executive Committee, I don't know that I would understand the importance of this and why I feel it's necessary for the body to support it. I am speaking in support of this amendment. One of the things we do as an Executive Committee is struggle to find people from the various campuses, from the senior and the community colleges, from the various disciplines, and we can't always find people from within the University Faculty Senate who are either eligible or, if eligible, willing to serve in whatever capacity. Because we all elect the members of the Executive Committee, you are trusting us to use our judgment and so this allows us to use our judgment in a slightly more flexible way. In fact, in the way that it has been used until now, none of us realized that it hadn't been allowed by the Charter. What we really are asking for is for a historical pattern to be legitimized by the Charter. As I say, having been on the Executive Committee for four years, I really do see the wisdom of this amendment. Thank you."

Professor Donoghue (Social Science, New York City Technical College) -- "I, too, have been on the Executive Committee, and I recall two years ago that there was a question about release time. Supposedly the budget was being cut back and there wasn't enough release time to give everybody on the Executive Committee release time. Eventually everybody got it. I wasn't aware that people outside of the Executive Committee were getting release time. I knew that the editor of the Newsletter was getting release time, but I'm against changing the Charter. If a person wants release time, let them run for the Senate. We have enough able people in this Senate to get release time. I don't think we have to go outside to give release time to people who have not run, who have not run for the Executive Committee, or who have not run for office here. I think that in times of increasing budget problems, I don't think that this is the proper thing to do. Thank you."

Professor Jaffe (Science, Borough of Manhattan Community College) -- "First, ditto. I would urge to vote against this. I was on the Executive Committee a long time ago. At that time there was also a problem with reassigned time of the total number of hours. I was not aware while I was on the Executive Committee, that anyone, including the editor of the Newsletter, was getting reassigned time at that time. If this Charter amendment passes here, of course it goes to the faculty councils of the various colleges. There are many people who serve on committees, executive committees, faculty councils, budget committees -- who do not get any reassigned time at the various campuses. I would respectfully suggest, this is not an official amendment to the amendment, but if the Executive Committee finds it so necessary to get people who are not in the Senate, no less on the Executive Committee to have reassigned time, then perhaps we should be able to come up with something at the Plenary in May or in September. We could say that we need a committee chair with these qualifications and we would like to have some reassigned time. I think that it is unfortunate to find out after the fact that reassigned time was assigned to individuals, how much reassigned time, and in some cases we found out several years after the fact. I would urge a vote against this."

Professor O'Malley (English, Kingsborough Community College) -- "Most of this seems to be centered on myself. Marvin, did you not get any release time at all when you were on the Executive Committee? You got none? Did you get no reassigned time? I was just curious, did you get no release time? (Questions are addressed to Marvin Jaffe) I am Susan O'Malley, I edit the Newsletter, and I get three hours of release time. Like most other people on the Executive Committee, I do the Newsletter for free, and I also have 27 hours that I do. Let me just speak to the reason why the Executive Committee wants this flexibility. We wanted to have someone from a community college who could be in charge of the Faculty Advisory Council to the Research Foundation, for a short time anyway. So that is where most of the reassigned time has gone, and he's done a marvelous job. It's hard to get faculty because they have to have major grants and we could simply have had no one with a major grant from a community college who was in the Senate, that we could find. We asked this individual to do it and I'm glad we did it. In terms of my past, because people seem to be so interested in it, Bob Picken did give me at one time two hours of release time each term to do the Newsletter when I wasn't a Senator. He did that because I had resurrected the Newsletter the previous year and he was anxious for it to continue and he couldn't find anyone else to do it. So for one year I had two hours of release time each term because I was not a Senator. Don't worry, it will never happen again, because I will never do it, because I will never do the Newsletter for two hours each term having 27 hours at a community college, because I almost didn't make it. So you don't have to worry about me in that. I think we need this flexibility and I don't quite understand why people are so wary about it."

Professor Goldfarb (History, Kingsborough Community College) -- "I rise to oppose this resolution for three reasons. I think it sends the wrong message to the faculty of The City University at a time when many feel that the Senate has little power. We come to them not to ask to increase our powers, but we cannot exercise our own powers and we wish to diminish our powers by releasing some of this time. I think it sends the wrong message to the Chancellor's Office, that we cannot deal with all of this release time. That all of the elected people here cannot handle the release time and maybe the City University will diminish it even further so that we won't have this problem. I think the thing that I feel the strongest about, is that it is simply un-democratic. We are the democratically elected representatives here and it seems that we should share the responsibilities and have the assignments that devolve upon the Senate. So I urge you to vote against this resolution."

Professor Levine (Applied Sciences, College of Staten Island) -- "I wish to speak in favor of the resolution. Unlike many of the previous speakers, I have never been a member of the Executive Committee and have never received a minute of reassigned time. I do know that John Davis from Bronx Community College, who is serving as head of the Faculty Advisory Council to the Research Foundation, puts in an enormous effort, that takes away from both his normal community college teaching load as well as the grant activity that made him eligible for that post in the first place. The issue is not, is he a member of the Senate? The issue is, does this activity which we all admit is important, deserve support? I submit that it does. I am somewhat dismayed by the attitude that we, members of this body, are the only individuals within CUNY who are ever worthy of reassigned time for our activity. Surely there are people who are not sitting here in this room, who by virtue of their service to the CUNY faculty, deserve reassigned time. I support this resolution."

Professor Sherrill (Political Science, Hunter College) -- "I think however well intentioned this amendment, it should be opposed for three reasons. One, it undermines the democratic processes, two, it undermines the representative processes, and three, it is a sad sign of the weakness and incapacity of the Senate as a body to do its own work. We are faced with a rationale which is effectively convenience. It seems to me that we ought not go about creating a situation in which we can reward people who have lost elections or who did not stand for elections, as opposed to providing release time to people who have run and have won. Speaking as someone who has on occasion won and on occasion has lost elections, it seems to me you go into this with open eyes and you have to take the consequences. The intention may not be to get around the electoral process, but clearly the effect is to enable getting around it. The effect is to enable those people who want to discredit the Senate, to point to what will look like patronage. The second is that if the Research Foundation position, if the FAC position is so critical, and I think it is, if $1million can be extracted from the Research Foundation to fund the new Board majority's activities, a cost of release time per semester can be extracted from the Research Foundation to support the faculty member who chairs this committee. It doesn't have to come out of the Senate allotment. If any task is so critical and if we cannot find a qualified member of the Senate to perform that task, the message we are sending is one of institutional incapacity. The Senate as a body should stand up for its members, we should respect one another, we should show our strength as a body. There are enough qualified members of the Senate to perform these tasks. If there aren't, we ought not be in business."

Professor Greenbaum (History, Queensborough Community College) -- "I rise to support the amendment. The purpose of this amendment is to make it easier for your elected representatives to do the Senate's business. No one has been given release time who has not been doing the Senate's business. I have never heard so much nonsense about representative democracy as I have heard tonight. Representative democracy doesn't mean that there is one elected body and then that body does anything it wants and nobody else does anything. The Executive Committee has been elected by this body to do the work of this body and therefore the work of the University in the absence of meetings of this body. There are times when we cannot bring back a particular question to this body. We have to act in the name of this body and that is what representative democracy is. This is not Fifth Century Athens. We don't have everybody voting. This is a representative democracy, not a pure democracy, and we have never lived under pure democracy and we never will. The specific individuals involved, the specific jobs involved are not the point. The point is there are times when a Senator cannot be found to do a particular job that cannot be done without reassigned time being given to this person. Under those circumstances only the Executive Committee is in a position to make that decision. You can't come back to this body. Every time that decision is made, we will report to this body what has been done. That is part of, as I recall, the resolution. About the weakening of this body because we can't get somebody from this body to do this job, I give you a list right here, "Research is essential to the life of the University." We cannot find people to handle grants in Art History, Visual Arts, Computer Science, Comparative Literature, etc... Are we therefore not to draw anybody because we can't find people in this body to do this job? I think the arguments against this resolution are not valid."

Professor Cummins (English, Bronx Community College) -- "I'd like to support the resolution. I think John Davis has never lost an election in the Senate. He has never run for election here in the Senate. However, he has expertise that we are lucky to be able to draw on for this particular job. I also don't feel that we want the Research Foundation [appointing] someone who in a sense is serving as a person in charge of an oversight committee to make sure that the Research Foundation does what it's suppose to do."

Professor Grossman (Education, City College) -- "I am in my sixth term here and have seen a lot of the work of the Senate, and I can attest to the fact that we need sometimes to call on extra people. I have never been the recipient of extra time so I don't speak from self interest, but I have admiration for the people who have done the work of the Senate. The work that this Senate has done has been to defend everything we try to do as faculty for our students, to preserve City University. It is under such attack today that I cannot believe that people would want to restrict the resources that we have available, to call upon people to help. I am very outraged at the term patronage. Patronage is given for no-show jobs to favorites. We are talking about work and we are talking about faculty, ourselves included, who because of retrenchment, forced retirements, no replacements, high numbers of adjuncts teaching, find ourselves with an extra burden of work for which we get no release time from the college, but we do it. We want to serve our students and we want to serve the University. We are overburdened and over challenged. To restrict our ability to provide a little bit of release time in the programs of those who are already overworked, seems to me outrageous. I fully support this resolution. I cannot understand any opposition to it."

Professor Katz-Rothman (Sociology, The Graduate School & University Center) -- "The argument in favor of it is an argument that was offered in opposition--that it's convenience. I suppose you could theoretically eventually twist [arms] and find someone to do almost anything from within, if that's all one had to do. But it is certainly much more efficient and convenient to use the extraordinary resources of the CUNY faculty. We are not talking about rewarding people with five year sabbaticals in Aruba. Almost any time that I have ever received release time for anything in my life, and it has never had to do with this, whatever it is is a lot more trouble than teaching one extra section of Intro, or whatever you are getting released out of. Put this in some kind of perspective. We are making an enormous project out of something that seems to be helping ourselves work more efficiently."
Professor Frisz (Student Personnel, Queens College) -- "When I walked in here tonight I wasn't sure how I was going to vote on this resolution. But as I sit here I am really convinced that I have to support this, and I have to support this for several reasons and some of them have been stated. Those of us who are Senators were elected by our constituents in our own colleges to represent the faculty. But that doesn't mean that those faculty aren't part and parcel of this body in some way or other. They are part of the Senate even though they are not necessarily attending meetings. They have an opportunity to give input. They have an opportunity to voice their opinion to their representatives who can then make their cases known. They can call any member of the Executive Committee or any of the governing bodies. It would be nice if people in the Senate were available to do all of this but sometimes people who are elected to the Senate are very involved with other things also. If you have somebody out there that is a member of the faculty, that has expertise in a particular area, and can serve in this function, I cannot see any reason if we need to call upon than not to. They are a member of our faculty at CUNY. The other issue that I have is that we do elect our Executive Board every year. Either we have some faith in them or we shouldn't be electing them. I, for one, would have to feel that they are not going to take advantage of it. To this point, I haven't seen that as being something that they have abused, and I would like to give them a vote confidence and say that they are going to use their best judgment and come back to us. If we have any problems with it, we can let them know at that time. I don't understand why we're so opposed to this. As I said when I walked in here I wasn't sure how I was going to vote, but I am now."

Professor Hampton (Non-senator Governance Leader, Hunter College) -- "I'm following the person who preceded me at the microphone with an appeal for perspective on the issue. It seems that most of the speakers in favor of the amendment are referring to the immediate circumstances and to things that certainly I share - the belief that we have a good Senate, that we have good leadership, and that we can trust our leadership. But I think that when it comes to amending a Charter we have to think of the long term consequences and potential for abuse. Maybe one day we will have a situation where we might not want to have this in the Charter. But at the same time because that is a durable document or it should have durability, perhaps we could trust our leadership to imagine another solution to address the immediate needs. It is really a question therefore of the Charter being a document that should have durability and should respond to every conceivable circumstance, and that concerns me. I just wanted to put that out as another possible way of looking at the situation."

Professor Rodriguez (SEEK, John Jay College) -- "I was on the Executive Committee several years ago. I have never put in so many hours to get three hours of release time. It made me think of a paper I had written with a departed and very loved colleague and friend, Bob Martinez from Baruch. The name of the paper was "We Don't Do Windows." Because we were being placed on committees from one end of the spectrum to the other. If you want to allow the Executive Board to try and bring in the best talent we can to make, especially in these times, our voice heard when the noise around us is deafening. Look at today's New York Times, if that does not chill one's spine... I, too, did not know whether I was going to support this on the way in. I had gone through all of the material, and now I am really convinced that we cannot tie the hands. This is an extraordinary body that does an enormous amount of work with such limited resource. To give them more limitations seems to me to be crippling."

Professor Greenbaum -- "I just wanted to remind this body that the only way that release time has been granted to John Davis, whom we have discussed, is because Bernie Sohmer has given up his reassigned time. In the previous year and the previous term, James De Jongh gave up his reassigned time because there just isn't enough to go around."

Professor Marvin Jaffe -- "I just think that there ought to be one point clarified. Nowhere in this resolution does it mention anybody's name. It is not any individual who is mentioned in this Charter. It is a process. There was a comment made earlier, I forget by whom, that said that the Executive Committee under this amendment would report back to the body. But I believe the amendment says at the end of the year." / Chair Cooper - No, it says that there shall be an annual report. / Professor Jaffe - "My assumption is that the annual reports come at the end of year, not at the beginning of the year when these are awarded. I urge people to think of the long term ramifications. It is not that there are not people who will qualify in the Senate. It is not that there are people qualified outside the Senate. There are lots of people who work very hard in the Senate who do not get compensated. There are people who work very hard in faculty councils and in governance bodies that do not get compensated. One of the speakers on the other side said earlier that there are lots of people who have large teaching loads, who might not be able to furnish their services unless they were compensated. I am at a community college. I have a large teaching load. There are many junior faculty who would probably jump at the chance for some service. This is done at the colleges, as I understand, all the time. Young, non-tenured faculty, faculty going for promotion or looking for service points, and they don't get compensated. They don't get release time generally. So there are people available outside the Senate. That doesn't mean we have to take limited resources and put them outside the Senate. I would also like to make a point of personal privilege, Madame Chair. I would like to call to the attention of the body, I have mentioned nobody's name, my name was mentioned earlier. The question directed to me, and I know we have a parliamentarian there. It is my understanding that in debate all questions and comments are addressed to the chair. If that's the case, I would have thought that the previous comments would have been ruled out of order." / Professor Staum, Parliamentarian -- "The comment is correct. Parliamentary procedure does require in general that all comments be made to the chair. I don't know if that is a reason to rule something out of order, but perhaps I'm at fault for not making the correction at the time."

Professor O'Malley -- "I just want to say, in terms of John Davis, to be on the Faculty Advisory Council, you have to have a major grant. It is very hard to find people who are willing to serve as head of this committee who have major grants, and they tend not to come from community colleges but when they do, I think they ought to be recognized. I think that the argument that we need un-tenured junior people, it just won't work in the case of the head of the FAC."

Professor Frisz -- "I'm really having difficulty with a debate that uses people's names. I don't think this is the issue here, who's doing what in what position. The issue really is, and I'm sorry to put you on the spot, does this Charter change make sense to us in generic terms? We are not talking about individual names and what people are doing. It can be somebody else next, and it could be for a different position. I don't really think that is the issue, and I think we should be voting on whether this is something we want to see in our Charter. Also, as the chairperson of a governing body in the past for four years, we always looked at our Charter as a living document. When there were things that needed to be changed we presented it to our body as it made sense, as times changed, as issues changed, and we voted accordingly up or down depending on how the body went. I really don't see this as something that is a forever thing if it doesn't work. If it is working, fine, than we won't change it. If it doesn't work, then we always have that option. It is a living document so that's something to consider."

Professor Kaplowitz -- "Two things. I agree that there should not be specifics, not just in terms of names but in terms of situations. The whole point of this resolution is to enable the Senate and the Senate's Executive Committee to respond to situations as they arise. If, for example, there should come a time when the budget committee did not have someone who was on the Senate who had the tremendous expertise needed and willingness needed to put in the tremendous amount of work. If the Legal Affairs Committee which we already restrict to people who are lawyers and who are not members of the Senate if we don't have sufficient numbers of lawyers on the Senate who are willing to serve, which is the case. This provides for possibilities which none of us can anticipate arising. It is not about any specific position or person and certainly not limited to something like the Research Foundations Faculty Advisory Council."

Professor Levine -- "I support this resolution. A lot of people have expressed the opinion that they really do not want to find out about the action much later and they are upset about the idea of an annual report given at the end of the year. It's my understanding that the Executive Committee reports to this meeting on their actions at every meeting. I'm sorry that the wording of this does not say, "shall report at the very next meeting on any actions taken." I'm sorry because I don't believe in changing the wording of resolutions on the floor. Would the drafters of this resolution accept as a friendly amendment the modification that there shall be a report by the Executive Committee to the Senate on actions taken under this item, at the next regular meeting." / Chair Cooper - Are you intending to cover all the items in Section 3, which involves budgeted and other funds? / Professor Levine - "Well, a detailed report..." / Chair Cooper - Because the budget report comes once a semester. You would go a little bleary eyed if we handed out the piece of paper every month with how many dollars we spent on Xerox paper and telephone bills. If you want it, you can have it. I don't know, if it goes through an amendment process and it's seconded I guess it could be. I'm just wondering about the wording so that it doesn't require that the entire Article be affected. / Professor Jaffe - "That's why I hesitated making suggestions on the floor."

[Speaker did not identify himself] - "Madame Chairperson, I believe that we would all be satisfied were it to be personnel actions so that all the other stuff could be...." / Chair Cooper - In other words, we could add the word "personnel" in the last sentence. "There shall be an annual report by the Executive Committee to the Senate on personnel actions taken under this item." Is that what you mean?

Professor Levine - "There shall be a report by the Executive Committee to the Senate on personnel actions taken under this item, at the next regular meeting." / Chair Cooper - That's not what he was suggesting, Karen. Could you get back there and say again what you meant so we could get it down. / Professor Levine - "Perhaps other people that are better at language than I should attempt this. I think it's clear what I have in mind. / Chair Cooper - "There shall be a report on personnel items at the next regular meeting and there shall be an annual report by the Executive Committee to the Senate on actions taken under this item." Is that what you intended? / [Unidentified Speaker] - "Yes." / Chair Cooper - "There shall be a report on personnel actions and there shall be an annual report by the Executive Committee to the Senate on actions taken under this item." The annual report covers the budget and all of the other things. This doesn't bother me. Does everybody on the Executive Committee accept it? Does anyone else here from the Executive Committee have a publishable opinion?

Professor Greenbaum - "In the absence of any opposition from the Executive Committee to this, then it is accepted without a vote. Correct?" / Chair Cooper - That's right. / Professor Greenbaum - "Then I would like to move ....."/ Chair Cooper - It has to be seconded and voted on. I was just trying to get the language. Is there a second to the language? Does everybody understand the language? The discussion is now on the amendment which again, the underlying sentence at the end of the Charter amendment. 'There shall be a report on personnel actions at the next regulation of the Senate,' or something very close to that. I know that might have to be changed. 'And there shall be an annual report by the Executive Committee to the Senate on actions taken under this item.' That has been seconded and that is what is up for discussion.

Professor Goldfarb -- "People spoke of the fact that we should trust the Executive Committee. But the fact is that the Executive Committee over the years did not follow the Charter so we do feel that we should have some control over them. But now, even I in opposition to this particular Charter change, find it difficult that this Executive Committee that we are suppose to trust, you can't trust them more than one month. And that you need to immediately have to have some response from them. I think that is very demeaning to the Executive Committee and if I were for this Charter change, which I am not, I would be against this amendment."

Professor Donoghue -- "My comments are a point of information more or less. Here we are making an amendment to a Charter revision. Now the Charter revision was read three times before the vote, am I correct?" / Chair Cooper - It was presented at one point a couple months ago and then revised, and then the revised version was presented last month. / Professor Donoghue - "Does the Charter require us to read this a couple of times before we take the vote? I don't find it in the constitution." / Chair Cooper - "No." / Professor Donoghue - "I would think, and this is just my opinion, when you start amending something on the floor you are really running into a lot of difficulty. I suggest that this be taken back by committee and then presented again next time. I don't think we should be amending a Charter revision on the floor. This is a very important step for the Senate to take. That's just an opinion."

Professor Frisz -- "I'm opposed to the amendment. I didn't think I was going to agree with Jack on this one. I hate to see things written on a floor because you often don't get the kind of wording you want. But I am also not comfortable with the tenor of the amendment. I really have to go back to what I stated earlier. I have to have some faith in the people I elected or I shouldn't be electing them. I would like to speak against the amendment. I would like us to vote on the main motion and I still support the main motion as it was worded."

Chair Cooper - When a vote occurs, if this amendment remains the way it is, the amendment is voted on first and then the motion. May I just urge that we conclude this part of the meeting as soon as possible because I have some really significant issues that we should get to.

Professor Marvin Jaffe -- "I would like to agree with the previous speaker, I think you should vote against the amendment. I speak against the amendment because the intent of the amendment appears to be, to use the vernacular, have the Executive Committee on a short leash. I will go back to my original suggestion, why don't we do this prospectively? If it is necessary to take someone and perhaps even the Charter can be amended in this matter, I am not suggesting doing it now on the floor. But what I suggested earlier was that this be done prospectively instead of retrospectively. Should the necessity to get somebody out of the Senate to have reassigned time, to come before the body and say, "here's the deal, here's the person, this is a great match, we should do this," and we could all go nay or yea. I would again agree with the previous speaker to vote against the amendment."

Professor Sherrill -- "I think that this amendment is a step in the right direction. I don't think it's perfect. It does not, for example, give members the power to accept or reject an action by the Executive Committee. But at least the members are informed in a timely fashion. Anything that maximizes the information that the members have, is desirable."

[Unidentified Speaker] - "I would like to make a call for the question."/ Chair Cooper - There has been a call for the question. That means that we have to vote on the amendment first. Unless there is a rejection for the call for all questions, is there any objection? There is an objection. He objects. We are voting separately on the amendment. We are going to vote sequentially. It seems to me that there is a quorum just by eye count. Stasia, do you have the list? On the assumption that there is a quorum, can we proceed with the vote on the amendment? Are we willing to proceed with any vote while she counts for the quorum on the recommendation that there is a quorum here? This is a vote on the call of the question, all in favor? Opposed? That carries. Can we continue with the vote on the amendment? All in favor of the amendment to the motion, raise your hands. All opposed to the amendment? The members of this body who vote are the elected Senators or the alternates taking their position, if there is an elected Senator who isn't presented. All right, abstentions? The vote I have is 46 "Yes," 12 "No," and 1 "Abstention." The amendment to the Charter passes in this body, and now has to be presented to college governance bodies for their approval, and I believe that we need two-thirds of the faculty in the University to approve it. It doesn't mean two-thirds of the campuses. If the 4 or 5 larger campuses vote something through, that does in fact amend this Charter. Thank you very much for the time and thoughtfulness. I would just say one thing in terms of fact, if I am allowed to. What happened a few years ago when the University began reducing the reassigned time pool which was given to the Faculty Senate Chair, and this precedes me, was that we were asked to use the pool for all the areas that had been traditionally covered. Usually the head of FAC (Faculty Advisory Council) was not a Senate member. But the Senate is responsible for picking the faculty on that body. We were asked to use this pool of time to cover this person and it reduced obviously the available pool. Subsequent to that we kept losing 3-6 credits a semester. What somebody said in the course of the debate here is true, that for the last two years there have been members of this Executive Committee who have served without any reassigned time from the Senate. They did it in order for us to cover either people in community colleges or mainly the FAC person. Over the years the Faculty Senate has become responsible for the Faculty Advisory Committee to the Research Foundation and for the CUNY B.A., for the creation and organization of discipline councils. We are now up to eighteen of those for which there are no added staff and no added anything, for some of the oversight of the CUNY Talk E-mail situation, and for staffing a large number of task forces around the University involved in reconfiguring the way we function. These include largely administrative, central administrative task forces as well as Senate committees. So that while this body started its life doing a much more limited number of things, I guess in the 1960's, over the years it has become the source of a lot of other faculty activities. On top of which there has been an increase in the demands put on this body and the Executive Committee by the Board of Trustees, particularly in the last month.