MINUTES OF THE TWO HUNDRED EIGHTY-SECOND PLENARY SESSION
OF THE UNIVERSITY FACULTY SENATE
OF THE CITY UNIVERSITY OF NEW YORK
DECEMBER 11, 2001
The meeting was called to order at 6:30 P.M. in Room 9206/9207 of the Graduate School and
University Center. The following Senators were present:
Baruch: Hill, McCall, and Pollard; BMCC: Aymer, Friedman, Herz, Neis, Price, Vozick, and
Alternate Leslie; Bronx CC: Read, Skinner, and Alternate Brennan; Brooklyn: Antoniello,
London, Sheridan, Tobey, Uctum, and Alternate Keltner; CCNY: Connorton, Crain, Manassah,
and Sohmer; CSI: Klibaner, Levine, and Alternate Petratos; CUNY Law School: none; Graduate
School: Baumrin, Hayes, and Alternate Erickson; Hostos CC: none; Hunter: Doss, and
Steinberg; John Jay: Bohigian, Davenport, Kaplowitz, and Lanzone; Kingsborough CC: Farrell,
Goodkin, O’Malley, and Alternate Barnhart; LaGuardia CC: Beaky, Gallagher, Mettler, and
Reitano; Lehman: Avani, Philipp, and Alternate Feinerman; Medgar Evers: Donohue and HarrisHastick; NYC Technical: Cermele, Horelick, and Hounion; Queens: Moore and Savage;
Queensborough CC: Barbanel and Tully; York: Coleman, Cooper, and Alternate Necol.
Governance Leaders present: Baumrin (GSUC), Feinerman (Lehman), Friedheim (BMCC),
Kaplowitz (John Jay), Levine (CSI), Manassah (CCNY), Mettler (LaG), O’Malley (KCC),
Rodriguez (Hunter), and Tobey (Brooklyn). Excused were Senators Davidson (LaGuardia),
Speidel (Queens), Cooper (CSI), and Tomkins (Hunter). Guests included Professors DahbanyMiraglia (QCC), Lefkoe (Queens), and McGee (York), and Vasillov (Hostos). Executive Vice
Chancellor Mirrer, Vice Chancellor Schaffer, University Dean Mogulescu and Director of
Development Vercesi attended. Executive Director Phipps, Administrative Assistant Pasela, and
Secretary Blanchard were present.
I. Approval of the agenda: The agenda was adopted as proposed.
II. Approval of the Minutes of November 20, 2001: The brief form of the minutes of the previous
plenary were approved as distributed. The transcript had not yet been prepared.
III. Reports: [recorded in Reports and Deliberations.]
a. Chancellor Goldstein (oral).
b. Report of the Chair (oral).
c. Representatives to Board Committees (written).
IV. Old Business:
a. Resolution Affirming Academic Freedom: The following resolution was adopted by voice
vote with one opposed:
Resolved, that the University Faculty Senate strongly supports the 1981 Board of Trustees
statement that "…the University pledges diligently to safeguard the constitutional rights of
freedom of expression, freedom of association, and open intellectual inquiry of the faculty, staff,
and students of the University," and
Be it further resolved, that in this time of national distress when threats to academic freedom
are becoming more prevalent, the University Faculty Senate, along with the Council of Faculty
Governance Leaders, affirms the full AAUP Statement of Principles on Academic Freedom and
Tenure.*
*available at http://www.aaup.org/publications/Redbook/1940stat.htm
b. Resolution on Increasing Tuition for Undocumented Immigrants: Professor Crain
presented the following resolution. It was adopted unanimously.
Resolved, that the University Faculty Senate calls on the State Legislature of New York to pass
such statutory changes as may be necessary in order to maintain the eligibility of undocumented
immigrants who have completed one or more years of high school in New York for the in-state
tuition rate, and
Be it further Resolved, that the University Faculty Senate calls on the Chancellor to postpone
implementation of the new policy until the Legislature has an opportunity to act.
The meeting was adjourned at 8 P.M.
Respectfully submitted,
Bill Phipps
REPORTS & DELIBERATIONS OF
THE TWO HUNDRED AND EIGHTY-SECOND PLENARY SESSION
OF THE UNIVERSITY FACULTY SENATE
OF THE CITY UNIVERSITY OF NEW YORK
December 11, 2001
III. Reports:
a. The Chancellor: I’m going to be very brief because I have another event to go to, so I’ll just
mention a couple of things, and then I’ll use the remaining time just for your questions. Last
night, the Board unanimously approved the budget that we laid over from the last board meeting,
and it’s on its way to Albany. We expected that the governor would advance his budget about
now, but we believe that that’s going to be deferred for a while, and I’m not exactly sure when
that will happen, but again the budget in its form is very different than budgets that we have ever
submitted on behalf of the university. I discussed this last time, but it is worthy of mentioning
again, because I think it gives us a wonderful opportunity to reflect about how we conduct our
business and the opportunities we have to develop some investment capital for the university,
which quite frankly we have not had for some time. Embedded in the budget message is an
expectation of asking for about two-thirds of the money that we would need to advance the goals
of the Master Plan--we’re in the third year of the Master Plan--if I recall, that required about
$146-148 million. We’re asking for about $98 million. Of that $98 million, about 45% or so,
perhaps a little lower, we’re going to do through bootstrapping. We’re going to effect a series of
efficiencies in the university. We’re purchasing methodologies on fuel oil, on
telecommunications, things like this that will be invisible to the university, but we believe at the
end of this process, we’ll develop a revenue stream of no less than about $10 million.
Certainly fund-raising continues to be an important component for all of our presidents, as is the
case in most universities that I am familiar with, and let’s just talk about state universities. Fundraising expectation is actually built in right at the beginning of the planning for a fiscal year as
part of revenue to support a university, and I see no reason why we shouldn’t do something like
that as well here. Of course, the culture of this university has never looked at fund-raising as an
opportunity to develop the necessary financial base, but I think indeed we have to do this.
And then we’re going to look for revenue enhancements for the university, and by revenue
enhancements I don’t mean tuition increases. Some asked us that before. We’re not reflecting on
that. But just in the manner in which we operate the university, I think there will be some
opportunities for revenue enhancements. Presidents at my request are coming forward with ideas
on their own campuses or for the university. I have some ideas, and we’ll roll this out at the
appropriate time.
Lastly, which is the more long-term effort here, is really to reflect how the university is
managed. I continue to believe that we have a rather arcane way of looking at how the university
is managed overall. We replicate over and over and over again things on our campuses that we
probably could do more efficiently if we approached these matters in a very different way. That’s
a long-term project here. But I don’t see how we can make great progress at this university
unless we invest again into our core business, which I’ve said over and over to you. That doesn’t
mean that we stop working as hard as all of us have worked, and we continue to work very hard
to pound away, with the governor, with the mayor, with the legislature, with the city council, that
this university is poorly funded; it’s historically poorly funded; there hasn’t been much
investment at all; and we have to get more and more. Of course the environment that we’re in
now makes it very difficult at best, because there will be a long queuing of other worthy
institutions and a limited amount of money. So we have to start reflecting on different ways of
generating dollars so that we can redeploy those dollars into the life of learning at the university
and be less concerned about some of the administrative supports to that learning, and I’m really
committed to do that. So that’s really the thing that I’m going to be reflecting on now for the rest
of this year. We have managed well, I think, to deal with the various clouds of budget assaults,
both on the state and on the city, and I reported on that. Nothing has really changed. We have
worked for the first time with the Division of the Budget and with the Governor to integrate fully
our capital program with our operating program, and we’ve been able to fill the holes that existed
through the enactment of the so-called "bare bones budget." And I reported on the efforts that
we’ve done with the community colleges as well. I sent out last week memoranda to each of our
community college presidents indicating what I would like to see them do in terms of reducing
their expenditures consistent with the maintenance of effort provision that we hope at the end of
this process will be maintained. We expect that it will, so we’re working effectively on that.
Now, as I mentioned last time, and I think Stefan said when I said wouldn’t be surprised--he’s a
philosopher, so he takes that phrase and twists it and turns it and does his topology on it--I don’t
know what’s going to happen in January, and I’m being very, very frank with you. I have no
information; nobody has talked with me about it; but I wouldn’t be surprised, given that the city
is indeed facing very, very deep deficits, that we may get some mid-year adjustment. I don’t
know if that is the case, but I wouldn’t be surprised if that happened. I’m hoping that it won’t
happen, but unless there is a rather significant change in the economic climate of the city and the
state, those deficits are going to continue to be real, and that’s going to have an impact on this
university, as it’s going to have an impact on all other operating agencies in the state and in the
city. So my crystal ball is not any clearer than any of yours. I just want to be very straightforward
and say you read the papers; you analyze the data; you talk with people; you listen to
commentators; you see what’s going on as I see what’s going on; and quite frankly it’s a very
fluid environment. Things are changing rather dramatically. We just have to be prepared.
Unfortunately, in a decade very little investment has been made in the City University of New
York, which is not the case elsewhere in the country--there’s been sizable investment in state
universities around the United States over this past decade. That did not happen both in CUNY
and SUNY. We are in a more fragile position because we really don’t have the very strong
foundation of investment over a sustained period of time that would keep us moving without
great disruption. That’s why I think that we have to brace ourselves and be prepared to look very
carefully at how we manage the institution, so that we can indeed very quickly find the kind of
operating revenue that we can redeploy to keep the things that are very important for this
university to have in order for us to sustain a vibrant place for our students to learn and for our
faculty to work. So, those are some of the things that I’m reflecting on. I’m going to stop here
because I’m sure other things that I would mention will be derived from questions that you ask,
so why don’t I give you an opportunity now.
Professor Bohigian, John Jay: Chancellor Goldstein, the state has passed an ERI [Early
Retirement Initiative], and left it to CUNY and SUNY, as I understand, to opt into the program. I
think the same thing happened last year, and CUNY decided not to opt in. So, my question to you
is, will CUNY be opting in to the ERI, and if it won’t, why won’t it? Chancellor Goldstein: Unless
you have information that I don’t have, I have not received any official information that CUNY
or SUNY is going to be included under an ERI. Professor Bohigian: No, I said specifically that
they were excluded, but they were...Right now, we haven’t seen any paper on it for CUNY. This
is my feeling about the ERI and why I took the position that I did before. For me, one of the
prominent problems that CUNY has had over a sustained period of time is that we have an
inadequate number of full-time faculty. Everybody in this room knows it; I know it; this is
something I think we can all agree upon. If indeed we were to opt into a program that would
further erode the amount of full-time faculty that we have to deploy to our classrooms, I don’t
think for the large group of people in this university that that would be a good thing. If, however,
we were able to hire faculty once others retire, then I would have a very different view, but the
last ERI policy that the university was asked if they wanted to participate in would have eroded
our full-time faculty ranks, perhaps somewhat significantly. I just don’t think that’s a good idea
for our students. I know that some of you may be near retirement, and there would be a financial
incentive, but we have to think about the overall good of the university. If the legislation comes
out which will give us an opportunity to deploy faculty, say on a one-to-one basis, then I would
have a very different view of this, but so far I haven’t seen that. Professor Bohigian: A brief
response to that. What you’re essentially saying is that you’re holding the faculty hostage
because the state won’t provide funds for replacement. Chancellor Goldstein: No, that’s what
you’re saying. I’m saying something else. If you want to say hostage, that’s fine. That’s not what
I’m saying. Professor Bohigian: It amounts to that. Given the fact that in three of the last ten
years we have had zero increases, and that the top of the pay scale has not moved, you’re
essentially denying to faculty an opportunity to rectify that situation in retirement over the
lifetime of their careers as retired faculty members. They’ve served with distinction for many
years at the university, and to hold them up simply because the state is not replacing it is unfair
to the faculty. You have to look at that perspective also. We’re not responsible for--Chancellor
Goldstein: Look, look. I don’t want to get into a long argument here. Your view is something
that I can accept, I can appreciate; I understand it. My view is that I want to give our students the
best opportunity to learn. As the number of full-time faculty is diminished in this university, I
think it hurts students, and that to me is something that I care deeply about.
Professor Crain, City College: I want to speak again on the undocumented student situation at
City College. Initially, we thought until yesterday that it was 175 undocumented immigrants at
City College. Because of a computer switchover and information loss, we now realize that there
are maybe 550 to 600 students, most of whom, practically all of whom, cannot afford the over
double tuition that CUNY is imposing upon them. The loan system that has been set up will not
help them.
It’s much too little. I appreciate the correspondence that’s gone forward promptly with the
general counsel. I just suggest again that there’s no real reason to suddenly rush to comply with
this law, which is a very bad law. The considerable trust that they’ve put in us, the amount of
hours these kids work for two or three dollars an hour after school--they barely have a social
life. They have faith in America as something that will give them an opportunity to better
themselves. They came here when they were brought here by their parents when they were kids.
They can’t believe that we will do this. They can’t believe that anybody would do this to them;
they’re so trusting. I ask you to help to put a stop to it. I don’t know how to express it, but you’ve
taken away their hopes and their dreams and their future and their chance to develop
themselves, and they always thought they had this chance. Chancellor Goldstein: Bill, I don’t
think there’s anybody in the administration that doesn’t feel bad about this. The fact is that we
know we are in non-compliance with a federal law. It’s not as if we’re going about this and that
we’re unaware that the law has been broken. This administration I am told, since 1998--not this
administration, but a prior administration--knew since 1998 that there was a federal law passed.
All of you have seen this correspondence, so I don’t have to go over this again. I feel bad for
these students. I don’t know what the overall result is going to be. We’re going to have to wait
and see; some are speculating there is going to be a great outflow of students. Well, I’m not so
sure about that. That may or may not be the case. We’ll have to wait for the data. Professor
Crain: There’ve been no implementation regulations? Chancellor Goldstein: Yes, but that
doesn’t matter, whether there’s implementation. There’s a law, and if you know you are violating
a law, you have a responsibility to be in compliance, and it’s something that we’re not pleased
about. We’re going to try to do a number of things to minimize the impact, and I could talk about
some of those things with you now, but beyond that, the only way that I can see this turned
around is if there is state legislation; and there may indeed be state legislation to do this, and I
would have absolutely no problem with that. I would want to take a look at what the state
legislation says, but that’s where this really needs to be remanded. The university is truly
constrained here. We know we are not complying with the law. And we have to.
Professor O’Malley, Kingsborough: My question is about the FBI requesting student records.
It’s my understanding that at BMCC the FBI has subpoenaed the records of nine students, and
they’ve been given over. What I wanted to know is, is this true at other campuses? Do you have
information? And what is the university policy? Chancellor Goldstein: I don’t know of anything
about this. Rick Schaffer, General Counsel: I don’t know of any subpoenas other than at BMCC.
Professor O’Malley: But it is true at BMCC? Counselor Schaffer: That’s what I’ve been told,
yes. And of course, under FIRPA, a subpoena overrides the privacy rights of the students, and we
have to comply. [The next day, Mr. Schaffer informed the Chair that BMCC did not receive a
subpoena, but rather a request for information from the U.S. Department of Education. In
addition, he explained that although the request came shortly after 9/11 it related to an audit of
student financial aid and thus appears unrelated to the issue of terrorism.]
Professor Herz, BMCC: Given the stressful conditions at BMCC, have you considered reducing
the pressure on our president and on our college with respect to budget reduction? Chancellor
Goldstein: There’s more stress at BMCC right now than there is elsewhere? Professor Herz:
Absolutely. Chancellor Goldstein: Do you mean pressure on the president? Professor Herz: I
don’t mean just the president; I mean the administration, professors, the students... Chancellor
Goldstein: If you have some ideas how I might reduce the stress of people at BMCC and others
throughout the university, I’d be very pleased to listen. Professor Herz: This was with respect to
budget reductions.
Chancellor Goldstein: Oh, you mean that kind of stress. You mean fiscal stress. I thought you
were talking about emotional stress. We’re going to work with every campus to try to minimize
whatever effects there are going to be, and we still don’t fully have the picture as clearly as we
would like. Remember all of this has been remanded to the City Council, and the City Council
will be taking this up, and we expect--we hope and expect--that we will have favorable
consideration from the City Council. But we’ll work with the campuses in every way that we can
to try to--for me the bottom line was maintaining teaching power. I insisted with every president
that the cuts that we had to impose, which were considerably lower than what we first were
given, be without loss of teaching power. That means no full-time faculty, no part-time faculty,
again because I think that’s important to give our students, to place faculty in front of the
classroom. Each president is going to have a different challenge, and those presidents that are
having trouble, we’ll do the best that we can to mitigate against some of it.
Professor Daniel McGee, York [a vote was taken to allow him, a non-senator, to participate as a
guest, and permission of the body was granted]: Chancellor, I have a two-part question. When
you instructed the college presidents to get the input of faculty governance bodies in planning
the budget, did you have in mind that faculty senates would actually join administrations in
planning the budgets for their colleges? And the second, related question, is in planning the
budgets or making changes to them, if budget cuts are necessary, has any directive been given to
the individual colleges to make cuts to administrative positions where possible to avoid cutting
full-time faculty, if not adjuncts, further? Chancellor Goldstein: I say in all of my correspondence
with presidents relative to planning for budget submission to our offices or to give me impact
statements with respect to cuts, all of that, I am very careful because I believe in this--I’m not
just doing this for form; I think it’s the proper thing to do--"to engage with governance leaders,"
I think, or "the appropriate governance bodies." I forget the exact phrase that I used. That I take
very seriously. Now, every campus is structured in their own unique ways, and how that is done
is part by tradition and part by the way the college operates, but I expect that there is full
discussion and a partnership between administration and governance bodies. Professor McGee:
And if that were not the case, is there anything to do? Chancellor Goldstein: Well, I haven’t been
made aware of any particular case. I remember at Baruch--Cecelia McCall will come to my
rescue here. (inaudible comment from Professor McCall) I’d like the record to read "not if I can
help it" is what she said. When I would consult, I never consulted enough, according to Cecelia,
so there are nuances here, but I expect that this is done in a forthright and open way, and if there
are particular issues that any of you have on your particular campus, where you feel that you
have been blocked out, or your governance leaders have been blocked out, it would be important
for me to know that, but to do it privately, rather than publicly.
Professor Philipp, Lehman: The Board of Trustees contains mayoral appointments whose terms
continue after the new mayor takes office. Is there any indication that these individuals may
choose to resign and allow mayor-elect Bloomberg to appoint new members? Chancellor
Goldstein: I think that mayor-designate-elect Bloomberg has every interest in appointing Board
members, so at the appropriate time, when there are vacancies, I think he’s going to act and act
decisively. And I think he’s made some really fabulous appointments. Mark Shaw is very close
to the university. Dennis Walcott is very close to the university. We have a close relationship
with Mr. Bloomberg, so I hope we will have a very cordial, open, and productive relationship
with this administration.
Professor Doss, Hunter/BMCC: I’m the proxy for Lenore’s monthly CPE [College Proficiency
Exam] question. Apparently during the summer, fairly elaborate results were presented from last
Spring’s CPE administration, but they were apparently rather narrowly distributed. In the
Academic Policy Committee meeting before this, apparently Lenore was the only one of us who
had received them, so I’m up here to ask that when the results come in, they be widely distributed
rather than narrowly distributed, and also to ask when they might be expected. Chancellor
Goldstein: It’s always good to ask me a CPE question, because I never know the answer. I
assume that when these data are available, they’ll be disseminated in the appropriate way. I mean
certainly we want those students who sit for the CPE to do well, and anything we can do to
improve performance and continue their march toward their degrees is something that I think is
the right thing and proper thing for us to do. And if by getting data out and by getting informed
opinion about it, that would ultimately help the students make progress, I think it’s a good thing.
Professor Doss: I also note you didn’t really pick up Dan’s second part about directed or
preferential cuts. Chancellor Goldstein: Well, then he’ll have to ask himself. Preferential cuts?
Professor Doss: Administration rather than faculty. Chancellor Goldstein: Well, first of all, I
don’t see any faculty being cut at all, as I said. That was a constraint in my correspondence, that
faculty are really off the page. And I don’t believe that personnel need to be cut, because I think
if you judiciously manage your budget within the cuts that we imposed, that can be done without
laying off any personnel. That’s what my belief is.
Professor Baumrin, Graduate Center: I spent several weeks thinking about Bill’s campaign on
the issue of charging additional tuition to undocumented students, and two or three things finally
settled. Granted that the administration believes that it ought to be in compliance with the law, I
think it is extraordinarily inappropriate and probably illegal to have changed tuition in midyear, when students, whether they’re legal or illegal, have a right to expect tuition to be constant
over the course of a year. And second, I’m disturbed that the administration doesn’t know the
statistics with regard to the number of people to whom it applies. I misstated the number for
Lehman because I thought that the number which had been given to me was too high, so I
minimized it, but then I heard from Bill a couple of moments ago a rather surprising number
from City, and I don’t think anybody should be surprised about this. So it seems to me that
there’s bad information afoot, and to implement the policy on short notice with bad information-it isn’t really necessarily our way. It doesn’t have to be. So without knowing how many students
it applies to, I think it’s a bad policy. Third and last, because I don’t want to go on forever, I
would’ve thought, but I haven’t seen a piece of paper that shows, that we asked for an advisory
committee from the federal bureau that would be monitoring the implementation of the statute to
show that we actually asked for a bye or a period of grace or a revision. So it seems to me that
we’re rushing when we don’t have to rush. Chancellor Goldstein: Well, I think they would
respond, "You’re three years out of compliance." That’s the problem here. It’s not that we just
were made aware of this a month ago. The university knew of this in 1998, I guess it was.
Professor Baumrin: I’m not blaming the current administration for the errors of the past. But
this situation cries out for a kind of attention to which the answer that we’re out of compliance
for several years is not relevant. We’ve been out of compliance. If a letter came from the
government that said, "You’ve got three months to be in compliance," well then we’ve got to
respect that, but I think that the first thing that would happen if we got such a letter is that we’d
ask for a six-month moratorium. We wouldn’t obey immediately because they caught us. We
would discuss with them: "Oh, you caught us, that’s funny. Texas--did you send them a letter?
Did you send California a letter? Did you send Ohio a letter?" Why are we, all of a sudden in a
crisis, the first to bare our breasts and say, "Here. Here are two thousand students." Chancellor
Goldstein: I think Rick could probably answer this better than I can, Stefan. Counselor Schaffer:
Well, let’s get our facts straight, Stefan. In 1989, when we adopted the policy of undocumented
and out-of-status students, which is our euphemism for illegal aliens, to qualify for resident
tuition, we were one of only four states in the United States that did it. We did it in the spirit of
an executive order of then-mayor Koch, who issued an executive order to the city agencies,
which didn’t technically apply to us, encouraging them or directing them in the case of city
agencies to offer city services without regard to immigration status. The school policy was one
that many of us supported. At that time there were four states that allowed illegal aliens to
qualify for resident tuition. California and Texas weren’t among them. The other states were
Arizona, Illinois--actually, I think it was three--it was Arizona, Illinois, and New York, New
York being both SUNY and CUNY. When the federal law became effective on July 1st, 1998,
every other university in the United States complied with it. We were the only ones who didn’t.
We remained the only ones, until very recently. As a lawyer, and as a counsel to a public
institution, I cannot justify violating federal law because nobody has caught us, and I don’t think
you as a philosophy professor can justify disobeying a law that we happen to disagree with.
Professor Baumrin: But there are different ways that we can finish the argument. Well, that’s a
debate we can have some other time. I may be more Kantian than some of you, but in a
democracy whereas a law is passed that is a valid law, I happen to think that it’s incumbent upon
us to obey it without having been caught, and I think it’s particularly incumbent upon a public
institution to set an example in obeying a law, whether we agree with it or not. Now, we didn’t
rush into this. As I said, every other university in the United States went into compliance on July
1st, 1998. We are the only ones. Texas and California passed state legislation--in my own view,
the Texas legislation doesn’t work, but the California legislation might--and if New York State
passes legislation that creates a new tuition category that is unconnected to residence, for people
who graduated from New York high schools or attended New York high schools for a minimum
period of time, that might actually get around the federal law. The CUNY Board of Trustees
can’t do that. We do not have the power to set tuition levels on a basis other than residence, and
as long as it’s based on residence, it violates the federal law. There’s just no way of getting
around it. As to the absence of implementing regulations, there are no implementing regulations
because the statute is perfectly clear on its face. There’s no need for them. And most federal laws
don’t have implementing regulations. I understand I sound very lawyerly and rigid, but I really
believe, much as my personal preference would have been to the contrary--some of you may
know that I actually drafted the executive order for Mayor Koch in 1989 that got this whole thing
started, so this isn’t my personal preference--but I think as a public institution, we have an
obligation to obey the law.
Chancellor Goldstein: I’m going to have to go very soon, so if we can get the other questions...
Professor Price, BMCC: Although I’m concerned with the trailers on our campus, I’ll ask a
question instead about the BMCC trailers on the campus of City College, which we’re now
calling our uptown campus. Is there any special relationship developing between BMCC and
City College that you’d like to tell us about? Chancellor Goldstein: No, there are no special
relationships. I will tell you that I like the idea very much of some kind of relationship between
City College and Borough of Manhattan Community College. There are many students now
studying at BMCC that live in Washington Heights, that I think would find it easier to go to
BMCC if there was some kind of relationship with City College, but there’s nothing in the works
that I am aware of concerning some kind of formal arrangement with the two institutions. The
reason that those trailers are placed up at City College, first and foremost, is that’s where there
was land, and there was no land at BMCC other than what we were able to utilize. So placing it
geographically where it was, connected to where many of your students now live, just made
some sense. Whether there will be some more programmatic connections between BMCC and
City College is really something that the two presidents I think need to discuss, and I think quite
frankly it would be a good idea if there were some kind of relationships, but I’ve not been
involved in any formal discussions at all about that. Professor Price: So the rumors that at least
I’ve heard, about BMCC being the first two years and City College being the second two years of
the educational package, you’re saying are not so. Chancellor Goldstein: I have no knowledge
about that at all. I doubt that that would happen, quite frankly.
Professor London, Brooklyn: Actually, Chancellor Goldstein, this is a question for Counselor
Schaffer. It’s very quick. Are there any penalties associated with the law? If we did not obey it
immediately, what are the penalties the university might suffer? Counselor Schaffer: There are
none in the statute. That’s all that I can say. What other pressures the federal government might
choose to bring--there are many, but there’s no specific penalty in the statute. Again, I view that
as irrelevant. Professor London: Did you receive any pressure from the federal government to
issue the policy? Counselor Schaffer: None whatsoever. Professor London: That’s important
information for us all to have. Counselor Schaffer: It’s important for you to know that there was
no pressure from any quarter in this regard, and I know there’s been a lot of speculation about
motives. This is a decision based on a legal analysis of what we were obligated to do. I had never
heard of this law until this year. I read the correspondence that my predecessor engaged in in
1998 when a decision was made, apparently without telling anybody else, to ignore the law. I
found it completely unpersuasive. My function as a counsel to an institution is to make legal
judgments and make legal recommendations to the chief executive officer, in this case the
Chancellor, and that decision was based on what I thought the law required and what I thought
we as a public institution had to do in face of the law.
Professor Read, Bronx CC: In the context of the budget crunch--as President of Baruch, you had
extraordinary success in raising private money for a public college, and my question is, are
there ways for you to invoke the power of the Chancellery to instruct or inspire or provoke local
Boards of Trustees to see that as a major part of their activity? Chancellor Goldstein: Well, I
think that that’s happening right now. We’ve placed such a high priority on raising funds for the
university, and I must say many of the campuses now have the components of very distinguished
local boards to do this. Certainly Baruch has an extraordinary board now. Queens College has a
fabulous board. Brooklyn College has a fabulous board. Hunter is in the process of building a
very strong board. City College has a very strong board. Some of the community colleges are
doing extraordinarily well, and some of the newer four-year institutions. So I think that with the
great array of fabulous graduates throughout this university, both two-year institutions and
baccalaureate institutions, there will be opportunities for campuses to raise money, perhaps not
as much as a place like Baruch or some of the other campuses, but from where they are now to
where they might be able to go could make a big difference on the campuses.
Professor Petratos, CSI: It’s been encouraging to hear you ask for the help of the faculty and
also to lead the faculty and the university in terms of its funding and so on. How poorly it’s been
funded in the past? Are you prepared tonight, Ramadan just over, this the second night of
Hanukkah-- Christmas is coming; Chinese New Year is upon us soon; throw in a few Olympian
gods--are you willing to make a statement tonight about the contract and to direct your people
for the 27% increase which we expect minimum over the three-year period? Chancellor
Goldstein: Do you want me to respond? Professor Petratos: Speaking of what the great Nobel
laureate said, don’t tell us what you will do; tell us what you did. And the other thing is--Chair
Sohmer: Your first question was out of order. Will your second question be relevant to the
Senate? Professor Petratos: Yes, of course. So is this. I’m a faculty member; I get paid.
Chancellor Goldstein: I would love to see a contract finished already. That’s the first question.
What’s the second question? Professor Petratos: I apologize for the interruption. I really resent
this. The idea about the presidents would have to increase revenue, which is important for us to
start thinking about. [Unidentified: What was the question?]
Professor Skinner, Bronx CC: I’ll ask his question for him. This is probably the first time I’m up
here in ten years, so I’m nervous. The question is, Chancellor, as I mentioned before, I saw you
with Pataki and some of the government’s state and city officials up at Fordham Road in the new
Alexander building. I know that you’ve talked about the possibilities of cooperation,
collaboration with the various community groups as well as the colleges. Could you just please
tell us, or me particularly, how this particular venture, with Lehman, Bronx, and Hostos, how it
will benefit CUNY and the college and the community, and I guess our relationships with
important agencies such as 1199. Chancellor Goldstein: Yes, I think that’s a very good question.
Let me see if I can answer it crisply and to tell you what my thinking was. Many of our students
in this university live very complex lives. Many of our students are single parents. Many of our
students live very much on the edge, and it is very difficult for many of those students to leave
their homes and travel some distances to get to some of our campuses. And I think that that’s a
great tragedy, because I can’t think of anything that would prepare such people, who are living
lives like this, for a better life, than if they had access to the university. I think that’s so
important. So what I want to do is to bring the university to where some students potentially can
be who may find it very difficult to get to our campuses. I brought in John Mollenkopf, who is a
very distinguished member of this faculty, and asked him to brief the council of presidents, first
to brief me, on his sense of what demographic changes have occurred in this city in the last
decade according to the 2000 census, where people are coming from, and where they’re living;
and to use that information to inform us how we might be able to place (what used to be called or
now is called at some of the great state universities) "extension centers." I would like to do more
of that. The problem is that it takes a capital investment. It’s an investment in the future of
CUNY. Here we have, in CUNY on the Concourse, a partnership with 1199. Dennis Rivera is
someone I have great respect for. I think he cares deeply about his membership and giving them
access to education to advance their goals. He approached me about a partnership creating an
opportunity for his members, who are now not coming to CUNY, whom he would like to have
go to CUNY, but who can’t get to some of our campuses, and we thought this was a good idea.
We’ll see. I’m hoping that it will flourish. I’m hoping that students who will go there, will get
turned on to what this university can offer them and then matriculate onto one of our campuses
in a degree program. That’s the idea. It’s the first one that we’re really doing, and we’ll see how
it goes. It’s an experiment for us. If it works, we’ll try to do this strategically around the city, and
we’ll make those judgments as we go along. But that was the whole purpose in what we were
trying to do. Nothing more.
Professor Manassah, City College: Chancellor, I applaud what you have sent to the Presidents
asking for the consultation with the faculty bodies. That was courageous and really a leadership
trope. Now to be able really to do this job properly, there are two requirements for it.
Information should become available. So there really should be some guidelines--at what time of
the year would one know what expenditures have happened in the last year, because you know
part of the budget process is that you do it a little bit by trial and error. You have to know what
you did last year, and you fine-tune it, and there should be some kind of deadline by which
colleges should make their expenditures for the previous year become public. I mean there have
been cases where five months after the close of the fiscal year such data was not available, so I
think it would be worthwhile if there could be some guidelines. Chancellor Goldstein: Jamal, I
agree with that. I did this at Baruch. We used to make the budget very transparent to anybody
who cared to look at it, and there was no obfuscation. There was no hiding. We really wanted to
keep this out in the sunlight. The fact is, if you look at our budgets very closely, as I have over
the years, there is very little discretion unfortunately. That’s one of the great tragedies in our
budget. After you line it out, these presidents have very, very little discretionary power in the
way they manage their budgets because it is so overwhelmingly dominated by personnel.
However, if indeed we try to change the culture, where presidents really see a good part of their
job is to spend time advancing the goals of their college through raising funds in a variety of
ways (and it’s not just about going to somebody who is very wealthy and asking them to write a
large check). There’s lots of ways that colleges could generate income. Then I think the notion of
how presidents are spending money is going to be a lot more interesting to people. Right now,
quite frankly, when you line a budget out, there’s very little leeway that a president has.
Professor Manassah: But this is the second point that I want to bring up, which is really that
many campuses have felt that they only need to discuss what is the tax levy budget. I think we
should really as a university start to look at an all-source budget, where everything really is put
on the table, so you know where one can make some choices. A lot of the flexibility comes from
non-tax-levy sources, and I think it would be kind of good to the university, to our students, to
our standing in the public eye, if we are transparent with respect to an all-source budget.
Chancellor Goldstein: I believe in an all-funds budget. I’ve always believed in it. I think it’s the
right thing to do.
Every place else in the world uses an all-funds budget except CUNY because there hasn’t been a
tradition of raising money in this institution, and I think once that happens, that gets embedded
into the overall operating budget, and it becomes transparent. So I agree with those principles.
Let me just end by wishing all of you happy holidays, a good healthy and happy new year. It’s
going to be bumpy, and we’ve just got to join hands. We can snipe at each other, and that’s fine.
That’s what universities do and do it well, and there’s nothing wrong with that. But here’s where
we’re really going to have to pull together. I in particular am going to need to have the counsel of
the faculty. I’ve traditionally listened to faculty. I will continue to listen to faculty, but there’s
going to come a point in time when things are going to have to happen here, unless there is a real
turnaround, and we’re going to do our best to try to preserve the core business of the university,
and I know that some of you cringe when I use the term "core business," but you know what it is
that I mean. It is teaching. It is giving academic support services for our students. It is enabling
faculty to do their best work. That to me is what the university is really about, and I’m going to
need your support. Given that there’s not going to be new money coming in to start redeploying
some of those dollars so that we can indeed get back into the market and hire faculty, I don’t
even want to think about reducing faculty. I want to think about hiring more faculty, providing
more academic services. Those of you who are scientists, to give you opportunities to do good
work in your laboratories. That’s what I think we really ought to be focused on and that’s what I
intend to do. So enjoy your holidays, and it’s good to see you.
b. Chair: A quick report from the chair. The Executive Committees of the University Faculty
Senates of both CUNY and SUNY met together last week. It was an interesting session. We
informed each other of various things. We discovered, for instance, that the chancellors of both
universities have been instructed by the governor to not ask for a budget, and the chancellor of
SUNY took it so seriously he presented no budget. The budget that will come from the governor
therefore will have absolutely no input from SUNY. The governor’s budget this year will appear
someplace in mid-January, and it is bound to be terrible. We also discovered a consequence that
we could have predicted. The SUNY Trustees had interfered with the curriculum of the SUNY
campuses by putting, or by prescribing what is meant by general education for the campuses.
The net result in this first year has been that students coming from community colleges to the
senior colleges are being forced to take courses that they never got at the community colleges
because they weren’t offered at the community colleges, but they are part of the trustee
prescription. But even worse, the only way they can get the courses is to be given them at the
senior colleges, which puts an enormous burden on the senior colleges of hiring faculty whom
they normally would not be hiring, and therefore the senior colleges are faced with a
translocation of faculty, either in having them teach things that the faculty at that campus are not
terribly interested in or hiring new faculty and causing deficits, holes, seriously, in the campuses.
So the interference of the trustees at SUNY has had a remarkable effect that all of us could have
predicted and as a matter of fact some of us did predict, and the faculty of SUNY are now very
conscious of the fact that this has occurred.
The budget for CUNY is a mysterious document which I think no two people I know understand.
The only clear thing about the budget that was passed on Monday is that it says things that
nobody understands. But what it does say is that we’re asking for about $45 million less than the
worst budget that we had prepared. Since the thing is not detailed, it’s not even clear what the
gaps will be in the budget because if and when there is money, nobody has written a document
which indicates what things will be supported and what things will have a higher priority than
other things. So we are in very, very serious trouble. It’s not at all clear whether the serious
trouble is a Trustee problem or a Chancellery problem, or some loving combination thereof. The
likelihood is that it’s the loving combination thereof. The other problem that occurred with
SUNY, which required some difficulty in understanding--they settled a contract and had a
contract a year ago. The question obviously is, where did the money come from for the contract,
and normally both SUNY and CUNY would be supported by a money bill which would put
enough money in the budget to cover the cost of the contract. The SUNY budget was not
augmented. What did occur was that SUNY scratched around and pulled money out of every
pocket they had. When you pull money out of pockets, the pockets go empty, and they don’t get
replenished. So this year, they’re not having any problem with meeting the contract, but they
have no guarantee of any sort that their contract costs will be met next year. And this is what I’m
afraid we will be facing, because it’s the same governor that SUNY faces as we face, and he
really doesn’t love us--pointedly doesn’t love us. Well, these are several things that have
occurred in the last couple of weeks.
Professor McCall: Well, when Vasilios mentioned contract, you ruled him out of order, and
you’re referring to contract. Professor Baumrin: No, he’s not. He’s referring to funding.
Professor McCall: Funding for the contract, but I must say, if I may speak with a union hat.
Chair Sohmer: I would really prefer not. Professor McCall: Well, we know that the money is
there. Professor Petratos: Can we speak about the budget please if we can, can we? Chair
Sohmer: There’s nothing you can really say about this budget because it’s a deep mystery.
Professor Petratos: Well, it’s a mystery then. Say it’s a mystery. Chair Sohmer: I just did. Are
there any other questions? Before we go on to the agenda, are there any other items?
Professor Baumrin: With respect to this discussion we just had with Schaffer: It seems to me
perfectly clear that it's Schaffer operating on his own and requiring the Chancellor to back him,
because that's the way we reached the law and its imposition on the university. I think we need to
have, if we want to take this seriously, a strategy that we can agree on, and that needs to be done
in secrecy. I know that there's a motion on the agenda that's going to come up soon. What
occurred to me during this discussion is that it seemed to me that the catalog constitutes a
contract, and our university is bound to that during the course of the year. I know the City
University is never bound by anything. That seems to me the one weakness to the case that
Schaffer brought and he's not really responding to it. I thought I would mention that now. I
assume we will have this discussion on the resolution at some point soon. Chair Sohmer: Yes,
shortly.
Professor Manassah: Should we do something so the presidents of the colleges are informed that
this is what the chancellor said at this meeting? Chair Sohmer: We can send the minutes of this
meeting with a highlight to each of the presidents. Professor Manassah: Or could you as an
Executive Committee maybe have a resolution that stresses these points and saying that we
strongly support the chancellor’s position on this? Professor Levine: I would point out that the
Schmidt Report called for an all-funds budgeting approach, and so in this instance we are on the
side of the chair of the Board.
Chair Sohmer: Any other things? Well, the agenda is before you. There’s a resolution on
academic freedom.
IV. Old business:
a. Resolution Affirming Academic Freedom : A point of information was raised, inquiring as
to whether we were reaffirming the AAUP statement or not, and as a Senate we had not. The
resolution was approved overwhelmingly, with one nay.
b. Resolution on Increasing Tuition for Undocumented Immigrants:
Bill Crain: I thought the questions that came from Stefan and Steve and others were excellent
also, and that we could put in a further Whereas clause that Whereas the university in effect has a
contract with the students in CUNY, although it probably extends to the high schools, too, in the
sense that teachers always tell the students in the high schools if you work hard, you will go to
university. This is your goal. It’s built into the K-16 system. If they work their best and study
hard, they will go to the university. This is told to every student in the system. This is the ethos
of the city in the public schools. But anyhow, I think if something to that effect would be a
Whereas, it would maybe strengthen it. [This was not phrased as a motion. Therefore, there was
no second.]
Unidentified: Did somebody sit down and really do a proper economic study? Chair Sohmer: No.
As far as I know, there is no study in CUNY which tells you what the impact would be, were we
to do it, not do it, or anything else. Why that’s true, I have no idea.
Professor Baumrin: I move that the first Whereas be modified as follows: "Whereas CUNY’s
general counsel has decided that CUNY must immediately charge undocumented immigrants
out-of-state tuition beginning during the middle of the academic year," instead of "in-state
tuition, etc." The third whereas you have to change "most" to "many." They have no statistics;
we have no statistics. The second Resolved, "that the university calls on the Chancellor to
postpone implementation on the new policy until the legislature has an opportunity to act."
Chair Sohmer: May I assume that all four changes have now been approved as alterations to the
resolution?
Professor Crain: No, I hate to postpone the approval, but I want to speak-Chair Sohmer: I believe that Brian was first.
Professor Gallagher: There’s just something I think everyone in the room is aware of, but I
would like to put it on the record, and perhaps it should have been said while the counsel was
here. Even if you grant the feasibility of his legal argument that we need to be in compliance, I
think the context in which compliance is being enacted--the incredible rise in anti-immigrant
sentiment over the last few months, the fact that this country has literally, not to be
melodramatic, but to be factual, passed laws that allow illegal immigrants to be detained, tried
and sentenced to death in private certainly makes this an incredibly unfeasible time to implement
this as a show of patriotism on the part of the university.
Professor Baumrin: I think you should have said that to him while he was here, because that’s
something he should hear.
Professor Gallagher: I think it’s just so obvious to us.
Professor Baumrin: I don’t think it’s obvious to him.
Professor Crain: We didn’t have time to say everything we wanted, and they didn’t want to talk
about it. Anyway, I would substitute as a motion an alternative which we’ve been discussing and
Stefan’s been discussing, that to be in compliance with the law, the university could decide to
charge all undergraduates, out-of-state and in-state, in-state tuition, and that would require no
action by the legislature and it would bring us into compliance with the law. So that’s an option.
Chair Sohmer: But we can only vote for one resolution.
Professor Crain: So therefore I am saying that as a substitute motion, we strike the term "until the
legislature has an opportunity to act." We don’t need that. We just want a moratorium on the new
policy, period.
Chair Sohmer: So you’re moving to strike the last clause.
Professor Crain: Yes, the last clause, "Until the legislature has an opportunity to act." I don’t
think we need that, and we have options besides putting all our eggs in the legislative basket.
Professor Baumrin: Whoa, whoa. I don’t think you understand the strength of your own motion. I
think the strength of your motion is that it lets them save face, and given the New York State
legislature’s track record, this is a two-, three-, four-year.... This is not overnight. So if they’re
going to save face, you don’t want them to save face and then get this back in June and start the
whole thing again.
Chair Sohmer: Well, you’re making a motion. Is there a second to Bill’s motion? Okay. Fails for
want of a second. All those in favor of the resolution as professed in the last 20 minutes. All
those in favor of this resolution as edited, please say Aye.
The resolution was passed unanimously.
Professor Kaplowitz: All I want to say is that the very first phrase, "Whereas CUNY’s general
counsel has decided," as Rick Schaffer said, he made an advisory opinion to the chief operating
officer, the Chancellor. This decision was made by the central CUNY administration. It was not
made by one lawyer. The lawyer gave advice. The CUNY central administration made the
decision. I really think it should say, "Whereas the CUNY central administration has decided that
CUNY must charge undocumented..."
Chair Sohmer: "...upon advice of counsel." Alright, we’ll alter that. We’ll make it historically
correct. Is there anything else?
Professor Crain: Just pro forma, perhaps, but since it puts it in the hands of the legislature, I think
it should be disseminated widely to the state legislature, even more widely than usual, because
that’s really where it’s directed.
Chair Sohmer: And even the news media. Well, have a good vacation, and we’ll meet again.
Meeting was adjourned at 8:00 p. m.