CUNY Board of Trustees Committee on Faculty, Staff and Administration Meeting 060717

Well, some of the
committee had to take a… We can start. Okay. The… Committee on Faculty,
Staff and Administration Meeting is going to order. First action item is the
approval of the minutes. I presume we’ve all had
the chance to review them. Are there any changes, comments, hearing none may have
a motion to approve? -Some move.
-Second. -All in favor?
-Aye! The minutes are approved. Now we move on to
our policy items and I’ll ask acting general
counsel Jane Sovern to produce to rather
present the first item relating to guidelines for
presidential searches. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. You all may remember that
this item was discussed at the last meeting,
the February meeting and that there was the sense
of the Committee was that… well, just to step
back for a moment, the change that was… the
subject of discussion was having essentially
external representatives to be potentially part of
the search committee, as part of the
group of trustees, senior level administrators and then they could be
external representatives. And there was a request
from the Committee to define that a little
more precisely and to have some parameters and so the revised
language essentially says the total number of
appointed trustees and senior level
administrators and/or external constituent
representatives shall not exceed five. External constituent
representatives shall have a record of significant
commitment to the campus and may include
alumni or donors but may not be elected officials or staff members of
elected officials. What section are we
reading from? This is on page 2,
Trustee Agreements. It is in the… on my
copy of the red lines. It is in the third
paragraph on page 2 and where the it’s the one
with a lot of red in it. And it starts
with the words, Senior level administrators. So I believe as the
committee knows that the other changes
were essentially just minimal clean
up and including the graduate school of public
health in this process. And that’s really the… and the diversity language
was made more current. So those are the changes
to the guidelines. Before any
questions or comments, can I have a motion to
approve and a second? -So move.
-Second. Questions and comments
on these changes? Mr. Barnhart? So, we discussed this
rather extensively at the executive Committee in
the University Graduate Center. And I think in
general we’re happy with the direction
that this is going and we think expanding
the number of people or the kinds of people who
can sit on these searches is generally a good thing. I think where there
were concerns, we felt that those concerns
could be addressed and we were thinking of
proposing language to suggest that maybe there should be consultation
with the campus of some sort in
determining, you know, in a particular case whether,
you know, an external… a particular external
constituent was a good one to add to it,
to a search committee. My understanding is that
that general… that does happen when
the search committees are being constituted because
there is consultation about the alumnus or alumna
who is on the committee and that this
would be part of that existing consultation
that happens. Since the individual does
have to have you know a record of significant
commitment, you know, I think that… I don’t think there
needs to be a requirement in
the guidelines. I think there will be… I
mean, I think there is already and would be consultation
for the composition. Yeah. I think you’re
absolutely right and almost all circumstances
there would be I just think that some faculty would
feel reassured if there was just
some genuflection to the idea of campus
consultation. I mean, could…
perhaps we could… I’m just trying to
think, you know. I think it’s — I think it
would sort of tie up the policy by sort of
getting into various specifics of consultation because if you have consultation
for this but not that, I’m wondering if there is a
place we could put that, you know, that would
Earlier when yeah. That would sort of reflect
the sense of the body that consultation is
important with the campuses, is important. We’d certainly
be open to that. So… and that we could
even have something on the record at
the board meeting, you know, with that being acknowledged if that would
be acceptable to everyone, you know, to
have comments and that being acknowledged as part of the record
of the adaption. Right. Does anyone else have a…
I don’t understand this, maybe I’m it’s just the
end of the day. The five trustees
can be appointed. But they can. Right, not just these. Up to five
trustees appointed by the chairperson of the board. Oh, I’m sorry. Am I correct? Right. And then your three
tenured faculties? Yes. And then we have senior
level administrators or and/or representatives of
external constituencies. They’re part of
the five trustees. There’s the bundle is up
to five people that trustees, senior level administrators and/or external constituents. So that’s the…
and modification. In other words, until…
if we adopt this, there can no longer
be five trustees. There could be. in other words there’s
flexibility in that category. There could be… all
five of those people could be trustees. But if we want
to appoint a external constituent
representative which significant
commitment to the campus that
may include alumni or donors but may not
be elected officials. In order for them to come, it’s at the expense
of a trustee. Or a senior level
administrator. Yes. Right. Seems to come out of senior
level administrators. Yeah. Actually, from the way
I’ve seen this configured Right and… but the senior
level administrators are now an external
representative is added to that mix,
is that right? That’s right. Right. So it doesn’t come out of
the three tenured faculty. No, no. the faculty and…
So if… -student representation stays
-Remains the same. So… why are we doing this? I think… I mean, why
are we doing it at the expense of
possibly a trustee vote? I think that the idea is that…
Let’s… I don’t know that’s
what it says. Well, explain it. Okay. I’m lost. Look, I’m lost. Well, there would be… so, there will be up to five trustees. I think that as I
understand it that there was a sense that
there were times when some trustees who
had participated in a number of searches were would have liked a
little break from and that they…
that they might have been a little tired from a
number of searches and that there was
interest in having some flexibility
in this category. For the sake of clarity, let’s just define what
this universe is. Sure. Because you know, Trustee
Gribetz makes a very good point but let’s — we’re
talking about five, -Some combination
-Right. if my reading of
the English language still works at this
time of day, trustees, up to five but
that number loses some meaning in
paragraph three, senior level administrators
and faculty. No. Senior level
administrators and… And external cons…
external folks. The faculty are separate and they remain the
same proportion and the students are
separate and they remain Okay. And then there is…
there’s already one alumnus or alumna and this
gives the flexibility of within that group to have because I know that
the chancellor and others had expressed
significant interest in having folks who have
significant connection to the college,
like alumni, like donors, like others who have given a lot to
the college and are very there are people who can
help with recruiting who have the best interest
of the college at heart and that’s what the
interest is in some cases. And there’s flexibility
here so that maybe it would be five trustees, maybe it would be
three trustees and two administrators but that there is a flexibility
to include a rep, you know, representatives,
so the external So the only thing that could
change from search to search is the mix Of that group. Of trustees… Senior
level administrators. Yes. -Exactly. And external.
-External people. Can I ask a question? And I’m sorry, I know Mike
already made a comment for us and I apologize
I came in late. I guess to your
point, Jane, that there was concern
that the trustees, you know, would be bogged down with day long searches which
I can totally relate to after you’ve
done a couple, maybe you don’t
want to do more, it kind of raise the
question in my mind then if that was one of
the rationales, why it wasn’t in the
trustee section but more importantly as I
hope Michael already communicated to you,
we support the idea that there might be
external constituents that are very valuable and that could be
helpful to a search. And we don’t even think
that, you know, we should have be happy to try
to define them and say they’re not this
and they’re not that. We would just like to
see in the exceptions to these guideline sections,
something that simply says, you know, if there are times
when external constituents are needed for
whatever reason that consultation would be made
with the faculty governance and the student governance
of the related campus. And we know consultation is a
very low bar here at CUNY. It needs more or less most
of the time you tell us. But we don’t see that as
being a very big thing. That’s not the…
I understand… So I disagree with
what you said but that’s not
the issue for me. Right. No, I understand the issue
is whether the Trustees and Well, yes. Exactly. Which I… We have a situation
where we want five trustees Right. And we want the
external involvement. But we still have an
alumna or alumnus. -And we… yes, and
-yes, all right. So we’d like to — In other
words — Right. This is giving us more
flexibility, not less. May I suggest you… Well, to me more flexibility is that if the chancellor
wants to put a external
representative on, he can do it at the same term
as he has five trustees. So it’s not the
flexibility. I think it limits
flexibility. Part of the concern was
that the proportion of faculty and students on the
committee remain the same and that they not be that is an important
value in these searches. And that remains the same. -And that remains
-Unchanged. So in other words,
there wasn’t a desire to add another person
to the total mix. It was the desire to keep
the total mix the same and have a little bit more
flexibility within the mix. So it’s not to get
bogged down and submit, what this consultation
mean, what does notice mean, I presume general counsel
could advise us on it because when somebody
puts out a term that is suggestive of a process,
we all ought to know what it means before
we accept the term. Yeah. We’ve actually
asked for that many times in other instances when it’s suggested
in something else that we consulted in
and we’re not… I’m not certain I’m not certain that…
you know, okay. Just consult me,
ask your consent, I don’t know about that. Right. Consult means ask your
opinion and listen. And that’s how it’s been
interpreted here in CUNY. I’m taking it
still counts — Then if that… That’s what
consult mean… Then if that there was a clear understanding
of that from the committee. I don’t see why we need to
get bogged down further in any of the other you know, if this is
a good proposal, doesn’t need an
amendment because that’s my understanding of it, that is clearly our intent. We are recorded. Minutes are taken. We have defined what
we mean by this. But right now it doesn’t
hold the consultation. If we’re saying it is our intent
that there be consultation I think it’s our intent that there be consultation
with the campus. I believe that’s
what I heard you say. Right. I mean the… and that
my understanding is that happens when these
committees are put together. I don’t think there is a
specific intent to consult with you know, I don’t know how it
typically works with faculty or student
governance on that. Well, my understanding is
the way it works now and someone else who have served
in a search can correct me but right now, the campus
involvement is limited to asking the campus for the
faculty representatives but we’re not consulted or considered about any of
the other representatives. Right. But not the faculty. But the… but I think the
campus is also asked about the alumnus or the… The president of the
college or something. Yeah. Presumably, yeah. Or if there is an
alumnus or… Yeah. Also senior level
administrators. Right. I think also there would
be consultation there to. Right. I thought you and
I though were… We’re heading in the direction
of maybe putting something earlier in the document
that stress consultation or was I misinterpreting
what you were saying. I mean, what I was talking about
was campus consultation. Yeah. Not necessarily, you know,
specific consultation with the faculty governance
body at the campus. But do not… I
mean, trustee That my understanding is
that would be a change from what’s being done. You know… To Trustee Ferrer’s
point in terms of language, when we say
campus consultation, if we use that term, that often means you’ve
spoken to the president, I mean, that doesn’t mean
open to anybody else. So again, if we’re saying
that the understanding is consultation simply
means you inform and ask opinions at such a
low bar that simply say, if you want to expand the search
to an external constituency, you inform and
ask an opinion. It doesn’t mean you have
to take their opinion. It doesn’t mean
you have to agree. Is there also an explicit
understanding that this does not imply consent? Yes. I mean, we’ve seen that
a multitude of times. -We
-okay. -We
-yes. So that’s why we think asking
for that is pretty nominal. Are there any
issue with that? Well, I can’t fully speak
for the chancellor. I think that he
wanted to… I think he’s comfortable with campus
consultation rather than, you know, going to each
specific piece of governance, you know, on every search. Oh no. If it’s campus consultation, which is what I heard you said. Well, I had said campus
and you’re saying governance. I think that…
Well, no, no. You know… never mind. -I’m sorry.
-That’s fine. We can’t go to the
lawyer for this thing. No, no, no. I don’t have a lawyer and I
spoke with Chika beforehand, the student representative
agree with us that it needs to
say governance because campus means
the president. It doesn’t mean we
find out about it. If I may, there is a clear
place for consultation with governance in terms
of selecting faculty. I think there is a broader
role for consultation with whomever is leading the
institution at the time, the president, president’s
cabinet, maybe foundation, board members and so on. But I don’t think…
well, my position is that consultation currently
takes place with the various sectors
for the particular sector representatives. So faculty absolutely
consultation with our faculty caucus
leader, maybe with the PSC. Students, with student
government and others. And for the general campus, for instance the external person that we’re
attempting to put here, would be the
campus president and maybe the foundation
board and so on. I would not see myself if this is what we’re
trying to achieve, and role for
governance in that. Governance role is for
faculty representation and student representation. I don’t know if I’ve added
anything to the table. I think you’ve said… I
think you’ve said what I was trying rather
in-artfully to say. Thank you. And I think President
Keizs is absolutely right. The faculty and the
students don’t expect to be consulted over who are the
choice of administrators. We don’t expect to be
consulted over -who are the choice trustee
-Right. But to the extent where
expanding this now to an external group, that is where we thought
it’s shared governance that we should be consulted
low bar as it might be. I don’t… I mean, I… well, I
guess I don’t understand I think that’s just take Push back to consultation. I think that’s just
taking it too broadly. I mean, part of what
we are hoping to do, I believe, I mean, so
we have the trustees, we know that. And we’re looking at some other
external representative who may have a significant
interest in the campus, an alum, for instance, a foundation board member. I mean I keep going back
to that significant funding so it happens
that my place. Now, the chair of my
foundation is also an alum. I would imagine that
if I were not there and you were looking
for a president, you might want to consult with whomever
the president is and say “Who am I to be bring in
on this who knows the college, who understand.” So I’m seeing that and I
don’t see a role at all in that for even the
students necessarily or the faculty you know but I do speak from the
presidential point of view. I want to get
back to basics. We have a search
committee. The chairman appoints
the membership, right? The membership must currently be
three tenured faculty members, a student representative and… Two students. -What?
-Two students. Two student rep
and trustees. Yes, there will be
trustees on the… So now, it’s like ten people, five trustees, three, two. This is an effort
not to exceed ten because two of the five can be a
senior level administrator or a representative of the
extent of constituency. Is that correct? -Correct. Yes.
-Okay. And then we take a vote. We do and we report
to the chancellor and the chancellor
has the last word. -Correct.
-Right? So there is the
possibility that a search can have
only three trustees. Yes. I think part of this came
from the chancellor’s view that there were
so many searches and although limited
number of trustees and to be able to
put five trustees on every search was
becoming almost impossible to fill those
five places and I think that was the
whole rationale behind where they opened it up
to external people. Right, I understand that
but the event might have been an aberrational event
in the sense that we didn’t have so many
vacancies at one time. And it was always up
to five with… including the two senior
level administrators. So we’ve had searchers
where there have only been three trustees, right? Yes. And up to two. So that combined group
has always been five. All we’re doing is now
allowing that combined group to potentially be two
trustee group at this point, it could be two trustees now,
two administrators. Right, but remember
the administrators are a fairly recent change. That’s only in the last
few years so it had been just trustees at
a certain point and now with administrators. I think it maybe 2015. That’s fairly recent but
that change was done. I’m not looking for
the full work or acquainted by the governor and the mayor
and under the statutes that creates us the trustees
run the show with the we have the
ultimate responsibility. And I’m just… it’s
like a dilution of a statutory responsibility. No. I agree but I have two trustee
key point is that where I think I was the
part of the… I was on one of the
search committees and I couldn’t go to
all the meetings. I understand. It was incredibly
labor intensive and they were like desperate to have a number
of trustees so there was a real
practical problem. Under this new
configuration, it can be reduced to three, not more than three not
to be available, could it be
reduced to two? No. I don’t think so. I think it could actually. I’m looking at
the language. Yeah, you could. You could be down
to one trustee. Thank you. No, it says, it ensures a minimum of three
appointed trustees. It says here in
the language. Where is it? Which paragraph? In the open, in the
first summary page, It does show a minimum of three
appointed trustees. With the head of college
president on the committee. Well, that could be more
of the administrators. This can be. Pardon? I was trying to be funny. Oh, sorry. I take everything so
seriously Trustee Gribetz especially when I’m
talking to trustees. Yeah but I don’t
think it says that I don’t think that it
says that in the it’s a summary but
it’s not in here. Right. It’s not in the
actual guidelines. -It should be in the
-Guidelines, not the explanation. -But the — it should
-yes. It should be — Yeah, it doesn’t say
it has to be three. Where is that? I don’t see that. We’re not seeing it. It’s in the summary of the
resolution on cover page. It’s in the cover page. It’s not in the
resolution. Well, actually, there’s
this school of thought that says it does. It’s intent. Yeah. Yeah. If we don’t have
to rely on intent… All right, so. Let me ask you a question. -Is this ready for the
-Not just in the Consultation to my
mind is not No, not looking for a vote. If — I actually think
that this does say that it has to be at
least three trustees because the paragraph that says senior
level administrators and/or representative of
external constituencies, right, so it’s up to two
administrators and/or external constituencies so and the total number of trustees and those other
two must be five. No, it says shall
not exceed five. Right but the point is…
It doesn’t say it has… Two people, you can have of the
group of administrators and external constituencies, you can have up to two. Right. So in other words, there
couldn’t be fewer than three trustees
on the committee. No, no. What I’m saying is I agree
with you with the two but what I’m saying is up in
the trustee sections says, up to five. -So why don’t we
-No, I see. I see how you’re
reading it. You’re reading the second
part thing up to two but what I’m saying is the
first part doesn’t say has to be a minimum of five
less that number down below. So why don’t we inject
somewhere external We can use plain English. It shall be at least
three trustees. If we just inject that, there should be a minimum
of three trustees. Absolutely, yup, right. But can be a
maximum of five. If we just injects
that language. We could solve
that problem. Okay. And that somebody
will offer that. It’s done. I offered it. Okay. I’ll second it too. I’m beginning to
think we’re married. Direct at the hips. Yes. Are we talking about
paragraph three -Trustee Gribetz?
-What? Amending paragraph three? Yes and two. To specify three trustees. Okay. Who ever made the motion,
do you accept the amendment? Yes, I do. Okay. Are we ready to vote? Yes. So the use of consultation
is dead issue? Why? Or we’re doing
that separately? What are we doing? -The consultation.
-Consultation. To my mind, using plain
English, consultation, it means what it is. You can give your opinion,
you don’t have a vote. -Right. Right.
-Right, that’s it. We just want to see
the word consultation. But there is a
consultation already that happens at the campus. Right but… And this can’t be
done without it. So are you trying to Please. Is there a concern that the faculty
as a whole may want an opinion at a
campus, specific to… I think the concern is
that it’s not really… I think that the system
has consultation as President Keizs said, the faculty,
the governances consulted to get the faculty members
on the committee, the governances consulted to get
the students on the committee and that the campus as
President Keizs said it can be the
president, the cabinet, other senior folks
at the campus and that starting to say more about
consultation I think could suggest that there
is additional formal governance consultation
that really isn’t necessary. So what words would you
suggest to clarify? I don’t think it needs
clarification because I think that it’s clear that
there has to be consultation to get the faculty and the
students with governance and that this is…
I think it’s clear that the campus is
consulted about the other you know the senior
administrators and the… and the external
constituencies. Where’s… I’m not… I
guess Jane, to that point. I’m not following where that
campus consultation even exists. I mean I understand exactly what
President Keizs was saying but let’s take for example the senior level
administrators forgetting from whole this issue,
external constituents. Where is it say you know
how the senior level administrator
being chosen. We know that most of the
time it works that they call the president and
they ask et cetera but arguably, it doesn’t
say that anywhere. I think what… at least I
can see what’s going on, you’re not… you’re a
different entity, okay? In other words, there’s another
entity that can be consulted. That could be these
senior administrators and trustees, now the
“the union”. Leave out the union. You know what I’m saying
but that’s an entity and you are thinking that
the chancellor’ thinking that’s a slippery slope
that maybe other entities. Well, there’s also I mean
yeah, I mean there’s there’s certainly
consultation specified in the procedures which is
at the bottom of page two that’s with respect to
the report for the search committee indicating
needs and priorities. So there is certainly… that
consultation is specified. Then would you please
review those areas so that we have complete
clarity on this on this proposal even though
it is not being changed? I think you made a good
point Jane at the bottom of procedures
where it says, a chancellor will designate
someone to confer with the appropriate
constituencies. I mean it’s already
suggesting that the faculty and other like the governance
leaders et cetera are being consulted in some way
about the shape of the search. Don’t think honestly that
that’s occurring right now beyond faculty for faculty,
students for students. Then that’s a different
issue from this. Right. Yeah, this is
very different. This is about identifying
the proprieties of the college. That would be
very appropriate. You can’t do that without
consulting of them. My thought was and I guess
my maybe my thought is slightly different from
Keizs and I suppose this indicates that there may
be some division of opinion amongst the
faculty in some… I mean this is a
new thing for us and we’re also… you
have to understand we’re mired in tradition
so it’s very difficult for us to pull
ourselves out of that. But I think there is a… when I
think of campus consultation and why
I don’t think it’s necessarily
unrelated to governance. At every campus, there is
a governance body that represents the
entire college. Even if there is a
faculty senate, there’s still a
college counselor, something of that nature that represents
everybody, students, senior level administration,
the faculty and so forth and it seems to me that you
know if I was doing a search and I had control
over this or anything and was putting
people together for a search for a president, let’s say Kingsborough I
would go to that body, the college council
and I would say these people where thinking
including in the search. When you… if I were
doing that and I would say these are people were thinking of doing
the implication is and if you think
differently, tell me. That implies a
different process that’s not specified here. Would you enlighten me
on your thinking there? Well that doesn’t
mean that they take a vote at the college council. It’s an informational
item that can be… there can be discussion. It doesn’t mean that the council
has any kind of veto power over what… So that’s a
different bar. That’s kind consultation. -That’s consultation.
-That’s consultation. We’re not asking
for a vote. No on was suggesting it,
but I mean… Right but that’s how we understand the
word consultation it’s the way it’s generally
played out of the campuses and when the
campus consults, that’s how we have understood
campus consultation. Now of course it can be…
it’s a very loose term, the president can be consulted and that can
represent the campus, in fact the president
is a representative of the campus. I’d be willing… I don’t
know how Kaye feels. I would be willing myself. I’m speaking for myself
at this point to accept campus consultation with
the understanding that that might not always be a
discussion in front of the college council or
something of that nature. But I do think that it
gives a college an option of doing that and I think
that’s a good thing. I don’t think that this
kind of discussion is ever a bad thing. So I would recommend that. I am pretty confident that
the Chancellor feels that there’s a lot
of engagement. I really think the way
President Keizs expressed it is I don’t need to
reiterate it. I think that there’s
appropriate engagement with appropriate sectors
in the way it works you know. I suppose it’s possible
that we could put on the first page there’s the
process which is the second paragraph when
we say we could add and the campus. In other words when a vacancy
occurs or certain to occur, the chairperson of the board
shall after consultation with the chancellor
and the campus establish a search committee
to seek a new president. I honestly don’t think
that’s necessary because I think that happens already and I think that the
problem is if you add this, I think you get folks who think
that there may need to be consultation with
the college council. Or, the governance which
you know it is… is not the typical way that it’s
done except with respect to the particular
constituency. So you know I think that
it’s — I think it’s — it’s trying… it’s informalizing
something I think it could it could
create more discord by folks who think somehow
they’re entitled to something that they’re really,
really not entitled to. So I think it’s… I
think it’s problematic. I think it’s — that there is
consultation about the committee and I think the more — the
more thorough consultation happens in terms of the
needs and the priorities and that’s very
clear that there’s you know lots of
participation for that and and set that to take the
temperature of the campus and that seems to me the
right place for that to go into those other places. So that’s what I would suggest
that we correct the issue of the minimum
of three trustees and that we leave
this issue alone and that would be my suggestion. I’m not going to…
will withdraw it. I mean I think we don’t
want to go to the madness. This isn’t the end of…
it’s in a big chip for us and I think we
recognize that. And I think we all
understand there should be an involvement
and engagement. I think the big issue is
and President Keizs might be the opposite
example of this, it varies so dramatically
across campuses. I mean some presidents
go out of their way to engage their faculty, to have conversations,
et cetera and other presidents
unless you show it to them and you say “Here’s
the requirement.” They don’t do it. I mean president Keizs is a
perfect example of the opposite. I visited her campus. She said “Please come in,
sit down, talk with me, tell me what
the issues are.” That’s not always the case
for us so that’s why it’s probably hard for a
president who does a good job of it to maybe recognize but it
doesn’t happen anywhere else. I have… I have
flaws elsewhere. So we’ll pull back. It’s not the end of
the world for us. Well then it’s a good thing
we had this conversation because it
adds some clarity to everybody’s understanding
of how this should work and I’m certain that from
this meeting somebody, will send a memo that says
you really would think about doing this and that
would accomplish pretty much the same thing. There was an amendment to
the motion on the floor. Right. Let’s vote on that first. Is there a second
to that amendment? -All in favor?
-Aye! There is a motion on
the floor as amended and it’s been seconded. All in favor? Aye! Motion passes, thank you. Now, we’re ready to go to
amendments to the charter for governance of
Hunter College 1B2. Anybody want to
talk about that? I don’t know if there any
Hunter representatives here. I think there’s
someone here. Well, does it need
a presentation? I mean… No, I think
this is very… We’ve seen it all it -you know
-Yeah, very clear and… -Are we okay with it?
-Yeah, we’re good. Motion? second? Second. There is no
controversy on this? -All in favor?
-Aye! Passes, thank
you very much. Governance plan for
Lehman College which is essentially the
same level of change. Right, just keeping
the number twelve. Is there a motion? So moved. -Second.
-I second. Any conversation on this Hearing none, all in favor? Aye. The amendment passes and I’ll ask Vice
Chancellor Waters to present the following
three items as a group. We have three naming
opportunities to consider representing gifts to the
totaling $1.6 million dollars. Hannelore S. and Robert M. Block Commons at
Hunter College, the Elizabeth Hemmerdinger screening center also
at Hunter College and the Deena Axelrod Perry
pool at Queens College. The Block Commons is a
student study area with the Silverstein Success
Center in Hunter’s Library which is being named for
the blocks and recognition of a $500,000 gift to the
Hunter College Foundation. The Hemmerdinger Screening
Center is also located in the Silverstein Success
Center in Hunter’s Library and is being named in
recognition of a $100,000 give. The Deena Axelrod Perry
pool is being named in honor of a member of the Queens College
Foundation Board of Trustees who has pledged $1 million
dollars to the college. Saving opportunities
have been reviewed and approved by both the
office of the general counsel in the university’s office of
Institutional Advancement and so I present items
1B4, 1B5, and 1B6 for your consideration. Is there a motion? Second? Any discussion on this? Hearing none? All in favor? Aye! Thank you these are passed
and now I’ll ask Vice Chancellor Waters
to move on to the Chancellor’s
University report. Thank you We have six
appointments to consider on the Chancellor’s
University report which I will present
as a group. They are item 1C1,
appointment of Anne Lopes as interim provost and
senior vice president of academic affairs at John
Jay College of Criminal Justice. Dr. Lopes is a tenured
professor of political science at John Jay and has served
as associate provost for strategic initiatives and Dean of Graduate
Studies since 2013. She has more than 25
years of experience in higher education
administration, graduate and
Professional Studies and International
Studies and programs. Item 1C2 is the
appointment of Reza Fakhari as vice president
for Workforce Development and Strategic Community
Partnerships at Kingsborough
Community College. Dr. Fakhari has spent
more than 12 years at Kingsborough as both
associate Dean of Academic Affairs and
associate provost. He garnered national
recognition for Kingsborough’s
Honors Program and has successfully grown the
college’s Phi Beta Kappa chapter to one of the largest
in the country. Under his direction,
the college received grant funding to create
a new Student Union and Intercultural Center. Dr. Fakhari also created
Kingsborough’s Equity in the Borough campaign
which engages industry and business partners to
provide opportunities to reduce economic and
educational disparities in underserved communities. Item 1C3, appointment
of Nireata Seals as interim vice president
for student affairs at LaGuardia Community College. Dr. Seals has served as
LaGuardia’s associate dean for student access
and achievement since November of 2016 and was previously assistant
dean for student affairs. She has more than 15
years of experience in higher education
administration including leadership positions at Silberman
School of Social Work and Hunter College
Gateway Academy at the City College of New York and DeVry Institute
of Technology. Item 1C4, the appointment
of Gregory Mosher as professor of theater
at Hunter College with a waiver of Section
6.2B of the bylaws. Gregory Mosher is an
internationally acclaimed Tony-winning director and
producer of more than 200 stage productions on and off Broadway
at Lincoln Center and Chicago’s
Goodman Theatre, Great Britain’s Royal
National Theatre and London’s West End. He has taught at a number
of impressive institutions including Julliard,
Columbia and Yale but has never earned tenure. Mr. Mosher’s appointment
represents a high-profile addition to Hunter
College’s Theatre Department and to the University. It is therefore requested
that Section 6.2B of the bylaws be waived granting
Mr. Mosher immediate tenure without having been
previously tenured at another institution. Item 1C5 is the
appointment of Carla Shedd as associate professor of
Urban Education at the CUNY Graduate School
and University Center with a waiver of Section
6.2B of the bylaws. Dr. Carla Shedd is currently
an assistant professor at Columbia
University in the departments of Sociology
and African-American Studies. Considered a rising
star in her field, she has received doctoral and
postdoctoral fellowships to support her research
including awards from the Ford and Mellon foundation and is the author of an
award-winning book. The awarding of immediate
tenure is integral to enticing her to leave
Columbia and therefore the Graduate Center requests
a waiver of the previous tenure requirement in
Section 6.2 of the bylaws. And lastly the appointment
of Jacqueline Clarke as vice president for Finance and Administration at
Medgar Evers College. Ms. Clarke has served at
Medgar for the past year as interim vice president
for finance and administration and
previously held the title of assistant vice president of
Finance and Administration. She has 25 years of experience
within the CUNY system and an extensive
background in finance and administration,
facilities, buildings and grounds. The presidents of the
colleges strongly recommend these
appointments. I therefore present items
1C1 through 1C6 for the committee’s
consideration. Is there a motion on
items 1C1 through 1C5? I move. -Is there a second?
-Second Any discussion on any
of these items? Hearing none,
all in favor? Aye! The items pass, thank you. Now I’ll ask you to
recognize that Section 2 appears for informational
purposes only. There is a new section
to a justification. I think something that we
should — we all should know when people present
their… their credentials but this
looks terrific but again, it is for information. Finally, our last, Dean
Arlene Torres, to take us through the final item on
our agenda, the quarterly faculty diversity report. Good evening. So I’d like to begin this
evening’s conversation on diversity and inclusion by
thanking key members of the CUNY community for
launching critical conversations leading
to concerted action. Chancellor Milliken,
Executive Vice Chancellor and Provost Rabinowitz and
Vice Chancellor Waters are working strategically
to respond to ongoing concerns about the recruitment
and retention of faculty and
staff at CUNY and the Board of Trustees and
this committee in particular has challenged the
CUNY administration and the campuses to be
more transparent and accountable for
institutional change. The annual affirmative
action plans for 2015 and 2016 have served this past
year as key data points for the development of
quarterly report on diversity presented
to the Chancellery, the CUNY Board of Trustees and the
general public and the data presented
is instructive. It provides us information
on the status of the workforce, hires,
market availability and underutilization at CUNY
by gender, ethnicity and race with additional
information about disability and veteran status for
each campus by rank and academic program
and comparative analyses are underway to pinpoint
persistent problems and to identify areas where
progress has been made and we are currently
uploading data for the 2017 affirmative action
plan as well as the Italian-American plan
to further advance our analyses and plan for
actions in the future. The reporting process this
past year has helped us to understand the need
for better information systems, training, the
collection interpretation and dissemination of data
points both quantitative and qualitative that can
help us to promote change. Earlier this month
for example, the office of Recruitment
and Diversity convened a group of 80 deans, department heads,
faculty and chief diversity officers
committed to working together to provide training on
the search recruitment and hiring process
and to access available resources to
diversify the applicant pool and the
professoriate at CUNY. Challenges abound, there
are multiple strategies underway centrally and
across the campuses to retain our faculty but
they also need to be bolstered if CUNY is to
address faculty separation and attrition. What this report does
today is it provides an executive summary and it
is comprised of two parts, the current status of the
faculty workforce and secondly, the under
utilization of faculty by academic fields for
race, ethnicity and gender for each college. And what I would like to
do now is to go through the report that
you have available. It has some charts but it
also has some detailed numerical information as
well as percentages so that you can
see the comparison between 2015 and 2016. Someone I presume is flipping
the pages electronically. -Right here. Good.
-Yes. And you also have a paper
copy of that to more convenient. So among the minority
full-time faculty — Just describe the
page you’re on. On page two. Thank you. It’s also on the screen. Among the minority
full-time faculty CUNY experienced modest numerical
gains from 2015 to 2016, the number of
full-time faculty of color increased by 26 for a
total of 2,594 or 34.5% of the full-time faculty. You’ll note that their
neat is near parity by gender despite the numerical
decrease of females by 28. An Italian-Americans
are protected say CUNY decreased
numerically by 10. If we turn now to page
three, it provides a comparison of full-time
faculty by race and ethnicity from
2015 to 2016. Increases in the
Asian-American and Hispanic categories are
observed and the black African-American,
Italian-Americans and white have experience
a numerical decline. Across all groups the
percentages change is small given the decline in overall full-time
faculty of 72. Page four demonstrates
again in chart form a near parity between males and
females and the number of males though has declined by 44 and
the number of females by 28. If we turn to page five
and we look at the part-time adjunct faculty,
as compare to the slight decrease among full-time
faculty as I said earlier by 72, the total part-time
adjunct faculty has increased by 312. Minorities
increased by 114 and females by 180
over the past year. And I would like you to
note that the percentages of minority adjuncts is
currently at 38.2%, a 3.7 percentages point
above the full-time minority faculty
percentage of 34.5. If you turn to page six,
again we have a visual that helps us to compare the
number and percentage by race and ethnicity and
while there have been numerical gains the
percentage for each group remains stable. In the following slide as
noted for the full-time faculty, there is again near parity
between males and females. On page eight, we provide
you with information on the current status of
full-time and part-time faculty who are veterans or identify as
individuals with disabilities. And I want you to note
that we were not able to provide that information
to you two years ago but at present we are
collecting that information. Is that collection
undertaken manually or? The collection is
undertaken manually. I’ll ask more
about that later. Okay. If we move now to
the new hires, this helps to contextualize
the current status of the faculty that
I just refer to. As compared to the
previous year 193 minority faculty were hired
representing 43.6% of the hires, an Italian-American
hires increased as well. Females comprised 58.2% of
the hires in 2016-2017, so there has been a shift
in the number of females relative to their
male counterparts. On page 11, we drilled
down even further and we compare both the
numerical and percentage change of full-time new hires from
one year to the next, and 43.6% again of the new
hires are minorities as compared to 32.9%
the previous year and so there fine
improvement there. This is again the
demonstration of the parity between
males and females. On page 13 as I noted in
my opening remarks, we’re working to enhance the
Affirmative Action Plan to better inform
action-oriented programs. And so page 13 and 14
provide information on areas where changes have
either been implemented or are underway. So as we roll out the 2017
Affirmative Action Plan we expect to be able to
better provide data that will enhanced the
development of the quarterly report but
that will also allow us to better see changes
both in the short-term and longitudinally. We are also providing
additional training as a result of these changes
over the course of the summer that we expect will
also result in improvement in the Affirmative
Action Plan. What I want to turn to
now is our faculty under utilization report
and that is not on a PowerPoint that is in the information
that you have in your handout. The faculty
underutilization report by academic program
shows the change in underutilization reported
in the 2015-2016 plan. And what you’ll note if
you turn to the first page as an example of architecture
and related services. That the green indicates a
move in a positive direction, the red in a
negative direction and the blue is indicative
of underutilization. And rather than provide you with
an analysis of each chart, what I decided to do is to
focus on the professoriate and not general
areas of concern in a number of
academic fields. And in the interest of
time I just like to review a couple of them. So for example, if you
look at utilization of academic program
for architecture and related services, on the top part I have
written in a commentary and you’ll note
that CCNY for example experiences
underutilization among females across all race
and ethnic groups and among total minority and underutilization
has increased among Hispanics
and or total minority. While females and black
African-American remain underutilize there has
been some improvement, and you’ll note the green. New York City College
of Technology for example experiences
underutilization among females and black African-Americans
remains constant and that’s why you see the
blue indicated there. I’m sorry, just to make sure
I’m reading this correctly. We just look at
this first page and we look at City
College in female, you’re saying that
they have nine, they should have five
more or they should have how am I reading that? They should
have five more. They should have five more
given the current size of the department or given… Given the labor market. Given the availability. So okay, so then in
terms of the mix of the existing department it
should proportionately not five more faculty but five of the
existing faculty that are male should
be female, right? Correct. Okay. And then the one
indicates that they went -one positive in that direction
-That’s correct. last year and going
across under Hispanic they went down too? That’s correct. Just to make sure I’m
reading it correctly. That’s correct, okay. Other questions? Stay on it. So if we turn to page and
look at area ethnic cultural, gender and group studies, you’ll note that
five CUNY campuses and underutilize for females. Yes, it’s in
the next page. The next page. It’s 2 of 36. Underutilization has increased
for females on three campuses and decreased in three and five campuses experienced
underutilization for Asian-Americans in
this field as well. Hunter College for example
has improved its level of underutilization among
females in Asian-Americans however its level of
underutilization remains steady for black
African-Americans and has increased for
Hispanics in total minority. I have another question. Yes. How are you dealing with the
fact that some of the colleges you know these categories
don’t represent departments and whatnot because I’m
looking for example at BMCC, we have an ethnic
cultural affairs which is sort of a subset
of social science because later on you get to
history and different things. It’s headed by
Hispanic woman and you know I’m reading
zeroes under female. So I’m not really…
how do you do that when these don’t fit
these categories? Okay. Each college makes
the decision on how they are going to
create these categories and they will blend
different department to create a particular category. In the case of BMCC where
it’s noted at zero, it is because if the
number of faculty is less than five we
cannot report it. Okay. So what we indicate is zero
even though you may have five or less and in that
group you may have a Hispanic faculty member
or an African-American faculty member but you’ll
see that across the board we have indicated zero
because of those small number. So if it’s less than five
throughout this report for any department it’s
going to come up as zero. That’s correct. And then how do you come up
with the underutilization if they’re zeroes
like the fact that underutilization
also can be a zero? Is that case everywhere? So there may be an
instance where there was a department where there were
six faculty members last year and now there are five. And we have to report
them in this year as zero but they lost one. Right. I can understand
the change column. Mm-hmm. I think that make sense
to me the one in the two, what I don’t understand is how
you get an underutilization number or maybe you
don’t maybe this zero I haven’t look
all the way through. So is every time the
first column is zero the second column
has to be zero? It should be. Unless there is a tie. Unless there is a tie. Okay. So it is zero, zero.
That’s my question. And bear in mind one
of our challenges is these are all
manually entered. We’ll get to that. In BMCC they have 72
people in social science and they could have put those
people in social science. Can I just ask? I just don’t understand
I just don’t know how useful all this is
but from my perspective. I mean I don’t know that I
need to know all of this. This seems to be stuff that should not be at
the board level. And I just question, where you say you
have report on this. Is this regulations
from somewhere or… I mean like can you lump
sum this all together and give an overall view
of what’s happening? I just don’t know if we
need this granularity but maybe that’s what you
required to report on. But especially since each
college seems to make their own decision on who
goes and what category it seems you know it’s
apples and oranges and it’s not consistent
across the… Well, we might as well have the conversation
now about manual. Yeah. Because I think it
will add something to the answer to the
legitimate question. The general answer is
I ask for this one when I first became chairman. We don’t do this. We got to begin to look at
how we’re recruiting staff, how diverse
our faculty is. We keep on pounding
our chest about how our diverse our
student body is. In fact those are the number
joined inside out on this and there’s going to be
something you can do about that. And part of it
reporting numbers and beginning to ask questions
behind those numbers. Now to the observation
about the manual collection, I’ve been
troubled by this for a very long time in a
university such as this when we are still doing
this manually is otherworldly. I can appreciate tradition but this takes it to
a very silly extreme. But the other part
is also troubling, when you do it manually, what if there are
computational errors manually? Easily, easily. And they are easily made. Who can catch all of them? In fact it’s this
group of people who has to catch
them which leads me to really lack
some confidence in not the integrity
of the data, that’s too strong term
but lack confidence in our ability to report
these things clearly and inaccurately because
of the deficiencies in our own IT readiness. That’s a problem that they
have to collect… -every time we have a report…
-I think it’s ridiculous. That they have to do
this manually is nuts. I agree. It’s an expenditure of
time and effort where we should be pressing a
button and getting this stuff, but also it leads us
to make some errors and that’s not right. What’s the hell
is going on here? I mean… I find it
bizarre you know and I agree with Jill, not
the best use of our time. Mm-hmm. But that’s the
least important. It’s just… it’s this
1970s way of collecting data. What are we going
to do with that? I don’t know
who to look at. Can you elaborate a
little on this manual? Where is the
data come from? So the campuses
actually put together their reports every year. We give them… I have
stepped away from it a little bit so maybe Anne
and Marilyn can talk a little bit about it but we
give them the labor market data and the campuses actually
compare their workforce to the labor market and they come up with these
underutilization numbers. It’s required as part of
the federally mandate Affirmative Action Plan. The campuses also complain
about the amount of time it takes to do
this manually. We would… we are looking
at ways to utilize information that’s in
CUNYfirst but as you know information in CUNYfirst
is not always as pristine as it should be in order
to be able to produce reports but you know we’ve
been working with the campuses
to clean the data. But we also… the actual
computation of the labor market versus the workforce
is not something that it automatically
comes out of CUNYfirst. It requires a special
software package. So that’s kind of where
we are at this point, trying to work with cleaning
up the data but then also trying to see if we can
buy a software package that will produce these reports
at the press of a button. I guess I’m
struggling of the… this is so onerous time I mean manual makes
no sense to me but and I get the
CUNYfirst issues. But essentially we hired
400 faculty last year, we lost 400 faculty last
year across 24 campuses, so the only 800 records that
should have been changed from the previous year. Like it shouldn’t be this
time-consuming project beyond those
changes, right? I mean I’m just talking now
about the professoriate. Which promotions? There is 10
year typically. Oh, in terms of… moving
them into different categories. Yeah. But in the broader sense
of the professoriate, right? Yeah. But you just have
to look your workforce. You have to take a snapshot of
what your workforce looks like today as you… it
is truly a snapshot when we do it and
see where people are and as answer that people move we characterize
them differently. We put them in different
buckets if they are in a system professor versus
a full professors. So, there is analysis
that has to be done and then people leave and then
there’s a whole calculation about whether people
have been promoted and that has to be
looked separately too, but there is software out
there that will do it. And with information
technology that permits… that befits the century in
which we find ourselves. It might be a nice idea to
begin to require that and do that so it’s not so
waste peoples time on otherwise very important
thing to know about The problem is it
really is important. Yeah, right. And can’t it be
centralized? It seems to me you had
a software package. You know who you hire and fire you know both
comes through your office. Does the campuses
really need to do this? It seems like this could
be a centralize place when you know where everyone
is moving around. If you had a software
package that you know the data you could
control the data in. Yeah. And then control the data
out and not get into all 24 campuses with multiple
people inputting data that maybe wrong or
not wrong, right? Is that possible? I love to be able to do that
through using CUNYfirst because if the information the hiring goes on
at the campus. I mean that’s — that if
they enter the data into CUNYfirst we should be
able to then consolidate and get information
out of CUNYfirst that would allow us to do that. It requires a bigger effort
that we can discuss here. Right. But it’s good that
you know that. But to the other point
about granularity and I think we should be
asking the questions and the Trustees
Sunshine’s point it’s important
information as well. I don’t know that we need to
see by discipline, by campus. I mean I think we can
start with the bigger picture sort of where do
we have issues by campus and then maybe tackle one
campus at a time and tell us what you’re
doing about that one campus because this is just
reams of tiny data. Well let me… let me
disagree with you. Okay. I really believe this is
important because for example when last time we
had a report such as this we discovered that
there were… about dozen departments
across the university that had zero diversity. Zero representation, nobody. Zero. Like how does that
happen in New York? Although you realize
these category don’t lined up
with departments. That’s our concern. Is there a
department chair? Yeah. It’s very hard to use
this kind of thing and it makes me wonder about
the underutilization numbers I get from my college. You know, are
they accurate? Because nothing here
environment lines up with the way we
departmentalize things. Not quite because
there is consultation on each campus around
how you decide. I mean for instance, I was
fine with architecture, we don’t have it, so
zero, zero, zero. Yeah. We knew as well, yeah. And there is one later
on computer science and that there is one
computer science engineering, computer science statistics. When I looked at it I saw
a zero, zero, zero, but then I realize we were
put on the statistic side rather than the
engineering side. So there is discussion
though on the campus to decide if you have a bit
of an anomaly department where might it
go, all right. But the community
college is they’re all anomaly
department pretty much. No, no, no, I lived my
life in community colleges and there was even affirmative
action at Queensborough. So no, that’s not true. I mean there… I respect
the fact that are some unusual departments but
they can be work through. I mean we can agree to
disagree and we can also agree that there will
some differences. Can I give an
example here? Yeah, sure of course. The… if you look
at history I mean Kingsborough says zero. We have a history in philosophy
and political science that there are no philosophers
according to this, now they are in social science
but that’s totally useless to me as a
department chair because everybody is grouped
into the social science including these
psychologies, the sociologists and so on who are in the
behavioral department. It doesn’t… social science… basically in what Kingsborough
did was threw everybody in social sciences. So I mean.. broken out You know the interesting
part of that? Is your own college’s
Affirmative Action Plan that mandates that. That’s something…
that’s one of the reasons why we discuss this
in this granularity because there were things that that configure the data well before it gets
to our eyes. I welcome the granularity. Yeah. And I would like to
be able to use it in terms of the hiring. Now we get figures
Kingsborough but you know it would be nice
if there was a way to compare across campuses
and things like that. That’s what a report
like this would help. Yeah. And it does in terms of
these broad categories I guess is it because of the
labor market information? -Is that why
-Some of it. It’s the way we get to
labor market data yes, is by discipline. Yeah, right. So, and to your point
departments here maybe a mishmash of a lot of
disciplines in one place so that’s part… that
is part of the issue. But… and we had this
conversation about searching. You know this is only a
place that you start. Right. If you’re actually
looking for somebody in philosophy at your school, then you’re going to dig
a little bit deeper because you want to
know where the faculty of color
are being produced, what universities are
producing philosopher, and that information
is available. So this is just gives
a place to say, “Oh, I really need to pay
attention to this” and then go a little bit
further into the data about where should I
be recruiting, how should I be
reaching out. You know can I establish
partnerships with other institutions that
are producing scholars in philosophy but
maybe I can tap into. That’s not… this is only
gives you this place to say, “Uh-huh, let me
look at this further.” But I guess to Trustee
Ferrer’s point and I think he’s
right on the money, if we identified… you had this report before,
we said there were 16, where there are holes
across university. What I want to hear with the
follow-up meeting is not this. What’s the
update on the 16? What happened? What are we doing? The interesting thing is chancellor appointed
a task force. Yes, I know
President Robin. To look at that… so
that might have changed and our next meeting
when we discuss this I will invite the both of
those presidents to come and share with us their work,
because they should be working with us on a
parallel track. Right. Absolutely. They’re doing different things
but it’s a parallel track. But for example, has that
task force been upraised of here are the 16 areas
where we have holes? Well they’re just
getting started. I happen to serve on it. We had two meetings. We’ve been gathering
a lot of data. We’ve been getting
consensus among ourselves and yes we will have
something absolutely. I was in Lucas Cruz who is
new to the university and Michelle Anderson who’s
been around as the dean of a law school but
is now in Brooklyn. They’re leading us and
there are about six, seven, eight others of us
on it. I assure you… They have access
to what we have. Pardon. They have access
to what we have. Oh yes, I’ve been looking
at it and we’re looking at some time frames
and some plans and potentially trying to get a projection over the
next three, four, five years given
our budget, what are we likely to do
I the way of hires. And one of the things I
think we’ll also need to know is who are we likely
to lose in terms of people who are at a certain
age who may retire, and so the committee
is taking that. That task force is
taking very serious and I suspect we’ll have
something by the fall. Maybe we continue
with this report. I’d ask Dean Torres to
come through it rather quickly and so that we can
get some more questions. So if you go to page
three of 36 of the underutilization report
and you look at biological and biomedical science, it indicates that
10 CUNY campuses are underutilized
for females in this area and then if you look five
campuses continue to experience underutilization for black
African-Americans. And so if we’re interested
in bolstering the minority representation in the STEM
fields then the question that I would ask is,
why do we continue to have this level of
underrepresentation among a particular minority
group and among females and what can we do
given our interest in advancing STEM
to improve this? Right. So this is you know kind
of a follow-up question that I would ask
given the data. if you turn to
page six of 36, if we look at business, management, marketing
and support services, in there we have
nine CUNY campuses that are underutilize for
females in this area and six campuses experience
total minority underutilization with the most
underutilization among black
African-Americans. So there are nine campuses
across the CUNY campuses that experience underutilization
for African-American. Again I post the question, if we are interested
in advancing the number of minorities
in the field of business, marketing, manage
and support services in the City of New York, then why are our
numbers better? Yeah. So, I’m not only looking at the
numbers across the campuses I’m also beginning
to ask questions about what does this mean
for our workforce and for the kind of training
that we’re providing to students if we don’t have
that diverse workforce. And it seems to me
that the campuses, the department heads and the
deans and provost should be asking those questions when they look at
this data as well. Arlene, let me ask
you another question that we should be asking
when we look at this data. When you go out into
the marketplace and you look at business
faculty across the spectrum, where do we compete
in terms of salary? I’m sorry. Can you ask
the question again? I’m saying when you go
out into the workforce and you say people that
have a PhD in business in terms of our ability
to be competitive and hire those people, where do we stand
in the workforce? So that’s a question that that
department chairs need to have to asks those questions with with the deans
and provost. If the salaries are such
that we can’t compete then that conversation
needs to be had. And there are deeper
questions in that. Have we tried to compete
in a certain places? What’s the way… I mean there’s
a whole rubric of questions that are asked in moments like
this like where do you go, how often do you go, who
do you reach out to, you know the
bunch of things. Right. No, no, I know that but I guess what
I’m saying is yeah, when you say
that’s a question let’s assume we’ve
ask the question, we know the answer,
we’re not competitive, we don’t get the best candidates in certain
disciplines because you know the
numbers et cetera, I mean what’s the next step? Well those are some of the
things certainly that we as a taskforce will
be talking about. But I can certainly say to
you that… you know and maybe I’m in a
very unique situation. You know, I’m
out in Jamaica. I’m not in Manhattan
and so I feel as if as a president, I can be
competitive in my area. I am not Baruch
for instance. And so I exercise… for
me… some discretion sometimes the faculty
don’t like it because I want everybody
to be the same, to hire a business professor
at a different rate than I may hire an
English professor. But that’s a decision
that we have to take because that’s what
the market bears. But it does mean
kind of making some of those
discretionary decisions. And as I say, I have a unique
situation because I’m not you know I’m in the middle
tier kind of thing, so I can feel as if… for me,
I can be competitive, but that might not be
what Baruch might say or Hunter might say. They may have a
different point of view. And it’s recruiting and it’s a whole bunch
of other things. All right. Please proceed. On page 7 of 36, with the focus
on communication journalism and recruit…
and a related program, again we noted we noted
that 10 campuses are underutilized for females. And there is a negative
trend in four campuses and a positive on
one CUNY campus. While improvements have occurred
in underutilization for total minority, there are some campuses that
face particular challenges. And so again, we
need to address, given the field of Communication and Journalism in a
city like New York, how do we take a
next step to improve the kind of training that
we provide to our undergraduate and graduate students by
having a diverse professory in the field of communications. -And again
-Literally stick your hand out a window in this city
and find somebody? Find a journalist
or find somebody. With a journalist. With a doctorate or
what’s the correct term? Find a journalist. Do all our journalist
have a doctorate? I wouldn’t know. Yeah it doesn’t. From those in journalism
It happens in ours. this example,
but we will hire. All right, well we’re
talking about it now. Yeah, but since
we require it. On page 9 of 36,
if you look at Computer And
Information Sciences, Utilization for Computer and Information Sciences, I was actually really
pleased to see, it’s fairly robust. However, 7 CUNY campuses
are underutilized specifically for black
African-Americans. And then we see one campus
like Brooklyn College, is making strides in a
positive direction. But? Computer Science is
another segment. Yeah, I guess on this one
I guess I’d want to say because my first thought when
I looked at this page was, “Wow, this is phenomenal.” It’s Computer Science and
that’s competitive and heart, but then when you look
at the category faculty, so many of them are zeroes. Meaning they’re less than
5 and you don’t have the data. Right, right. It’s very small. Yeah we have a
small number. Yeah, so this isn’t… In page 10 of 36, the field of education,
underutilization for females has increased
in 3 CUNY campuses and 9 campuses continue to
experience underutilization. For African-Americans
in Education, in spite of strides in
a positive direction in five of these campuses, now that’s a concern. That in the field
of Education, we have that level of
underutilization. Yeah. And that’s something
that it seems to me, if we’re educating
the future educators, we need to think about how to strategically address this level of underutilization. Again in New York, stick
your hand out in the window. Opportunity. I want to be clear. I’m a 100% with you on this
concern about underutilization. I just don’t think going
through this on every page is telling, “Okay, you
know we got underutilization.” I’d rather, we’d go to the, “What are we doing about it?” -Then you know?
-Oh yeah. And for HR to say,
“This concerns me and these are the
questions” we got that. We… these concerns us,
these are the questions. We want you to help
us with the answers. But if I may, not
everybody is as informed as the people here now because
some of this information, even though it is
available it appears that it is not being
presented routinely and regularly with our chairs. Certainly I know it…
I request it… I certainly know I
presented at PMB. Right. And not I’m
just saying it. And of course we have to
engage with it regularly. Right. In order and
systematically in order to even believe it quite
frankly because somebody could look at this
and say, “Oh no, no, no, my campus isn’t like
this at all.” Come on, you guys
got it wrong. Maybe I believe my
affirmative action officer, but I think…
you know, like James Baldwin would says, “Nothing can be changed
unless it’s faced.” And so we’ve got to
face some of that. I think you go back to
another issue that we talked about earlier
on the other point… is how things are handled
from campus to campus. Sure, sure. Very greatly, whether
we’re talking about this or any other topic and
that’s where again I think we from central say like, “How is this being communicated? How are we making sure
this is all right.” That’s part of
the point of this. Right. Okay, I also have to
point out that this is… this activity takes
place at the campus at the department level. We really got to get to
those department chairs and provide them with
the information and then give them the tools. You know, “These are
things that you can do” and that’s going to vary from
discipline to discipline. There’s a lot of conversation
that needs to take place. The faculty have
to own this. Yeah, but that’s to my
point about translating this into something that make
sense at the campus level. Because this doesn’t make sense
[inaudible] campus came from. And that’s why, but that’s
why I’m saying to you. Yeah. But you have to engage, but the faculty have
to own it too. And if you need
more information, we can provide more information. -Yeah.
-Yeah. Well the faculty is kind
of busy at the moment. I think it’s the
question is about… I don’t mean busy the
faculty don’t control some of these decisions. -About the salaries, about…
-I don’t know. I think the faculty cares
a great deal about this. I know they do
in my department and I have stressed this kind
of thing in my department. Yeah. We certainly discussed
it when we do hiring, but I think that there needs
to be some sort of required translational
process whereby what you’re presenting here gets
reinterpret at the campus level in such a way that it
stands out at the campus and then it needs to be a topic
of discussion at the campus. Yeah. Okay. That’s a very good idea. You’re not going to get any kind
of buy-in at that thing. Well, well I think we… I think
what has been accomplished already is in the
last 6 or so weeks, chancellor has appointed a
presidential level taskforce. Yeah. Okay, we’re discussing it and
we’re beginning to measure it. We will continue to
measure it because in fact, that does provoke
conversation about it. Get these numbers a
little better because we’re getting look very,
very carefully at how our technology is
serving us or not serving. Right, but I do think
you do have buy-in. You have support
of faculty. I mean I think this isn’t
a concern for most the faculty. I know of no faculty
on my campus. -It’s a concern of the trustee.
-It’s not a concern. Right, so… It’s
still, right? It’s a concern of this trustee. Yeah, it’s a natural alliance
I think of trustees. So you can look at the
comments that I made in the remaining field, but
let me say something about some of the conversations that
I’ve had with faculty members who participated in the
diverse dialogue that we had. We also… we
conducted a survey and we asked questions about
their knowledge about this. There was very little
knowledge about this. Over 50% of the
faculty said, they had never seen
a search guide. Why not? There were faculty members
who were search chairs and they had never really
carefully looked at the guidelines for an
appropriate search. There were faculty members
who had not looked at the multiple resources
that are available if you want to recruit in
a particular field and they used standard
recruiting sources, whether they were paper sources. They had never analyzed
whether or not the money that they
were spending on it was even effective. Well I’m sure they’re under
informed by the community. And so the challenge is,
to be supportive and to indicate that, “Yes,
the central office has some resources and we
are available to help.” But the campuses also
have resources and they have to take
ownership of the process. And we have to encourage
the ownership of the process at every level. Faculty governance
is critical and faculty involvement in
the searches is key. But those very faculty
members have to be informed. They have to really
well informed and they have to get the
support of their deans and their provosts
and the president. And it seems to me there
isn’t enough communication and enough basic
training on where the resources
are to be effective. And this is a first step. But if I was
looking at this and you might like as
a department head, I would look at this
underutilization. And in my field of
anthropology, I would say, “Well what is the National
Survey of Earned Doctorates say about the
number of doctorates that have been
produced nationally? And how does this
compare to this? General category in the
social sciences — and then I would look at the
American Community Survey and I would see how many
anthropologists have PhDs and are in the New
York City area. I wouldn’t just
rely on this. There will be
multiple sources and I would use that to then to make an
argument to my faculty and say, “This is the
state of affairs. Yes, this is one tool.” But this is giving us a
broader picture of the availability of
anthropologists. Now let’s go to the Association
of Black Anthropologists. Let’s go to the Association of
Latino Anthropologists. Let’s go to the Association of
American Anthropologists and have a
discussion about it. Okay, let me stop
you right now. Let’s go. Let’s go. Let’s go and we have
heard faculty and I’m just relaying
what’s been told to us. Yes, let’s go to that
convention where they’re having such and such
groups get together. And we’ve heard
from central, there’s money available
for faculty searches. Then when faculty do
searches, they’re told, “No, there’s no money
available for the search.” And you can’t fly somebody
in to meet with them. You can Skype them. And you Skype them. Over… the whatever,
just Skype them, you know what that means. Well I’m losing it here,
but forget flying to a conference to start
talking to junior faculty. It’s not happening and maybe it’s happening
at some campuses. Maybe it’s happening
in senior campuses. I don’t know. At community colleges,
it’s not happening. Now that… you know, at
the same time I look at this and I think, “Well some of
the Community Colleges are actually still
doing a good job.” And that’s another
aspect of this… I want us to examine because I would hate to
think we’re only hiring diverse faculty at
our community colleges where we pay a
whole lot less. I’d like to make sure we’re hiring diverse
faculty everywhere. But in terms of resources,
I think you’re right. I think we want to make
sure that the faculty who are leading searches are
well informed, et cetera. If you’re polling the whole
faculty and some of them say, “I’m clueless
on this process.” I’d say they probably
never served on a PMB. They’ve never been charged
or the last time they served was 5 years
ago, et cetera. But we welcome this, but
let’s get something solid that shows these are the
resources available so that I can put it in the
hands of chairs and then they can go back to
their presidents and say, “I want this money to go
to this conference to source these faculty.” And when they say no,
we’ll come to back to you and say, “Here’s
the campus, they got zero money
for the search. Don’t expect
miracles to happen.” Because that’s what we
hear from the faculty. Yeah, your point
is well taken. Let’s continue or before we
end up having breakfast. So as I… as I
indicated in my remarks. I mean I think if we look
at the remaining… at the remaining fields, there are… if you look for example
at some of the comments I made with respect
to psychology, page 32 of 36, 9
of the campuses are underutilized
for females and 5 are underutilized
for total minority. Now you do see that some
strides have been made, but they’re also… if
you look at this aggregated data by race
and ethnicity, there are challenges on
several of the campuses, and psychology is one
of those fields, yet again that we need to take a closer look
at what it is happening in that field if consistently not just from one
year to the next, but over a 5-year span or
over a 7 to 10-year span where you have not seen
substantive change in the number of
diverse faculty in a psychology department. So this provide a tool for
us to look at things as we compare from one
year to the next. But it also sets this
day for us to look at longitudinal
data over time. Can ask you a question
about the psychology page again to make sure that I’m
interpreting it correctly. When I look at this,
the third column, “Change from 2015 to 16”
and I see zeroes. That basically says to me, we
haven’t hired any faculty. So if you’re expecting
that department to make a change from
year to year. Right. But we’re not getting full
timelines to hire faculty, we can’t make a change. Sure, that’s true. And then I see three
boxes that are pink, which means we lost faculty. They left for one
reason or another. So between all the zeroes
whether no faculty were hired and the three where
they had people retire, leave, et cetera, no
matter who owns this. We’re not changing… we’re not
hiring fulltime faculty. You’re right. So I mean… I
think and again, I’ve heard from several
campuses where presidents have communicated the message that we want to do
better on this, et cetera and the faculty
have said fabulous. I have no open lines. I can’t hire. Don’t tell me next year
I have to improve my numbers. Right. I don’t hire, so then I
can’t change the numbers. Sure, sure, sure. Okay. And so mean, that you
don’t have attrition. I’m saying attrition
only worsens it, even when we lose people, we’re
not necessarily replacing them. I have a question about
the [Inaudible] attrition. It looked like from the
initial pages there that we lost people, but we hired many more
people than we had before. We hired like
twice the number, almost twice the number in
2016-17 than we did 2015-16. That’s correct. But we went down like 50
faculty or something like that. Right. Right. So we lost grounds. Right. Despite the fact that
we’re adding more. We actually lost more
ground then it looked like it subtract the
number of attrition. That’s right. That’s right.
You’re right. Now that is the
essential observation. -Right.
-Yes. So, here’s my
question about that. Those people who
are leaving are the disproportionately
minority women, things like that
or are they not? Like if I add all the
pink columns there, am I going to end up
finding that the because I didn’t do that. I am not ambitious. About this thing? Yeah. So as we look at
the separations, the number of faculty of
color who are separating because of non-reappointment or because of resignation and they haven’t explained
why they resigned is much greater among
faculty of color than it is for their
white counterparts. Can I ask another
question? Can you give me some
sense as to whether the non-reappointments are
in the majority or whether the resignations
are in majority. Could the resignations be because they’ve
gotten better offers elsewhere and they… you have any way of
knowing, you know? -I don’t.
-No? Have any way of
knowing that. -Yeah.
-Yeah though. And what we are trying
to do now is we are conducting
exit surveys to get a better sense of
those resignations and their reasons for
leaving the institution. And some may have
indicated that they see the writing on
the wall that they’re not going to
get non-reappointed, so they resigned before
that even takes place. Right, right, right. So we have multiple
challenges. Right, right. Yeah, I think to Michael’s
question, I had a meeting with I think I had it with
you Arlene a while aback. And I asked that question and Michael is
hitting on the point. And when I did the math,
our non-traditional or underrepresented faculty you now, 40% resigned of the
number compared to you know, 29.2% for white faculty. And they retired at lower
rates, but resigned earlier and were not reappointed
and almost double the rate. Correct. Which begs a whole
another question and we asked about this
issue begs in interviews and we’re told that
they’re not being done consistently across campuses. We’re not getting that
information, et cetera. So we have made the — the
chancellor’s working group aware of this and they are
extremely supportive of having exit surveys. Yes. We required of
all the campuses. So that we get better now. Yeah, it will
be good to know. You asked kind of? We have a system to do it. We have. We have the technology. We actually have the
technology to do that. Oh. I mean my sense of this I was agree with the
counselor for over 10 years and I would say the disproportionate
number of cases were -Handicapped?
-Minority faculty. Yeah. In every situation. So this represents a window of
opportunity it seems to me, just like we always say, that is easier to retain
a student if we can. That’s right. If we have an early
intervention, if we do professional
development, if we do mentoring, you know? All of the things. If we’re very clear about
what the expectations are and if we give solid
guidance in the evaluation, including waking people
up by saying, “This is unsatisfactory and here’s what
you have to do.” That’s right. But there is not really an
appetite for doing that. I have to tell you. That’s right. There’s no appetite in
general for doing that kind of work
as colleagues. Look, I’ve been a
colleague too… and so we get a
very mixed message and very often, it’s the president who’s doing
the evil deed, okay? And so we’ve got to get early
intervention for everybody. By the way, some of the
best white faculty could benefit from a good professional
development program. So if we did a good
professional development program for minorities,
everybody who would come in would
also benefit from it. And I think we’ve
really got to… and I know the president
of the taskforce. Well actually this is my
particular passion and on the taskforce, we’re
going to pay attention to retention as well as
recruiting in few folk. Yeah. And you know, this is
a place where… you know, I think we all want
to make a better contribution. And when we look at the
crazy quilt of rules across this university
from department to department, from college to college,
and see what makes sense and maybe
that’s a place where the trustees
need to get involved. Anyway, I think it
resonate a good point about how it varies from
department to department and across campuses,
but also in terms of the training that’s
missing here. I mean, having come from
the corporate world, there are levels and
massive trainings you have to go through
as a manager, what you have to do and then we do nothing…
nothing. Comparatively, here for
department chairs who they’re managers
in a sense that they’re not appointed
by somebody else. They’re elected
by their peers, but at the same
time, you’re right. It’s a colleague,
it’s uncomfortable. That’s who elects them —
but there should be some better training about how
to write an evaluation, et cetera, having been served
on a faculty grievance committee at my campus —
I can recall situations where a file came up,
someone was question the fact that they weren’t
being reappointed. If I had looked what they
had contributed to the campus, I would agree 100% they did
warrants being reappointed. That it needs to be 4
years down the line, that could have been
after the second year. But the file had these
very nice blend, doing a nice job, et cetera. And I said to the other
people in the committee, “Recommend that we reappoint.”
“Why? We all agree.” I go, “Because they’re
going to grieve it. They’re going to
go to the union and all the documentation they’ve been given says, they’re doing a great job. Life is good.” I mean… so training
is woefully missing. -Yeah, it’s not just…
-Put yourself on this committee. Sorry. So let me just say
that in conclusion, we recognize some of this, but we also get a great
deal of pushback because there are
faculty governance issues. There are concerns about
the central administration making recommendations
as opposed to mandating certain
kinds of initiatives. And I take the position
also as university dean that it’s my
responsibility to make sure that I work vigorously
to retain the faculty. And when I can’t make
the interventions with department head, I teach my faculty how
to engage proactively for themselves
and how to look at… and how to engage in activities
whether it’s to the faculty, fellows
publication program or the Mellon Grant or
professional development. And those… we have very
limited resources in the central office to
do that and we only… we only manage to support… you know, 50 to
65 faculty. How wonderful it would
be if we supported them across the CUNY
campuses to engage in that level of
mentorship and support. And I asked myself
everyday, “Why not?” Why shouldn’t the campuses
and why shouldn’t the central
administration partner to have that level
of mentorship? I think retention will be
a very different story. So let me suggest that for
our next discussion of this, there would be a fuller
analysis of the issues we’ve discussed,
what we need to be thinking about
and proposing. Okay. And I suspect to trustee
Ferrer and others that… that taskforce may
be very well ready. Yeah. To be at the next meeting
which would be September to give this group an idea
of where we’re going and to get some
endorsement possibly or maybe even to
expand the ideas. -I’m quite sure that’s…
-I’m looking forward to it. There are two very
credible leaders. Yeah. And as long as they
got you there, we are all pals on drugs. Well thank you very much
for your attention and I look forward to any
recommendations you might have. Thank you. That is not
required a vote, so may I have
motion to adjourn. Second? All in favor? We are adjourned and
thank you very much for your presence here.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *