The College Council Executive Committee met with the President, Provost, and the President's Chief of Staff on 10/12. Topics discussed included the following:
We asked:
As discussed at the College Council, the financial plan is modeled on an attrition of 72 lines over the next 3 years (24/year accumulated). To put this in context we have this many FT lines per year (faculty, staff, ...):
FY2010 874
FY2011 858
FY2012 871
FY2013 898
FY2014 914
FY2015 923
FY2016 913
FY2017 924
Fa2018 953
Fa2019 907
Fa2020 883
Sp2021 873The fall and spring numbers come from the FY2020 year end financial report and the 3rd quarter report for FY21. The others come from year-end reports.
Losing an additional 72 lines seems completely unrealistic without a serious plan brokered through difficult campus conversations.
Though CUNY has made promises of efficiencies which will be paid for with staff reductions through attrition, the models for this are a) primarily in places where CUNY has invested in technological solutions like the registrar's office and b) nowhere near this scale in size.
In addition these numbers are completely out of line with this year's budget request, which is seeking 1075 new FT faculty CUNY wide.
We would like to begin the conversation of how this will be managed.
We were informed that
this was viewed as just growing then shrinking
When asked if IPC would be the place for the conversation to occur, we we told Academic Affairs
decisions can be reviewed should the CUNY budget request come through
There was discussion of identifying smaller and larger programs.
It was re-emphasized that there is a need to have an academic plan and vision and not just a desire to cut payroll
We had been asked to clarify if newly promoted faculty would receive a step increase.
We were informed that
there was a time a few years ago where this practice stopped
that staff had not received these
it was suggested that having staff send this message could have been better handled.
Enrollment continues to be an issue of interest, as discussed at the last College Council. Here are enrollment numbers (average headcount) for the past many years along with the number of high-school graduates from Staten Island
FY2011 13772 3330 SI graduates 2007 cohort
FY2012 13944 3452
FY2013 14016 3418
FY2014 14054 3612
FY2015 13829 3468
FY2016 13261 3613
FY2017 13073 3718
FY2018 13061 3768
FY2019 12680 3669
FY2020 12366 3974 SI graduates 2016 cohortAs it is almost certain the not-yet-released FY21 headcount average will decline again and the F21 cohort is off from F20 and F19, the underlying causes for the issue seems unidentified and unsolved.
At the Faculty Senate the subject of the Interim University Provost Lemon's directive of 70-30 came up with the suggestion that this be aspirational not a mandate. The idea was enforcing a vaccine mandate and also assigning modalities of instruction means departments and programs can't necessarily tune their offerings to student demand, resulting in lost enrollment.
We would like to discuss new enrollment strategies and their anticipated impact. The financial plan proposed 0.5% increases, could the underlying assumptions for those numbers be identified.
We were informed that:
the college views the 70% as a floor, and expects more
it was suggested that surveying the students to assess demand would be prudent
we were told about a CUNY survey of students that occurred early summer
no discussion as to why enrollment continues to decline ensued
We asked:
Vaccination rates among those students mandated to be vaccinated. CUNY wide the number is 77% of those in hybrid or in-person classes (~165k) met the vaccination requirement (though recently modified). What is the number at CSI and what will become of those students who do not meet the requirement.
We heard
that CSI had 73% compliance for the hybrid/in-person classes
that no one had been assigned a WA grade as of the 12th for failing to comply with the vaccine mandate
Following up on a referendum on the president's proposed wholesale governance plan replacement of which
1367 eligible votes
85 voted Yes
585 voted No
That is 6% of eligible voters voted in support; of those that voted, 87% voted No.
We wrote and began with this statement
We request that the president announce to the college that after the strong message he received from the college community about his plans to change the existing governance plan that now is the time to mend bridges not burn them. We ask that it be announced the president will not bring this plan forward to the board and any changes to governance he sees as necessary should be brought to the bylaws committee, as a matter of regular order.
Then the discussion devolved.
We were told that the president sent a letter to the Chancellor with content similar to the one sent to the College after the referendum
We were told that the decision to send something to the board was still being considered
The president would not commit to NOT taking the plan to the board
We asked the president to provide specific examples from his plan that link collegiality to governance. He claimed that his plan is more inclusive without providing any examples.
We were told that many in the college community do not understand the difference between the CUNY bylaws and the CSI governance. We told the president that we do. We asked if he was referring to the actions on Pathways and the president said yes.
We reminded the president that anyone who is suggesting changes should send them to the bylaws committee
We were told by the president that he was disappointed the bylaws committee had not taken up his proposal
I was asked – for the second time – why I did not like someone
We were told that we were behaving like 7th graders
We were told that perhaps the reason the plan got so few votes was because the "powerful" College Council Chair told people to vote no
When reminded that not one member outside of the president forcefully spoke for his revisions, we were told that some felt bullied. The CC XC asserted that bullying is not the same as articulating disagreements.
In a recent letter to the board, I mentioned New York Times Opinion writer Professor John McWhorter who wrote recently of a classic analysis of effective communication: it is founded in being informative, truthful, relevant, and clear.
I would hope we as a community can return to following these steps, but we aren't there yet.
What is the 1N building status?
Since the past storms, reconstruction on the lower level has been ongoing and we are working remotely but would appreciate a building update: on the air quality and building structure security, and a projected timeline –- for those who would like to return to their 2nd floor offices.