Minutes of Meetings of the Board of Trustees of State University of New York June 15, 2011 (Subject-to-Correction) The Board of Trustees of State University of New York met on June 15, 2011 at 10:15 a.m. at State University Plaza, Board Room, Albany, New York pursuant to calls sent by the Office of the Secretary of the University on June 2, 2011. June 15, 2011 10:15 a.m. Trustees present: Mr. Hayden, Chairman; Ms. Beachner; Dr. Ehrenberg; Mr. Hunt; Mrs. Lewin; Dr. Lichtman; Mr. McCall; Mr. Murad; Dr. O’Brien; Ms. Sanford; Mr. Spielvogel; Mr. Staller; Ms. Warren-Merrick Trustees present via video in New York City: Dr. Noguera Trustees absent: Mr. Belluck Also present: Chancellor Zimpher; Dr. Lavallee; Ms. Rimai; Mr. Howard 12:30 p.m. Trustees present: Mr. Hayden, Chairman; Ms. Beachner; Dr. Ehrenberg; Mr. Hunt; Mrs. Lewin; Dr. Lichtman; Mr. McCall Mr. Murad; Dr. O’Brien; Mr. Spielvogel; Ms. Sanford; Mr. Staller; Ms. Warren-Merrick Trustees present via video in New York City: Dr. Noguera Trustees absent: Mr. Belluck Also present: Chancellor Zimpher; Dr. Lavallee; Ms. Rimai; Mr. Howard June 15, 2011 1. CONVENING OF PUBLIC MEETING Mr. Hayden convened the Public Meeting at 10:15 a.m. which was held at State University Plaza, Board Room, Albany, New York. Chairman Hayden noted that Trustee Noguera was participating via video conference from New York City and the meeting was being web cast and declared a quorum. 2. CONVENING OF EXECUTIVE SESSION At 10:46 a.m., Mr. Hayden called for an Executive Session under provisions of Section 105 of Article 7 of the Public Officers Law, as follows: (1) (d) "discussions regarding proposed, pending or current litigation"; (1) (f) "the medical, financial, credit or employment history of a particular person or corporation, or matters leading to the appointment, employment, promotion, demotion, discipline, suspension, dismissal or removal of a particular person or corporation." Upon motion of Ms. Warren-Merrick, seconded by Mr. McCall, it was unanimously agreed to convene an Executive Session for the purposes specified by Mr. Hayden. Mr. Hayden recessed the Executive Session at 12:37 p.m. 12:37 p.m. 3. RECONVENING OF PUBLIC MEETING On June 15, 2011 at 12:37 p.m., Mr. Hayden reconvened the Public Meeting, which was held at State University Plaza, Board Room, in Albany, New York. Mr. Hayden noted again that the meeting was being web cast and that Trustee Noguera was participating via video conference in New York City and declared a quorum. He welcomed the following Presidents in attendance: Neil Murphy, ESF, Donald Zingale, Cobleskill, and Donald Christian, New Paltz. He said a series of successful committee meetings were held yesterday and this morning. Mr. Hayden welcomed everyone and acknowledged resignations from two of the longest serving Trustees. He stated that Dr. Harvey Wachsman began his tenure on the SUNY Board of Trustees in 1995 and Ms. Aminy Audi joined the Board in 2000. Mr. Hayden went on to say that both Trustees Audi and Wachsman served the State of New York with honor and dedication, and he thanked them for their years of advocacy as members of the Board of Trustees. Mr. Hayden then thanked Governor Andrew Cuomo for his leadership on a rational tuition policy and the creation of the New York SUNY 2020 program. He also commended the leadership of Senator Kenneth LaValle and Assembly Higher Education Chair Deborah Glick who has been committed to the principle of access. Mr. Hayden called upon Chancellor Zimpher to present her recommendation for a new President at the SUNY New Paltz campus. Chancellor Zimpher stated that it is her honor to recommend Dr. Donald Christian as the next President of SUNY New Paltz. She thanked the College Council and the search committee for their work. Chancellor Zimpher stated that with strong campus and community support, Dr. Christian won the unanimous vote of both the search committee and the College Council. She then provided a summary of his background information. Chancellor Zimpher called upon Mr. Howard to present the resolution. Appointment of Dr. Donald P. Christian as President at the State University of New York at New Paltz Upon motion of Ms. Sanford, seconded by Dr. Ehrenberg, the following resolution was unanimously adopted: Resolved that the appointment of Dr. Donald P. Christian as President of the State University of New York at New Paltz, at a State salary of $225,000 effective June 16, 2011, be and hereby is, approved. Dr. Christian will reside in a campus owned house and be provided the use of a campus owned car. (2011-051) Mr. Hayden invited Dr. Christian to say a few words. Dr. Christian stated that he was honored and excited about this opportunity and that he was appreciative and humbled by the confidence placed in him by the Trustees, the Chancellor and her leadership team, the College Council, search committee and many colleagues both on and off the New Paltz campus. Dr. Christian spoke about the virtues of the college and recalled a positive message he received from the mother of a prospective student. Mr. Kenneth Abt, Chair of New Paltz College Council and Chair of the presidential search committee, thanked the Trustees and Chancellor Zimpher for appointing Donald Christian as President of SUNY New Paltz. He also thanked Aimee Bernstein for her assistance to the search committee and spoke about the positive aspects of the search process. Chairman Hayden stated that the College of Environmental Science and Forestry will be recognized as it celebrates its 100th anniversary. He called upon Chancellor Zimpher to introduce President Neil Murphy. Chancellor Zimpher said that over the college’s history it has grown into one of the finest institutions of environmental science and forestry in the nation. She spoke briefly about the work that is done on the campus and then introduced President Neil Murphy. President Murphy spoke about why the institution was created and its history. He said that the college has a major opportunity to impact the reality of climate change and the issues of adaptation. He concluded by thanking the Chancellor and Trustees for their support. Chairman Hayden called upon Mr. Howard to present the resolution. Commendation of 100th Anniversary of the Founding of SUNY College of Environmental Science and Forestry Upon motion of Mrs. Lewin, seconded by Mr. Murad, the following resolution was unanimously adopted: Whereas the State University of New York College of Environmental Science and Forestry, Syracuse, New York was founded in nineteen hundred eleven; and Whereas the College has, for the last 100 years, provided a fundamental and thorough higher education in the fields of chemistry, environmental and forest biology, environmental science, environmental studies, environmental resources engineering, paper and bioprocess engineering, sustainable construction management and engineering, forest and natural resources management, landscape architecture, and forest technology from associate degrees through doctor of philosophy degrees; and Whereas the College has a present student body of approximately 2200 students; including 1650 under-graduates and 550 graduate students, and Whereas the College of Environmental Science and Forestry is one of only thirteen doctoral granting institutions in the State University of New York system, and Whereas as an institution, the College combines the ideas of academic excellence with the practical concerns of service to its community and the State of New York utilizing outdoor laboratories and research sites across the State totaling some twenty-five thousand acres; and Whereas the College recognizes the significant role in the College’s founding and celebrates its enduring partnership with Syracuse University; and Whereas the College graduates have become a mainstay and leaders in a variety of careers and professions; its alumni comprising more than 20,000 living members of the College in various locations internationally; and Whereas the College has achieved national and worldwide recognition in research, teaching and service related to environmental protection, resource management, and sustainability; now, therefore, be it Resolved that the State University of New York honors and congratulates the College of Environmental Science and Forestry of the State University of New York upon the occasion of the One Hundredth Anniversary of its founding and for its continuing efforts to provide environmental leadership into the 21st century. (2011-052) 6. CHANCELLOR’S REPORT Chancellor Zimpher began her report by directing Trustees to the good news information in their materials and asked that they review at their convenience. She also thanked the Governor, the Board of Trustees, and particularly Trustee Carl McCall and the presidents who joined a press conference with Senator Seward and Assemblywoman Peoples-Stokes in support of rational tuition bills. Chancellor Zimpher spoke about how the goal of the Power of SUNY is to be the economic driver for the State and the six big ideas that have spurred innovation in varied fields. She also provided a presentation on accomplishments which include the issuance of the first baseline report card, the Rockefeller Institute economic impact study for SUNY, the press conference, and NYSUNY 2020. Chancellor Zimpher then spoke of the departure of Monica Rimai, Sr. Vice Chancellor and Chief Operating Officer. The Chancellor spoke of their history together, saying she hired Ms. Rimai approximately 10 years ago at the University of Wisconsin-Milwaukee, then again when the Chancellor moved to Cincinnati, and then finally, here at System Administration. She invited Ms. Rimai and the Chairman to join her at the podium where the following resolution was presented. Special Service Commendation to Sr. Vice Chancellor and Chief Operating Officer Monica Rimai Upon motion of Ms. Beachner, seconded by Dr. Ehrenberg, the following resolution was unanimously adopted: Whereas Sr. Vice Chancellor and Chief Operating Officer Monica Rimai has served the State University of New York with distinction for almost 2 years; and Whereas in that time, Ms. Rimai established policies and procedures that will move SUNY towards greater strength and success and provide a legacy for students, faculty, and staff across New York State; and Whereas the varied and often challenging responsibilities Ms. Rimai was faced with on a daily basis were met by her fair, intelligent, and courageous decisions; and Whereas Ms. Rimai’s kind and inclusive nature empowered the people fortunate to work with her and spurred them to greater heights of productivity, creativity, and collaboration; and Whereas Ms. Rimai’s extensive experience in the fields of law and higher education administration provided a solid base for the Sr. Vice Chancellor and Chief Operating Officer position at SUNY System Administration; and Whereas Ms. Rimai’s wise counsel, incredible work ethic, and thoughtful deliberations were truly an asset to the SUNY team; and therefore be it Resolved that Monica Rimai receive the highest commendation from the Board of Trustees for her service to the State University of New York. (2011-053) Ms. Rimai thanked the Chancellor and Chairman saying she was humbled and grateful for the experience of working at SUNY. She acknowledged Bill Howard and David Lavallee, thanking them for their contribution and said the institution was being left in their incredibly wise and competent hands. Ms. Rimai stated that she has received an outpouring of support since the announcement of her departure which was very much appreciated. She then presented the Chancellor with an array of token gifts. Ms. Rimai said she wanted to take the opportunity to thank the Chancellor, not just as her boss, but as her friend and mentor. She thanked both the Chancellor and her husband, Ken Howie, for giving her a career that she had never imagined, and for giving her the courage to choose the road less traveled. On behalf of the Faculty Senate, Trustee Ken O’Brien then presented Ms. Rimai with a framed picture of the Adirondack Mountains. Chancellor Zimpher announced that Brian Hutzley, the CFO of SUNY Delhi, has been appointed as interim CFO at System Administration. The Chancellor thanked President Candace Vancko for allowing Brian to take a leave from his campus position in order to assume the interim position. 4. RESOLUTIONS Chairman Hayden then discussed two resolutions relating to the establishment of special committees. The first relates to the recommendations of the Stromberg Report, the report commissioned on behalf of the Chancellor last August. Research Foundation Relationship Upon motion of Mr. Murad, seconded by Ms. Beachner, the following resolution was unanimously adopted: Resolved that an ad hoc committee of the Board be, and hereby is, appointed, consisting of Trustees Hunt (Chair), Belluck, Lichtman, McCall, and Staller, to consider in greater depth the recent report by the firm of Hogan Lovells regarding the relationship between SUNY and the Research Foundation, and other governance and operational issues relating to the Research Foundation, in accordance with the attached charge. (2011-054) The second special committee establishment relates to the update of the salary plan. Salary Plan Review Upon motion of Mr. Staller, seconded by Ms. Beachner, the following resolution was unanimously adopted: Resolved that an ad hoc committee of the Board be, and hereby is, appointed, consisting of Trustees Murad (Chair), Warren-Merrick, Hunt and Ehrenberg, to consider and recommend to the Executive Committee, and then to the full Board, updates to the Salary Plan over the coming months. (2011-055) Separation of John O’Connor Upon motion of Mr. Spielvogel, seconded by Ms. Beachner, with an abstention from Mr. Hunt, the following resolution was adopted: Whereas pursuant to Article IV, Title B and Title F of the Policies of the Board of Trustees, Vice Chancellors of the State University of New York and the Secretary of the State University of New York serve at the pleasure of the Board of Trustees; and Whereas it is in the interests of the State University of New York to end the appointments of John J. O’Connor as Secretary and Senior Vice Chancellor for Research and Innovation; now, therefore, be it Resolved that the appointments of John J. O’Connor as Secretary, and as Senior Vice Chancellor for Research and Innovation of the State University of New York, be and hereby are ended, effective June 17, 2011, and that he shall be separated as an employee of the University as of that date. (2011-056) 5. CONSENT AGENDA ITEMS Chairman Hayden then called upon Mr. Howard for the resolutions from the consent agenda. Upon motion of Mr. Hunt, seconded by Mr. Spielvogel, the following resolutions were unanimously adopted. Authorization to Lease Lands for the Development of Student Housing – State University College of Agriculture and Technology at Cobleskill Whereas the State University of New York College of Agriculture and Technology at Cobleskill wishes to attract and retain student candidates for all academic levels and areas of study, and in support of this objective has established a business plan to develop alternative, attractive housing for upper division students and provide for the construction and operation of an apartment style housing complex with four person apartments divided between double and single occupancy bedrooms for a total of 156 beds; and Whereas at its meeting on April 13, 2011, the SUNY Cobleskill College Council approved the plan for the construction of a new residence hall facility contingent upon receipt by the College of all the necessary approvals and financing for the project; and Whereas The Alumni of the State University of New York College of Agriculture and Technology at Cobleskill, Inc. (“Alumni Association”), a not-for-profit corporation organized under the laws of the State of New York, is dedicated to assisting and promoting the interests of SUNY Cobleskill and maintaining and promoting the loyalty of its alumni; and Whereas in accordance with Education Law §355, the Alumni Association is authorized to enter into arrangements with the University for the development and operation of student housing and is willing to do so, upon mutual agreement as to reasonably underlying terms to be negotiated by the parties, as evidenced by the adoption of an authorizing resolution by the Alumni Association’s Board of Directors on May 24, 2011; and Whereas Education Law §355 authorizes the State University, subject to the approval of the Attorney General and the State Comptroller, and on terms and conditions determined by the Board of Trustees, to enter into a ground lease with the Alumni Association for the exclusive purpose of developing student housing on the campus of SUNY Cobleskill; now, therefore, be it Resolved that the Chancellor, or designee, be, and hereby is, authorized in accordance with the provisions of Education Law §355 to enter into a ground lease agreement with the Alumni Association substantially in the form and of the content of the draft ground lease agreement on file in the Office of the Secretary of the University, for a parcel on SUNY Cobleskill’s campus (the approximate location of which is indicated on the map attached hereto), with such modifications and revisions as the Chancellor, or designee, may deem advisable, as agreed upon by the Alumni Association, under which the Alumni Association, or any duly approved sub-lessee, will develop student housing; and, be it further Resolved that the Chancellor, or designee, be, and hereby is, authorized in accordance with the provisions of Education Law §355 to approve any amendments, modifications, or waivers of any provisions in the ground lease and related documents, including any sublease, which confer on the State University or any of its officers or employees any rights of approval in regard to the student housing facility; and, be it further Resolved that the Chancellor, or designee, be, and hereby is, authorized in accordance with the provisions of Education Law §355 to provide all other approvals, notices, assurances or instruments or take such other actions in connection with the student housing facility as may be necessary from time to time, under the ground lease and related documents, including any sublease. (2011-057) Acquisition of Property – State University of New York, Empire State College Whereas it is necessary for the purposes of the State University of New York Empire State College to acquire real property hereinafter described; now, therefore, be it Resolved that the approximately 1.3 acre parcel of real property located at 46 Union Avenue and 35 White Street, Saratoga Springs, County of Saratoga, New York, owned by 46 Union Avenue LLC be purchased for the sum not to exceed $2,600,000, as established by a proper appraisal and an accurate survey and approval of title to said real property by the Attorney General; and, be it further Resolved that the Chancellor, or designee, be, and hereby is, authorized to execute any and all documents, notices, maps, or any other instruments necessary or appropriate to effect the acquisition of title to and possession of such property. (2011-058) Gift of Real Property – Niagara County Community College Whereas Education Law §6304(1)(c) provides that a local sponsor may provide all or a portion of its share of capital costs of a project by a gift of property, the value of which, for the purpose of determining the amount of State aid for the project, shall be determined by the State University Board, with the approval of the Director of the Budget; and Whereas Niagara County, local sponsor of Niagara County Community College, will transfer certain real property in trust for the benefit of Niagara County Community College, and seeks a determination by the State University Board that the value of such real property for purposes of Education Law §6304(1)(c) is $5.5 million, as established by appraisal; and Whereas the subject real property is a portion of approximately 90,000 sq. ft. of the Rainbow Mall, located at 399 Rainbow Boulevard, Rainbow Boulevard South and Old Falls Street, City of Niagara Falls, Niagara County, New York, which the College intends to develop as a Hospitality and Tourism Center and Culinary Arts Institute (the “Site”); and Whereas regulations of the State University, set forth in 8 NYCRR §603.5(a), provide that real property may be acquired for community college facilities by gift only after the State University Board has approved the selection of the site; now, therefore, be it Resolved that the value of the Site provided by Niagara County, for purposes of Education Law §6304(1)(c), is determined to be $5.5 million; and, be it further Resolved that the Site be, and hereby is, approved; and be it further Resolved that the Chancellor, or designee, be, and hereby is, authorized to transmit such determination as to the value of real property to the State Director of the Budget for appropriate action. (2011-059) Amendments to Part 311 of 8 NYCRR (Freedom of Information Law) Resolved that Part 311 of Title 8 of the Official Compilation of Codes, Rules and Regulations of the State of New York be and hereby is amended to read as follows (brackets denote old material to be deleted; underlining denotes new material to be added): § 311.1 Designation of records access officer. (a) The chancellor for [the central] system administration of the university and the chief administrative officer of each State-operated institution are responsible for insuring compliance with the regulations herein. For the purposes of [central] system administration of the university, the [Vice Chancellor and] Secretary of the University, or designee, State University Plaza, Albany, NY 12246, FOIL@suny.edu, shall serve as records access officer. A records access officer shall be designated by the chief administrative officer of each campus. For State-operated institutions, the name, title, business address and email address of the records access officer may be obtained from the office of the chief administrative officer of each campus. (b) Records access officers are responsible for insuring appropriate agency response to public requests for access to records. The designation of records access officers shall not be construed to prohibit officials who have in the past been authorized to make records or information available to the public from continuing to do so. Records access officers shall insure that personnel: (1) maintain an up-to-date subject matter list; (2) assist the requester in identifying requested records, if necessary; (3) [upon locating the records, take one of the following actions: (i) make records available for inspection; or (ii) deny access to the records in whole or in part and explain in writing the reasons therefore] contact persons seeking records when a request is voluminous or when locating the records involves substantial effort, so that personnel may ascertain the nature of records of primary interest and attempt to reasonably reduce the volume of records requested; (4) [upon request for copies of records, make a copy available upon payment of 25 cents per page] upon locating the records, take one of the following actions: (i) make records available for inspection; or (ii) deny access to the records in whole or in part and explain in writing the reasons therefore; (5) [upon request, certify that a record is a true copy] upon request for copies of records, make a copy available upon payment of established fees, if any, in accordance with Section 311.8. (6) [upon failure to locate records, certify that: (i) the university or campus is not the custodian for such records; or (ii) the records of which the university or campus is a custodian cannot be found after diligent search.] upon request, certify that a record is a true copy; and (7) upon failure to locate records, certify that: (i) the university or campus is not the custodian for such records; or (ii) the records of which the university or campus is a custodian cannot be found after diligent search. § 311.2 Location. Records shall be available for public inspection and copying at the records access office or at the location at which they are maintained. § 311.3 Hours for public inspection. Requests for public access to records shall be accepted and records produced during all regular business hours. § 311.4 Requests for public access to records. (a) A written request may be required, but oral requests may be accepted [when records are readily available] in the discretion of the records access officer. (b) [A response shall be given, regarding any request reasonably describing the records or records sought, within five business days of receipt of the request.] The records access officer shall accept requests for records submitted in the form of electronic mail and shall respond to such requests by electronic mail, provided that the written requests do not seek a response in some other form. (c) A request shall reasonably describe the record or records sought. Whenever possible, a person requesting records should supply information regarding dates, file designations or other information that may help to describe the records sought. (d) [Within five business days of the receipt of a written request for a record reasonable described, the records access officer shall make such record available to the person requesting it, deny such request in writing or furnish a written acknowledgment of the receipt of such request and a statement of the approximate date, which shall be reasonable under the circumstances of the request, when such request will be granted or denied. If the records access officer determines to grant a request in whole or in part, and if circumstances prevent disclosure to the person requesting the record or records within 20 business days from the date of the acknowledgment of the receipt of the request, the records access officer shall state, in writing, both the reason for the inability to grant the request within 20 business days and a date certain within a reasonable period, depending on the circumstances, when the request will be granted in whole or in part.] If agency records are maintained on the internet, the requester shall be informed that the records are accessible via the internet and in printed form either on paper or other information storage medium. (e) [The records access officer shall accept requests for records submitted in the form of electronic mail and shall respond to such requests by electronic mail, provided that the written requests do not seek a response in some other form.] A response shall be given within five business days of receipt of a request by: (1) informing the requester that the request or portion of the request does not reasonably describe the records sought, including direction, to the extent possible, that would enable the requester to request records reasonably described; (2) granting or denying access to records in whole or in part; (3) acknowledging the receipt of a request in writing, including an approximate date when the request will be granted or denied in whole or in part, which shall be reasonable under the circumstances of the request and shall not be more than twenty business days after the date of the acknowledgment, or if it is known that circumstances prevent disclosure within twenty business days from the date of such acknowledgment, providing a statement in writing indicating the reason for inability to grant the request within that time and a date certain, within a reasonable period under the circumstances of the request, when the request will be granted in whole or in part; or (4) if the receipt of request was acknowledged in writing and included an approximate date when the request would be granted in whole or in part within twenty business days of such acknowledgment, but circumstances prevent disclosure within that time, providing a statement in writing within twenty business days of such acknowledgment specifying the reason for the inability to do so and a date certain, within a reasonable period under the circumstances of the request, when the request will be granted in whole or in part. (f) In determining a reasonable time for granting or denying a request under the circumstances of a request, records access officers shall consider the volume of a request, the ease or difficulty in locating, retrieving or generating records, the complexity of the request, the need to review records to determine the extent to which they must be disclosed, the number of requests received by the campus or system administration, and similar factors that bear on the ability to grant access to records promptly and within a reasonable time. (g) [(f)] Failure by the records access officer to comply with the time limitations described herein shall constitute a denial of access. § 311.5 Subject matter list. (a) Each records access officer shall maintain a reasonably detailed current list, by subject matter, of all records in his or her possession, whether or not records are available pursuant to subdivision 2 of section 87 of the Public Officers Law (Freedom of Information Law). (b) The subject matter list shall be sufficiently detailed to permit identification of the category of the record sought. (c) The subject matter list shall be updated [not less than twice per year.] annually. The date of the most recent update shall appear on the first page of the subject matter list. § 311.6 Records containing trade secrets. (a) Any person who submits records to the university may at the time of submission request that the university except such records or parts of such records from disclosure as trade secrets pursuant to sections 87(2)(d) and 89(5) of the Public Officers Law. The request for an exception shall be made in writing to the records access officer at the campus where the records have been submitted and shall state the reasons why the records should be excepted from disclosure. Such records shall be excepted from disclosure and maintained apart from all other records until 15 days after the entitlement to such exception has been finally determined or such further time as ordered by a court of competent jurisdiction. Where the request for exception itself contains information which if disclosed would defeat the purpose for which the exception is sought, such information shall also be excepted from disclosure. (b) The records access officer shall, at any time, or upon receipt of a request for access to such records, determine whether the request for exception will be granted, continued, terminated or denied. Before [doing so] making such determination, the records access officer shall: (1) notify the person who requested the exception that a determination is to be made whether such exception should be granted or continued; and (2) permit the person who requested the exception, within [10] ten business days of receipt of such notification, to submit a written statement of the necessity for granting or continuing such exception. (c) Within seven business days of receipt of such statement or within seven business days of the expiration of the period prescribed for submission of such statement, the records access officer shall issue a written determination granting, continuing, terminating or denying the exception and stating the reasons therefor. Copies of such determination shall be transmitted to the person, if any, requesting the records, the person who requested the exception and the Committee on Open Government. (d) A denial of an exception from disclosure may be appealed by the person submitting the records and a denial of access to the records may be appealed by the person requesting the records. The following person shall [hear] determine such appeals: Chief Operating Officer [Vice Chancellor for Governmental and University Relations], or Designee State University of New York State University Plaza Albany, NY 12246 Telephone: (518) [443-5148] 320-1400 The appeal shall be in writing and shall be made within seven business days of receipt of a denial. The appeal shall be determined within [10] ten business days of receipt of the appeal. Written notice of the determination and a statement of reasons for the determination shall be served upon the person, if any, requesting the records, the person who requested the exception and the Committee on Open Government. (e) A proceeding to review a denial of an exemption from disclosure or a denial of access to the records may be brought under Article 78 of the New York Civil Practice Law and Rules by the person submitting the records or the person requesting the records, within 15 days of service of the denial. (f) [(e)] Records or parts of records identified as trade secrets shall be maintained in a safe and secure manner and shall be charged to the custody of the head of the department or office in which the records are filed. That individual shall specify which persons subject to his or her supervision may inspect such records. The records access officer, the Secretary of the University [Executive Director, Central Administration Services], or designee, and the Chief Operating Officer [Vice Chancellor for Governmental and University Relations], or designee, shall have the right to inspect such records. § 311.7 Denial of access to records. (a) This section shall not apply to records or parts of records alleged to contain trade secrets. (b) Denial of access to records shall be in writing, stating the reason therefor and advising the requester of the right to appeal to the [individual or body established to hear appeals.] FOIL Appeals Officer, who shall be identified by name, title, business address and business telephone number. (c) If requested records are not provided promptly, as required in Section 311.4 [of this Part], such failure shall also be deemed a denial of access. (d) The following person shall [hear] determine appeals for denial of access to records under the Freedom of Information Law: Chief Operating Officer [Vice Chancellor for Governmental and University Relations], or Designee State University of New York State University of Plaza Albany, NY 12246 Telephone: (518) [443-5148] 320-1400 (e) Any person denied access to records may appeal within thirty days of a denial. (f) [(e)] The time for deciding an appeal by the individual designated to [hear] determine appeals shall commence upon receipt of a written appeal identifying: (1) [the date of the appeal] the date and the location of the requests for records; (2) [the date and location of the requests for records] a description, to the extent possible, of the records to which the requester was denied access; and (3) [the records to which the requester was denied access] the name and return address of the person denied access. [(4) whether the denial of access was in writing or due to failure to provide records promptly as required by section 311.4(d) of this Part; and (5) the name and return address of the requester.] (g) A failure to determine an appeal within ten business days of its receipt by granting access to the records sought or fully explaining the reasons for further denial in writing shall constitute a denial of the appeal. [(f) The individual or body designated to hear appeals shall inform the requester of its decision in writing within 10 business days of receipt of an appeal.] (h) [(g)] The person or body designated to [hear] determine appeals shall transmit to the Committee on Open Government copies of all appeals upon receipt of appeals. Such copies shall be addressed to: Committee on Open Government Department of State One Commerce Plaza, Suite 650 99 [162] Washington Avenue Albany, NY 12231 (i) [(h)] The person or body designated to [hear] determine appeals shall inform the appellant and the Committee on Open Government of its determination in writing within [seven] ten business days of receipt of an appeal. The determination shall be transmitted to the Committee on Open Government in the same manner as set forth in subdivision [(f)] (h) of this section. § 311.8 Fees. (a) There shall be no fee charged for: (1) inspection of records for which no redaction is permitted; (2) search for, the administrative costs of, or employee time to prepare photocopies of records; or (3) review of the content of requested records to determine the extent to which records must be disclosed or may be withheld; or (4) [(3)] any certification pursuant to this Part. (b) [Copies of records shall be provided upon payment of 25 cents per page.] Fees for photocopies of records may be charged, provided that: (1) the fee shall not exceed 25 cents per page for photocopies not larger than 9 by 14 inches; and (2) the fee for photocopies of records in excess of 9 by 14 inches shall not exceed the actual cost of reproduction. (c) Fees for other records may be charged based on the actual cost of reproduction of a record, which may include only the following: (1) an amount equal to the hourly salary attributed to the lowest paid employee who has the requisite skill to prepare a copy of the requested record, but only when more than two hours of the employee’s time is necessary to do so; and; (2) the actual cost of the storage devices or media provided to the requester in complying with the request; or (3) the actual cost to engage an outside professional service to prepare a copy of a record, but only when system administration or campus is unable, due to technological limitations, to prepare a copy of the record and if such service is used to prepare the copy; (d) When system administration or the campus has the ability to retrieve or extract a record or data maintained in a computer storage system with reasonable effort, or when doing so requires less employee time than engaging in manual retrieval or redactions from non-electronic records, the retrieval or extraction of such record or data must be accomplished electronically. In such case, a fee may be charged in accordance with paragraph (c)(1) and (2) above. (e) The requester shall be informed of the estimated cost of preparing a copy of a record if more than two hours of an employee’s time is needed, or if it is necessary to retain an outside professional service to prepare a copy of the record. (f) System administration or the campus may require that the fee for copying or reproducing a record be paid in advance of the preparation of such copy. § 311.9 Public notice. A notice containing the title or name and business address of the records access officer and appeals person or body and the location where records can be seen or copied shall be posted in a conspicuous location wherever records are kept. § 311.10 Severability. If any provision of this Part or the application thereof to any person or circumstance is adjudged invalid by a court of competent jurisdiction, such judgment shall not affect or impair the validity of the other provisions of this Part or the application thereof to other persons and circumstances. (2011-060) Amendments to Student Assembly Articles of Organization (8 NYCRR Sections 341.4 and 341.18) Resolved sections 341.4 and 341.18 of Part 341 of Title 8 of the Official Compilation of Codes, Rules and Regulations of the State of New York be and hereby are amended to read as follows (brackets denote old material to be deleted; underlining denotes new material to be added): 341.4 Member institutions. Each campus of the State University shall be a member institution according to the following: the graduate division [of each university center] at each of the doctoral degree granting institutions; the undergraduate division [of each university center] at each of the doctoral degree granting institutions; each of the other State-operated campuses; each community college; New York State College of Ceramics at Alfred University; and one from the four statutory colleges at Cornell University 341.18 Executive committee. (a) There shall be an executive committee of the student assembly to conduct necessary business between meetings of the student assembly and other matters as prescribed by this Part or the bylaws. The executive committee shall include the officers of the student assembly and the designated number of representatives from the following: [two] three representatives from the [university centers] doctoral degree granting institutions (undergraduate division); three representatives from the university colleges; [one representative from the health science centers;] two representatives from the Colleges of Technology, Agriculture and Technology, and [Specialized/]Statutory Colleges; [one] two representatives from the [university centers (] graduate division of the doctoral degree granting institutions[)]; six representatives from the community colleges and one nonvoting student representative from each standing committee. In order to serve as a member of the executive committee, an individual must be a student at a State University of New York campus and must maintain a cumulative GPA of 2.0 or higher. (2011-061) Amendments to 8 NYCRR Part 328 (University Officers) Resolved that Part 328 of Title 8 of the Official Compilation of Codes, Rules and Regulations of the State of New York be and hereby is amended to read as follows (brackets denote old material to be deleted; underlining denotes new material to be added): PART 328 UNIVERSITY OFFICERS * * * * * * * TITLE A—CHANCELLOR §328.1 Appointment. (a) The chancellor shall be appointed by the board of trustees and shall serve at the pleasure of the board of trustees. (b) At any time during the period of appointment, the board of trustees may evaluate the services of the chancellor. (c) The chancellor, upon appointment, shall be appointed to the faculty of the university in a position of academic rank with continuing appointment. §328.2 Chief executive officer. The chancellor shall be the chief executive officer of the university. The chancellor shall execute and enforce these policies and shall perform such other duties as may be assigned by the board of trustees. The chancellor shall make all appointments of employees, other than officers, to positions in the central office of the university in the classified service of the civil service of the State. §328.3 Assignment of powers and duties. The chancellor may assign to the officers, faculty and staff of the university powers, duties and responsibilities, and they shall be responsible to the chancellor and the board of trustees for the performance thereof, as well as for those powers, duties and responsibilities specifically vested in them by these policies. §328.4 Committees. The chancellor may establish and appoint such ad hoc university committees as the chancellor may deem advisable to assist in the development of specific programs and policies in the administration of the university. The chancellor shall be a member, ex officio, of all such committees. §328.5 Annual report. On or before December 1 of each year, the chancellor shall make an annual report to the board of trustees for the previous year, concerning the affairs of the university and recommendations with respect thereto. TITLE B—SECRETARY OF THE STATE UNIVERSITY §328.6 Appointment. The secretary of the State University shall be appointed by the board of trustees and shall serve at its pleasure. §328.7 Responsibilities. The secretary of the State University shall serve as secretary of the board and its committees, shall keep records of their proceedings and shall furnish minutes of such proceedings to the members of the board and its committees, respectively. The secretary shall be the custodian of the university seal and shall maintain a complete file of all reports of the board and its committees and perform such other duties as may be assigned by the board or any of its committees. The secretary shall perform such other powers and duties and have such other responsibilities, not inconsistent with responsibilities to the board of trustees, as may be assigned by the chancellor. TITLE C—OTHER SENIOR OFFICERS §328.8 Other senior officers. In addition to the chancellor and secretary, the senior officers of the State University shall include such other titles and officers at the level of vice chancellor or above as are recommended by the chancellor and approved and appointed by the board of trustees, all of whom shall serve at the pleasure of the board. Other than the chancellor, an individual may hold more than one senior officer title. Senior officers shall perform such duties as may be assigned from time to time by the board of trustees or the chancellor. [ TITLE C—STATE UNIVERSITY COUNSEL §328.8 Appointment. The State University counsel shall be appointed by the board of trustees upon recommendation of the chancellor and shall serve at the pleasure of the board. §328.9 Responsibilities. The State University counsel shall be the legal adviser to the university. The university counsel shall provide legal advice and opinions for the board of trustees and officers of the university on matters concerning university affairs. When requested by the board of trustees or the chancellor, the university counsel shall conduct negotiations and prepare legal documents for the university, and represent the university in legal actions. TITLE D—EXECUTIVE VICE CHANCELLOR §328.10 Appointment. The executive vice chancellor shall be appointed by the board of trustees upon recommendation of the chancellor and shall serve at the pleasure of the board. §328.11 Responsibilities. The executive vice chancellor shall, in the absence of the chancellor, perform the duties of the chancellor, and when so acting shall have all the powers of that office. The executive vice chancellor shall perform such other duties as from time to time may be assigned by the board of trustees or the chancellor. TITLE E—SENIOR VICE CHANCELLOR §328.12 Appointment. The senior vice chancellor shall be appointed by the board of trustees upon recommendation of the chancellor and shall serve at the pleasure of the board. §328.13 Responsibilities. The senior vice chancellor shall be responsible for the development and maintenance of the financial management system for the university and shall have such other powers and duties, including responsibilities with respect to the management of university endowment funds, as may be assigned by the board of trustees or the chancellor.] TITLE [F] D--OTHER OFFICERS AND PROFESSIONAL STAFF [§328.14] §328.9 Designation. There shall be other executive and administrative officers as shall be designated by the chancellor [with the consent of the board of trustees]. [§328.15] §328.10 Appointment. Vice chancellors[, associate chancellors, associate vice chancellors] and deputies to the chancellor[, or their equivalents,] shall be appointed by the board of trustees after receiving the recommendation of the chancellor; such officers shall serve at the pleasure of the board of trustees. All other executive and administrative officers shall be appointed by and serve at the pleasure of the chancellor or [his] designee. [§328.16] §328.11 Responsibilities. Executive and administrative officers shall have such powers, duties and responsibilities as may be assigned by the board of trustees or by the chancellor. [§328.17] §328.12 Appointment of other professional staff. Professional staff not in the negotiating unit established pursuant to article 14 of the Civil Service Law in the central administration of the university, other than executive and administrative officers, shall be appointed by and serve at the pleasure of the chancellor, or designee. Professional employees in the central administration shall be appointed by the chancellor, or designee, in accordance with the provisions of Part 335 of this Subchapter, which shall also govern the terms and conditions of service of such employees. (2011-062) Effective Resource Alignment Through Shared Services Whereas the State University of New York has experienced a significant decline in State operating funding over the past four years; and Whereas the Board of Trustees wishes to maintain and improve academic quality at the campuses; and Whereas the Board of Trustees desires to use the resources of the State University to best advantage by minimizing costs for administrative functions to allow for enhanced spending on instruction and student services; and Whereas the Board of Trustees wishes to identify opportunities and implement strategies for shared functions among the State-operated institutions of the State University; and Whereas the Board of Trustees wishes to further encourage enhanced procurement efficiencies; and Whereas the Board of Trustees further wishes to ensure the best and most effective alignment of academic program offerings; now, therefore, be it Resolved that the Chancellor be, and hereby is, authorized to direct the State-operated institutions to partner on a sector, regional or mission basis to identify and implement plans to share administrative functions now performed individually by each campus; and, be it further Resolved that the State-operated institutions and System Administration continue efforts to enhance procurement effectiveness through activities such as participation in the New York State Strategic Sourcing Initiative and further expansion of University-wide contracting opportunities; and, be it further Resolved that the State-operated institutions collaboratively review their academic program and course offerings, re-aligning such offerings where possible to further improve academic quality and delivery and administrative efficiency; and, be it further Resolved that plans in pursuit of the above goals developed collaboratively by State-operated institutions and System Administration shall be as directed by or subject to the approval of the Chancellor, or designee. (2011-063) Approval of Proposal to Establish the Beginning with Children Charter School II (Brooklyn) Whereas the Charter Schools Institute (the “Institute”), acting on behalf of the Board of Trustees and in accordance with the New York Charter Schools Act of 1998 (as amended, the “Act”), issued a request for proposals (“RFP”) to establish new charter schools on January 3, 2011, in response to which Beginning with Children Charter School II, to be located in Brooklyn, submitted a proposal that the Institute reviewed, scored and ranked, and recommends for approval (the “Recommended Proposal”) as set forth in the Institute’s Summary of Findings and Recommendations report for the proposed school (copy on file in the Office of the Secretary of the University and in the Albany office of the Institute), which was made available to the Board; and Whereas the school district of location of the proposed school commented on the Recommended Proposal (comments attached), which comments the Board of Trustees must consider pursuant to the Act; now, therefore, be it Resolved that the Recommended Proposal rigorously demonstrates that the Proposal has met the following criteria: (1) the proposed charter school would meet or exceed enrollment and retention targets, to be prescribed by the Board of Trustees, of students with disabilities, English language learners, and students who are eligible applicants for the federal free and reduced price lunch program; and (2) that the applicant has conducted public outreach, in conformity with a thorough and meaningful public review process prescribed by the Board of Trustees, to solicit community input regarding the proposed charter school and to address comments received from the impacted community concerning the educational and programmatic needs of students; and, be it further Resolved that the Board of Trustees has granted priority to the Recommended Proposal based on a scoring rubric that best demonstrates how proposed schools will achieve the objectives set forth in Education Law subdivision 2852(9-a)(c); and, be it further Resolved that the Recommended Proposal and the school described therein meet the requirements of the Act (as amended) and all other applicable laws, rules and regulations; and, be it further Resolved that the applicant submitting the Recommended Proposal and the founding team described therein demonstrate the ability to operate the proposed school in an educationally and fiscally sound manner; and, be it further Resolved that approving the Recommended Proposal is likely to improve student learning and achievement and materially further the purposes set out in Education Law subdivision 2850(2); and, be it further Resolved that the Recommended Proposal be, and hereby is, approved; and, be it further Resolved that the Institute be, and hereby is, directed to: (1) enter into a proposed charter with the applicant of the Recommended Proposal, which shall include such assurances and terms as the Institute shall deem necessary and appropriate; and (2) thereafter to submit such proposed charter no later than November 1, 2011 as required by the Act to the Board of Regents for issuance by the Board of Regents on or before December 31, 2011. (2011-064) Approval of Proposal to Establish the Brooklyn Success Academy Charter School 2 (Brooklyn) Whereas the Charter Schools Institute (the “Institute”), acting on behalf of the Board of Trustees and in accordance with the New York Charter Schools Act of 1998 (as amended, the “Act”), issued a request for proposals (“RFP”) to establish new charter schools on January 3, 2011, in response to which Brooklyn Success Academy Charter School 2, to be located in Brooklyn, submitted a proposal that the Institute reviewed, scored and ranked, and recommends for approval (the “Recommended Proposal”) as set forth in the Institute’s Summary of Findings and Recommendations report for the proposed school (copy on file in the Office of the Secretary of the University and in the Albany office of the Institute), which was made available to the Board; and Whereas the school district of location of the proposed school commented on the Recommended Proposal (comments attached), which comments the Board of Trustees must consider pursuant to the Act; now, therefore, be it Resolved that the Recommended Proposal rigorously demonstrates that the Proposal has met the following criteria: (1) the proposed charter school would meet or exceed enrollment and retention targets, to be prescribed by the Board of Trustees, of students with disabilities, English language learners, and students who are eligible applicants for the federal free and reduced price lunch program; and (2) that the applicant has conducted public outreach, in conformity with a thorough and meaningful public review process prescribed by the Board of Trustees, to solicit community input regarding the proposed charter school and to address comments received from the impacted community concerning the educational and programmatic needs of students; and, be it further Resolved that the Board of Trustees has granted priority to the Recommended Proposal based on a scoring rubric that best demonstrates how proposed schools will achieve the objectives set forth in Education Law subdivision 2852(9-a)(c); and, be it further Resolved that the Recommended Proposal and the school described therein meet the requirements of the Act (as amended) and all other applicable laws, rules and regulations; and, be it further Resolved that the applicant submitting the Recommended Proposal and the founding team described therein demonstrate the ability to operate the proposed school in an educationally and fiscally sound manner; and, be it further Resolved that approving the Recommended Proposal is likely to improve student learning and achievement and materially further the purposes set out in Education Law subdivision 2850(2); and, be it further Resolved that the Recommended Proposal be, and hereby is, approved; and, be it further Resolved that the Institute be, and hereby is, directed to: (1) enter into a proposed charter with the applicant of the Recommended Proposal, which shall include such assurances and terms as the Institute shall deem necessary and appropriate; and (2) thereafter to submit such proposed charter no later than November 1, 2011 as required by the Act to the Board of Regents for issuance by the Board of Regents on or before December 31, 2011. (2011-065) Approval of Proposal to Establish the Brooklyn Success Academy Charter School 3 (Brooklyn) Whereas the Charter Schools Institute (the “Institute”), acting on behalf of the Board of Trustees and in accordance with the New York Charter Schools Act of 1998 (as amended, the “Act”), issued a request for proposals (“RFP”) to establish new charter schools on January 3, 2011, in response to which Brooklyn Success Academy Charter School 3, to be located in Brooklyn, submitted a proposal that the Institute reviewed, scored and ranked, and recommends for approval (the “Recommended Proposal”) as set forth in the Institute’s Summary of Findings and Recommendations report for the proposed school (copy on file in the Office of the Secretary of the University and in the Albany office of the Institute), which was made available to the Board; and Whereas the school district of location of the proposed school commented on the Recommended Proposal (comments attached), which comments the Board of Trustees must consider pursuant to the Act; now, therefore, be it Resolved that the Recommended Proposal rigorously demonstrates that the Proposal has met the following criteria: (1) the proposed charter school would meet or exceed enrollment and retention targets, to be prescribed by the Board of Trustees, of students with disabilities, English language learners, and students who are eligible applicants for the federal free and reduced price lunch program; and (2) that the applicant has conducted public outreach, in conformity with a thorough and meaningful public review process prescribed by the Board of Trustees, to solicit community input regarding the proposed charter school and to address comments received from the impacted community concerning the educational and programmatic needs of students; and, be it further Resolved that the Board of Trustees has granted priority to the Recommended Proposal based on a scoring rubric that best demonstrates how proposed schools will achieve the objectives set forth in Education Law subdivision 2852(9-a)(c); and, be it further Resolved that the Recommended Proposal and the school described therein meet the requirements of the Act (as amended) and all other applicable laws, rules and regulations; and, be it further Resolved that the applicant submitting the Recommended Proposal and the founding team described therein demonstrate the ability to operate the proposed school in an educationally and fiscally sound manner; and, be it further Resolved that approving the Recommended Proposal is likely to improve student learning and achievement and materially further the purposes set out in Education Law subdivision 2850(2); and, be it further Resolved that the Recommended Proposal be, and hereby is, approved; and, be it further Resolved that the Institute be, and hereby is, directed to: (1) enter into a proposed charter with the applicant of the Recommended Proposal, which shall include such assurances and terms as the Institute shall deem necessary and appropriate; and (2) thereafter to submit such proposed charter no later than November 1, 2011 as required by the Act to the Board of Regents for issuance by the Board of Regents on or before December 31, 2011. (2011-066) Approval of Proposal to Establish the Brooklyn Success Academy Charter School 4 (Brooklyn) Whereas the Charter Schools Institute (the “Institute”), acting on behalf of the Board of Trustees and in accordance with the New York Charter Schools Act of 1998 (as amended, the “Act”), issued a request for proposals (“RFP”) to establish new charter schools on January 3, 2011, in response to which Brooklyn Success Academy Charter School 4, to be located in Brooklyn, submitted a proposal that the Institute reviewed, scored and ranked, and recommends for approval (the “Recommended Proposal”) as set forth in the Institute’s Summary of Findings and Recommendations report for the proposed school (copy on file in the Office of the Secretary of the University and in the Albany office of the Institute), which was made available to the Board; and Whereas the school district of location of the proposed school commented on the Recommended Proposal (comments attached), which comments the Board of Trustees must consider pursuant to the Act; now, therefore, be it Resolved that the Recommended Proposal rigorously demonstrates that the Proposal has met the following criteria: (1) the proposed charter school would meet or exceed enrollment and retention targets, to be prescribed by the Board of Trustees, of students with disabilities, English language learners, and students who are eligible applicants for the federal free and reduced price lunch program; and (2) that the applicant has conducted public outreach, in conformity with a thorough and meaningful public review process prescribed by the Board of Trustees, to solicit community input regarding the proposed charter school and to address comments received from the impacted community concerning the educational and programmatic needs of students; and, be it further Resolved that the Board of Trustees has granted priority to the Recommended Proposal based on a scoring rubric that best demonstrates how proposed schools will achieve the objectives set forth in Education Law subdivision 2852(9-a)(c); and, be it further Resolved that the Recommended Proposal and the school described therein meet the requirements of the Act (as amended) and all other applicable laws, rules and regulations; and, be it further Resolved that the applicant submitting the Recommended Proposal and the founding team described therein demonstrate the ability to operate the proposed school in an educationally and fiscally sound manner; and, be it further Resolved that approving the Recommended Proposal is likely to improve student learning and achievement and materially further the purposes set out in Education Law subdivision 2850(2); and, be it further Resolved that the Recommended Proposal be, and hereby is, approved; and, be it further Resolved that the Institute be, and hereby is, directed to: (1) enter into a proposed charter with the applicant of the Recommended Proposal, which shall include such assurances and terms as the Institute shall deem necessary and appropriate; and (2) thereafter to submit such proposed charter no later than November 1, 2011 as required by the Act to the Board of Regents for issuance by the Board of Regents on or before December 31, 2011. (2011-067) Approval of Proposal to Establish the Central Queens Academy Charter School (Queens) Whereas the Charter Schools Institute (the “Institute”), acting on behalf of the Board of Trustees and in accordance with the New York Charter Schools Act of 1998 (as amended, the “Act”), issued a request for proposals (“RFP”) to establish new charter schools on January 3, 2011, in response to which Central Queens Academy Charter School, to be located in Queens, submitted a proposal that the Institute reviewed, scored and ranked, and recommends for approval (the “Recommended Proposal”) as set forth in the Institute’s Summary of Findings and Recommendations report for the proposed school (copy on file in the Office of the Secretary of the University and in the Albany office of the Institute), which was made available to the Board; and Whereas the school district of location of the proposed school commented on the Recommended Proposal (comments attached), which comments the Board of Trustees must consider pursuant to the Act; now, therefore, be it Resolved that the Recommended Proposal rigorously demonstrates that the Proposal has met the following criteria: (1) the proposed charter school would meet or exceed enrollment and retention targets, to be prescribed by the Board of Trustees, of students with disabilities, English language learners, and students who are eligible applicants for the federal free and reduced price lunch program; and (2) that the applicant has conducted public outreach, in conformity with a thorough and meaningful public review process prescribed by the Board of Trustees, to solicit community input regarding the proposed charter school and to address comments received from the impacted community concerning the educational and programmatic needs of students; and, be it further Resolved that the Board of Trustees has granted priority to the Recommended Proposal based on a scoring rubric that best demonstrates how proposed schools will achieve the objectives set forth in Education Law subdivision 2852(9-a)(c); and, be it further Resolved that the Recommended Proposal and the school described therein meet the requirements of the Act (as amended) and all other applicable laws, rules and regulations; and, be it further Resolved that the applicant submitting the Recommended Proposal and the founding team described therein demonstrate the ability to operate the proposed school in an educationally and fiscally sound manner; and, be it further Resolved that approving the Recommended Proposal is likely to improve student learning and achievement and materially further the purposes set out in Education Law subdivision 2850(2); and, be it further Resolved that the Recommended Proposal be, and hereby is, approved; and, be it further Resolved that the Institute be, and hereby is, directed to: (1) enter into a proposed charter with the applicant of the Recommended Proposal, which shall include such assurances and terms as the Institute shall deem necessary and appropriate; and (2) thereafter to submit such proposed charter no later than November 1, 2011 as required by the Act to the Board of Regents for issuance by the Board of Regents on or before December 31, 2011. (2011-068) Approval of Proposal to Establish the Children's Aid Society Community Charter School (Bronx) Whereas the Charter Schools Institute (the “Institute”), acting on behalf of the Board of Trustees and in accordance with the New York Charter Schools Act of 1998 (as amended, the “Act”), issued a request for proposals (“RFP”) to establish new charter schools on January 3, 2011, in response to which Children's Aid Society Community Charter School, to be located in the Bronx, submitted a proposal that the Institute reviewed, scored and ranked, and recommends for approval (the “Recommended Proposal”) as set forth in the Institute’s Summary of Findings and Recommendations report for the proposed school (copy on file in the Office of the Secretary of the University and in the Albany office of the Institute), which was made available to the Board; and Whereas the school district of location of the proposed school commented on the Recommended Proposal (comments attached), which comments the Board of Trustees must consider pursuant to the Act; now, therefore, be it Resolved that the Recommended Proposal rigorously demonstrates that the Proposal has met the following criteria: (1) the proposed charter school would meet or exceed enrollment and retention targets, to be prescribed by the Board of Trustees, of students with disabilities, English language learners, and students who are eligible applicants for the federal free and reduced price lunch program; and (2) that the applicant has conducted public outreach, in conformity with a thorough and meaningful public review process prescribed by the Board of Trustees, to solicit community input regarding the proposed charter school and to address comments received from the impacted community concerning the educational and programmatic needs of students; and, be it further Resolved that the Board of Trustees has granted priority to the Recommended Proposal based on a scoring rubric that best demonstrates how proposed schools will achieve the objectives set forth in Education Law subdivision 2852(9-a)(c); and, be it further Resolved that the Recommended Proposal and the school described therein meet the requirements of the Act (as amended) and all other applicable laws, rules and regulations; and, be it further Resolved that the applicant submitting the Recommended Proposal and the founding team described therein demonstrate the ability to operate the proposed school in an educationally and fiscally sound manner; and, be it further Resolved that approving the Recommended Proposal is likely to improve student learning and achievement and materially further the purposes set out in Education Law subdivision 2850(2); and, be it further Resolved that the Recommended Proposal be, and hereby is, approved; and, be it further Resolved that the Institute be, and hereby is, directed to: (1) enter into a proposed charter with the applicant of the Recommended Proposal, which shall include such assurances and terms as the Institute shall deem necessary and appropriate; and (2) thereafter to submit such proposed charter no later than November 1, 2011 as required by the Act to the Board of Regents for issuance by the Board of Regents on or before December 31, 2011. (2011-069) Approval of Proposal to Establish the Explore Exceed Charter School (Brooklyn) Whereas the Charter Schools Institute (the “Institute”), acting on behalf of the Board of Trustees and in accordance with the New York Charter Schools Act of 1998 (as amended, the “Act”), issued a request for proposals (“RFP”) to establish new charter schools on January 3, 2011, in response to which Explore Exceed Charter School, to be located in Brooklyn, submitted a proposal that the Institute reviewed, scored and ranked, and recommends for approval (the “Recommended Proposal”) as set forth in the Institute’s Summary of Findings and Recommendations report for the proposed school (copy on file in the Office of the Secretary of the University and in the Albany office of the Institute), which was made available to the Board; and Whereas the school district of location of the proposed school commented on the Recommended Proposal (comments attached), which comments the Board of Trustees must consider pursuant to the Act; now, therefore, be it Resolved that the Recommended Proposal rigorously demonstrates that the Proposal has met the following criteria: (1) the proposed charter school would meet or exceed enrollment and retention targets, to be prescribed by the Board of Trustees, of students with disabilities, English language learners, and students who are eligible applicants for the federal free and reduced price lunch program; and (2) that the applicant has conducted public outreach, in conformity with a thorough and meaningful public review process prescribed by the Board of Trustees, to solicit community input regarding the proposed charter school and to address comments received from the impacted community concerning the educational and programmatic needs of students; and, be it further Resolved that the Board of Trustees has granted priority to the Recommended Proposal based on a scoring rubric that best demonstrates how proposed schools will achieve the objectives set forth in Education Law subdivision 2852(9-a)(c); and, be it further Resolved that the Recommended Proposal and the school described therein meet the requirements of the Act (as amended) and all other applicable laws, rules and regulations; and, be it further Resolved that the applicant submitting the Recommended Proposal and the founding team described therein demonstrate the ability to operate the proposed school in an educationally and fiscally sound manner; and, be it further Resolved that approving the Recommended Proposal is likely to improve student learning and achievement and materially further the purposes set out in Education Law subdivision 2850(2); and, be it further Resolved that the Recommended Proposal be, and hereby is, approved; and, be it further Resolved that the Institute be, and hereby is, directed to: (1) enter into a proposed charter with the applicant of the Recommended Proposal, which shall include such assurances and terms as the Institute shall deem necessary and appropriate; and (2) thereafter to submit such proposed charter no later than November 1, 2011 as required by the Act to the Board of Regents for issuance by the Board of Regents on or before December 31, 2011. (2011-070) Approval of Proposal to Establish the Family Life Academy Charter School II (Bronx) Whereas the Charter Schools Institute (the “Institute”), acting on behalf of the Board of Trustees and in accordance with the New York Charter Schools Act of 1998 (as amended, the “Act”), issued a request for proposals (“RFP”) to establish new charter schools on January 3, 2011, in response to which Family Life Academy Charter School II, to be located in the Bronx, submitted a proposal that the Institute reviewed, scored and ranked, and recommends for approval (the “Recommended Proposal”) as set forth in the Institute’s Summary of Findings and Recommendations report for the proposed school (copy on file in the Office of the Secretary of the University and in the Albany office of the Institute), which was made available to the Board; now, therefore, be it Resolved that the Recommended Proposal rigorously demonstrates that the Proposal has met the following criteria: (1) the proposed charter school would meet or exceed enrollment and retention targets, to be prescribed by the Board of Trustees, of students with disabilities, English language learners, and students who are eligible applicants for the federal free and reduced price lunch program; and (2) that the applicant has conducted public outreach, in conformity with a thorough and meaningful public review process prescribed by the Board of Trustees, to solicit community input regarding the proposed charter school and to address comments received from the impacted community concerning the educational and programmatic needs of students; and, be it further Resolved that the Board of Trustees has granted priority to the Recommended Proposal based on a scoring rubric that best demonstrates how proposed schools will achieve the objectives set forth in Education Law subdivision 2852(9-a)(c); and, be it further Resolved that the Recommended Proposal and the school described therein meet the requirements of the Act (as amended) and all other applicable laws, rules and regulations; and, be it further Resolved that the applicant submitting the Recommended Proposal and the founding team described therein demonstrate the ability to operate the proposed school in an educationally and fiscally sound manner; and, be it further Resolved that approving the Recommended Proposal is likely to improve student learning and achievement and materially further the purposes set out in Education Law subdivision 2850(2); and, be it further Resolved that the Recommended Proposal be, and hereby is, approved; and, be it further Resolved that the Institute be, and hereby is, directed to: (1) enter into a proposed charter with the applicant of the Recommended Proposal, which shall include such assurances and terms as the Institute shall deem necessary and appropriate; and (2) thereafter to submit such proposed charter no later than November 1, 2011 as required by the Act to the Board of Regents for issuance by the Board of Regents on or before December 31, 2011. (2011-071) Approval of Proposal to Establish the Icahn Charter School 6 (Bronx) Whereas the Charter Schools Institute (the “Institute”), acting on behalf of the Board of Trustees and in accordance with the New York Charter Schools Act of 1998 (as amended, the “Act”), issued a request for proposals (“RFP”) to establish new charter schools on January 3, 2011, in response to which Icahn Charter School 6, to be located in the Bronx, submitted a proposal that the Institute reviewed, scored and ranked, and recommends for approval (the “Recommended Proposal”) as set forth in the Institute’s Summary of Findings and Recommendations report for the proposed school (copy on file in the Office of the Secretary of the University and in the Albany office of the Institute), which was made available to the Board; and Whereas the school district of location of the proposed school commented on the Recommended Proposal (comments attached), which comments the Board of Trustees must consider pursuant to the Act; and Whereas the applicant has requested a waiver of the charter agreement provision usually imposed by the Board of Trustees that prohibits more than 40 percent of a charter school board from being affiliated with any single entity other than another charter school, in this case, the Foundation for a Greater Opportunity (the “Request for Waiver”), and the Institute recommends that the waiver be granted; now, therefore, be it Resolved that the Recommended Proposal rigorously demonstrates that the Proposal has met the following criteria: (1) the proposed charter school would meet or exceed enrollment and retention targets, to be prescribed by the Board of Trustees, of students with disabilities, English language learners, and students who are eligible applicants for the federal free and reduced price lunch program; and (2) that the applicant has conducted public outreach, in conformity with a thorough and meaningful public review process prescribed by the Board of Trustees, to solicit community input regarding the proposed charter school and to address comments received from the impacted community concerning the educational and programmatic needs of students; and, be it further Resolved that the Board of Trustees has granted priority to the Recommended Proposal based on a scoring rubric that best demonstrates how proposed schools will achieve the objectives set forth in Education Law subdivision 2852(9-a)(c); and, be it further Resolved that the Recommended Proposal and the school described therein meet the requirements of the Act (as amended) and all other applicable laws, rules and regulations; and, be it further Resolved that the applicant submitting the Recommended Proposal and the founding team described therein demonstrate the ability to operate the proposed school in an educationally and fiscally sound manner; and, be it further Resolved that approving the Recommended Proposal is likely to improve student learning and achievement and materially further the purposes set out in Education Law subdivision 2850(2); and, be it further Resolved that the Recommended Proposal be, and hereby is, approved; and, be it further Resolved that the Request for Waiver be, and hereby is, approved; and be it further Resolved that the Institute be, and hereby is, directed to: (1) enter into a proposed charter with the applicant of the Recommended Proposal, which shall include such assurances and terms as the Institute shall deem necessary and appropriate; and (2) thereafter to submit such proposed charter no later than November 1, 2011 as required by the Act to the Board of Regents for issuance by the Board of Regents on or before December 31, 2011. (2011-072) Approval of Proposal to Establish the Icahn Charter School 7 (Bronx) Whereas the Charter Schools Institute (the “Institute”), acting on behalf of the Board of Trustees and in accordance with the New York Charter Schools Act of 1998 (as amended, the “Act”), issued a request for proposals (“RFP”) to establish new charter schools on January 3, 2011, in response to which Icahn Charter School 7, to be located in the Bronx, submitted a proposal that the Institute reviewed, scored and ranked, and recommends for approval (the “Recommended Proposal”) as set forth in the Institute’s Summary of Findings and Recommendations report for the proposed school (copy on file in the Office of the Secretary of the University and in the Albany office of the Institute), which was made available to the Board; and Whereas the school district of location of the proposed school commented on the Recommended Proposal (comments attached), which comments the Board of Trustees must consider pursuant to the Act; and Whereas the applicant has requested a waiver of the charter agreement provision usually imposed by the Board of Trustees that prohibits more than 40 percent of a charter school board from being affiliated with any single entity other than another charter school, in this case, the Foundation for a Greater Opportunity (the “Request for Waiver”), and the Institute recommends that the waiver be granted; now, therefore, be it Resolved that the Recommended Proposal rigorously demonstrates that the Proposal has met the following criteria: (1) the proposed charter school would meet or exceed enrollment and retention targets, to be prescribed by the Board of Trustees, of students with disabilities, English language learners, and students who are eligible applicants for the federal free and reduced price lunch program; and (2) that the applicant has conducted public outreach, in conformity with a thorough and meaningful public review process prescribed by the Board of Trustees, to solicit community input regarding the proposed charter school and to address comments received from the impacted community concerning the educational and programmatic needs of students; and, be it further Resolved that the Board of Trustees has granted priority to the Recommended Proposal based on a scoring rubric that best demonstrates how proposed schools will achieve the objectives set forth in Education Law subdivision 2852(9-a)(c); and, be it further Resolved that the Recommended Proposal and the school described therein meet the requirements of the Act (as amended) and all other applicable laws, rules and regulations; and, be it further Resolved that the applicant submitting the Recommended Proposal and the founding team described therein demonstrate the ability to operate the proposed school in an educationally and fiscally sound manner; and, be it further Resolved that approving the Recommended Proposal is likely to improve student learning and achievement and materially further the purposes set out in Education Law subdivision 2850(2); and, be it further Resolved that the Recommended Proposal be, and hereby is, approved; and, be it further Resolved that the Request for Waiver be, and hereby is, approved; and be it further Resolved that the Institute be, and hereby is, directed to: (1) enter into a proposed charter with the applicant of the Recommended Proposal, which shall include such assurances and terms as the Institute shall deem necessary and appropriate; and (2) thereafter to submit such proposed charter no later than November 1, 2011 as required by the Act to the Board of Regents for issuance by the Board of Regents on or before December 31, 2011. (2011-073) Approval of Proposal to Establish the Manhattan Charter School II (Manhattan) Whereas the Charter Schools Institute (the “Institute”), acting on behalf of the Board of Trustees and in accordance with the New York Charter Schools Act of 1998 (as amended, the “Act”), issued a request for proposals (“RFP”) to establish new charter schools on January 3, 2011, in response to which Manhattan Charter School II, to be located in Manhattan, submitted a proposal that the Institute reviewed, scored and ranked, and recommends for approval (the “Recommended Proposal”) as set forth in the Institute’s Summary of Findings and Recommendations report for the proposed school (copy on file in the Office of the Secretary of the University and in the Albany office of the Institute), which was made available to the Board; and Whereas the school district of location of the proposed school commented on the Recommended Proposal (comments attached), which comments the Board of Trustees must consider pursuant to the Act; now, therefore, be it Resolved that the Recommended Proposal rigorously demonstrates that the Proposal has met the following criteria: (1) the proposed charter school would meet or exceed enrollment and retention targets, to be prescribed by the Board of Trustees, of students with disabilities, English language learners, and students who are eligible applicants for the federal free and reduced price lunch program; and (2) that the applicant has conducted public outreach, in conformity with a thorough and meaningful public review process prescribed by the Board of Trustees, to solicit community input regarding the proposed charter school and to address comments received from the impacted community concerning the educational and programmatic needs of students; and, be it further Resolved that the Board of Trustees has granted priority to the Recommended Proposal based on a scoring rubric that best demonstrates how proposed schools will achieve the objectives set forth in Education Law subdivision 2852(9-a)(c); and, be it further Resolved that the Recommended Proposal and the school described therein meet the requirements of the Act (as amended) and all other applicable laws, rules and regulations; and, be it further Resolved that the applicant submitting the Recommended Proposal and the founding team described therein demonstrate the ability to operate the proposed school in an educationally and fiscally sound manner; and, be it further Resolved that approving the Recommended Proposal is likely to improve student learning and achievement and materially further the purposes set out in Education Law subdivision 2850(2); and, be it further Resolved that the Recommended Proposal be, and hereby is, approved; and, be it further Resolved that the Institute be, and hereby is, directed to: (1) enter into a proposed charter with the applicant of the Recommended Proposal, which shall include such assurances and terms as the Institute shall deem necessary and appropriate; and (2) thereafter to submit such proposed charter no later than November 1, 2011 as required by the Act to the Board of Regents for issuance by the Board of Regents on or before December 31, 2011. (2011-074) Approval of Proposal to Establish the Tech International Charter School (Bronx) Whereas the Charter Schools Institute (the “Institute”), acting on behalf of the Board of Trustees and in accordance with the New York Charter Schools Act of 1998 (as amended, the “Act”), issued a request for proposals (“RFP”) to establish new charter schools on January 3, 2011, in response to which Tech International Charter School, to be located in the Bronx, submitted a proposal that the Institute reviewed, scored and ranked, and recommends for approval (the “Recommended Proposal”) as set forth in the Institute’s Summary of Findings and Recommendations report for the proposed school (copy on file in the Office of the Secretary of the University and in the Albany office of the Institute), which was made available to the Board; now, therefore, be it Resolved that the Recommended Proposal rigorously demonstrates that the Proposal has met the following criteria: (1) the proposed charter school would meet or exceed enrollment and retention targets, to be prescribed by the Board of Trustees, of students with disabilities, English language learners, and students who are eligible applicants for the federal free and reduced price lunch program; and (2) that the applicant has conducted public outreach, in conformity with a thorough and meaningful public review process prescribed by the Board of Trustees, to solicit community input regarding the proposed charter school and to address comments received from the impacted community concerning the educational and programmatic needs of students; and, be it further Resolved that the Board of Trustees has granted priority to the Recommended Proposal based on a scoring rubric that best demonstrates how proposed schools will achieve the objectives set forth in Education Law subdivision 2852(9-a)(c); and, be it further Resolved that the Recommended Proposal and the school described therein meet the requirements of the Act (as amended) and all other applicable laws, rules and regulations; and, be it further Resolved that the applicant submitting the Recommended Proposal and the founding team described therein demonstrate the ability to operate the proposed school in an educationally and fiscally sound manner; and, be it further Resolved that approving the Recommended Proposal is likely to improve student learning and achievement and materially further the purposes set out in Education Law subdivision 2850(2); and, be it further Resolved that the Recommended Proposal be, and hereby is, approved; and, be it further Resolved that the Institute be, and hereby is, directed to: (1) enter into a proposed charter with the applicant of the Recommended Proposal, which shall include such assurances and terms as the Institute shall deem necessary and appropriate; and (2) thereafter to submit such proposed charter no later than November 1, 2011 as required by the Act to the Board of Regents for issuance by the Board of Regents on or before December 31, 2011. (2011-075) Acquisition of Real Property – SUNY College of Environmental Science and Forestry Upon motion of Mr. Hunt, seconded by Mr. Spielvogel, with an abstention from Mr. Murad, the following resolution was adopted: Whereas it is necessary for the purposes of the State University of New York College of Environmental Science and Forestry to acquire real property to accommodate future growth, specifically the construction of a new 101,000 sq. ft. academic research building which will foster educational and research opportunities and provide the College of Environmental Science and Forestry with a mission-critical facility; now, therefore, be it Resolved that the approximately 1.62 acre parcel of real property located in the City of Syracuse, County of Onondaga, State of New York, the approximate location of which is identified on the map attached hereto, presently owned by Syracuse University, be purchased for a sum not to exceed $4,250,000, as established by a proper appraisal, and accurate surveys and approval of title to said real property by the Attorney General; and, be it further Resolved that the Chancellor, or designee, be, and hereby is, authorized to execute any and all documents, notices, maps, or any other instruments necessary or appropriate to effect the acquisition of title to and possession of such real property, directly or indirectly. (2011-076) Transfer of Jurisdiction of the Diagnostic Laboratory Building – NYS College of Veterinary Medicine at Cornell University Upon motion of Mr. Hunt, seconded by Mr. Spielvogel, with an abstention from Dr. Ehrenberg, the following resolution was adopted: Whereas the Department of Agriculture and Markets has within its jurisdiction a building known as the Diagnostic Laboratory, located on the campus of the NYS College of Veterinary Medicine at Cornell University, at 323 Farrier Road, Town of Ithaca, Tompkins County, New York (the “Diagnostic Laboratory”); and Whereas the Diagnostic Laboratory is a facility that the NYS College of Veterinary Medicine at Cornell University, a statutory college of the State University, can utilize as part of its educational mission; and Whereas the Department of Agriculture and Markets no longer has use for the Diagnostic Laboratory and consents to the transfer of jurisdiction of the Diagnostic Laboratory to the State University; now, therefore, be it Resolved that it is necessary for the educational purposes of the NYS College of Veterinary Medicine at Cornell University for the State University to assume jurisdiction over the Diagnostic Laboratory, the approximate location of which is identified on the map attached hereto; and, be it further Resolved that the State University assume jurisdiction, with the approval of the Commissioner of General Services, over the aforementioned Diagnostic Laboratory; and, be it further Resolved that the Chancellor, or designee, be, and hereby is, authorized to execute any and all documents, notices, maps, or any other instruments necessary or appropriate to effect the assumption of jurisdiction over and possession of such facility, including making a request to the Commissioner of General Services for a transfer of jurisdiction to the State University. (2011-077) 7. COMMITTEE REPORTS Academic Affairs Committee Committee Chair Gerri Warren-Merrick stated the committee met on June 14, 2011 with a quorum, and while no action items were presented, the group heard a report from Johanna Duncan-Poitier on community colleges. She said the committee was given an understanding of the ideas and policies put in place to ensure the community colleges feel and are very much a part of SUNY’s strategic plan. Academic Medical Centers/Hospitals Committee Committee Chair John Murad announced that after three years of hard work, the acquisition of the Long Island College Hospital acquisition by SUNY Downstate has been completed. He noted this acquisition saved over 2,000 healthcare positions in Brooklyn and will provide Downstate with much needed clinical capacity and the ability to allow academic programs to thrive. Mr. Murad said the committee and the Board are grateful to the Governor, the Legislature the Office of the State Comptroller and the Attorney General for their assistance in making this idea come to fruition. Mr. Murad said the Academic Medical Centers and Hospitals committee met on June 14 with a quorum, and discussed Upstate University’s acquisition of Community General Hospital in Syracuse. He said unlike the Downstate acquisition, the business model for Upstate calls for immediate integration of these two facilities and right-sizing services at the two sites. Trustee Murad noted there are still issues to be addressed, but in the end, the acquisition will allow Upstate to pursue a strategic plan for growth to meet the needs of the Syracuse community. Mr. Murad ended his report by saying the committee also held a discussion on value based purchasing, a requirement of the new federal healthcare legislation. Audit Committee Audit Committee Chairman Stephen Hunt said the committee met on June 14 and heard a report from Monica Rimai thanking the Audit Committee for their work and leadership. He said KPMG presented the Audit Plan for June 30, 2011, auditing the University’s Financial Statements. He said the committee discussed the Inspector General’s request that SUNY defer any internal or external review of matters related to a former SUNY employee and that University Auditor, Mike Abbott presented the 2011-2012 audit plan for discussion. Communications and External Affairs Committee Committee Chair Carl Spielvogel reported on the discussions of the committee’s June 14 meeting and heard reports from the directors of communications and government relations on efforts in their respective operational areas. He said committee members were very complimentary of the work as they continue to expand the program to develop the concept of SUNY as an important economic engine and the Chancellor’s efforts to raise visibility throughout the nation. Education, College Readiness and Success Committee Trustee Noguera, Committee Chairman said the committee met on June 14th and were presented with a report from Johanna Duncan-Poitier on the education pipeline initiative where new data relating to graduation rates were released. He said the committee undertook and approved nine new authorizations for Charter Schools, several of which are quite innovated and will be groundbreaking in the types of services they will provide to the children on the State of New York. Dr. Noguera mentioned that he and Dr. O’Brien met with the Board of Directors of several of the proposed charter schools and posed several questions to them regarding the types of schools under consideration. Chairman Hayden thanked both Trustees Noguera and O’Brien for their efforts. Finance and Administration Committee Committee Chairman Carl McCall said the committee met earlier today with a quorum where several resolutions were presented and approved for consideration by the full Board. Mr. McCall noted that usually at this time, the Finance and Administration Committee would present a financial plan and budget, however, due to delays in legislative approval regarding the tuition proposal, the Committee is not yet able to do so until the legislature takes action. 8. OBSERVERS REPORTS Tina Good, Faculty Council of Community Colleges President, announced that the Council has co-branded with the Power of SUNY and distributed pins sporting the new logo to the members of the Board. She then welcomed the newest Student Trustee, Kaitlyn Beachner to the Board, stated she was looking forward to working for another two years with newly reappointed Faculty Senate President, Ken O’Brien and said it is bittersweet to say goodbye to Monica Rimai. Ms. Good said the Council is very saddened but very excited for Denise Bukovan who has announced her retirement from SUNY. She said Denise has been a great friend to the Council as well as a great resource, and they wish her well in her future endeavors. Ms. Good said the Council recently held a plenary meeting, hosted by Fulton-Montgomery Community College and thanked President Dustin Swanger and faculty for their support. She said at that meeting a resolution was approved endorsing the Chancellor’s actions calling for consultation with shared governance of program deactivation. Ms. Good stated they continue their work with the shared governance transformation team and that they are working with Provost’s Office staff on student mobility. She discussed plans for an academic conference on liberal and general education anticipated for April 2012 and that the Council’s fall plenary meeting is planned for the end of October 2011and is to be hosted by Cayuga Community College. Mary Adams, NYCCT President reported on behalf of the Community College Trustees, thanking Chairman Hayden, the Chancellor and Vice Chancellor for their attendance at their spring conference. She said the Community College Trustees are planning a conference for September 15-17 where they will provide counseling and instruction for new Trustees. Ken O’Brien, President of the Faculty Senate stated they will be meeting three times next year: October 21-22 at Purchase, January 27-28 at Cornell and April 20-21 in Geneseo and that invitations all will be sent to all Trustees. He gave special recognition to Tina Good and Eileen Abrahams, Asst. Professor of Humanities and Social Sciences at Schenectady County Community College, for their work on the shared governance survey. Trustee O’Brien urged the Board members to visit the State Museum where there is currently an extraordinary exhibition of SUNY student artwork. 9. OTHER BUSINESS Chairman Hayden said he would like to conclude today’s meeting with a commendation to Trustee Eunice A. Lewin, who along with Student Trustee Kaitlin Beachner and David Belsky, have agreed to mobilize the capacities of our students to function as a focus group for the purpose of assisting us develop various strands of our communication strategy. Chairman Hayden stated that it is hoped that the Legislature and Governor will act this or next week on SUNY’s tuition legislation. To that end, he said the Board, if practicable, will next meet on June 30th to act on our proposed budget 10. ADJOURNMENT There being no further business, upon motion of Mr. Hunt, seconded by Mr. McCall, the Public meeting was adjourned at 2:39 p.m. 18 Board Minutes -52- June 15, 2011