[In these minutes: Discussion with CAPA Chair, Student Conduct Code,
February 20 Student Senate agenda, Student Workshops, Student Senate Chair as Ex
Officio in University Senate]
STUDENT SENATE CONSULTATIVE COMMITTEE
(SSCC) MINUTES
FEBRUARY 6, 2003
[These minutes reflect
discussion and debate at a committee of the University of Minnesota Senate or
Twin Cities Campus Assembly; none of the comments, conclusions, or actions
reported in these minutes represent the views of, nor are they binding on, the
Senate or Assembly, the Administration, or the Board of
Regents.]
PRESENT: Judy Berning, (chair), Nick Cecconi, Yev Garif,
Kari Lindeman, Ryan Osero, Nathan Saete, Tom Walsh.
REGRETS: John
Amble, Scott Ferguson, Kelsi Holland, Dan O’Connor, Eric
Steinhoff.
GUESTS: Randy Croce, Amelious Whyte.
1.
DISCUSSION WITH RANDY CROCE, CHAIR, COUNCIL OF ACADEMIC PROFESSIONALS AND
ADMINISTRATORS (CAPA)
Randy Croce, Chair of CAPA, thanked SSCC for
inviting him to this meeting and said he hoped to have more contact with them in
the future. He said that the classification of academic professionals and
administrators (P&A) was created 22 years ago as a way to classify people
who were not tenured but did more teaching, research, and service than other
staff. This classification has grown to include coaches, advisors, student
service professionals, administrators, teachers, and researchers. Currently,
this classification has more employees than the faculty classification. CAPA,
as well as faculty, is concerned about the trend to hire more P&A and award
tenure less.
The main reason for the visit today is to discuss the
Academic Unit Governance Policy that the Faculty Consultative Committee (FCC)
created last fall and will be bringing to the Faculty Senate for approval later
this month.
The early drafts of this policy were troubling to many
P&A since it stated that only faculty could vote on collegiate constitutions
and curricular changes. FCC has been very willing to listen to many CAPA
concerns and the latest draft addresses many of these issues. The one remaining
concern is that many areas already have a collaborative process, and CAPA does
not want this process to be removed by faculty taking all authority within a
unit. The policy, however, does state that faculty can share the responsibility
within a unit, but that faculty are the recourse of last resort. This last part
was changed at CAPA’s request.
CAPA’s Executive Committee
meets next Thursday and will vote on the policy. Faculty will then vote on
February 20. While the policy is not everything CAPA might have wanted, it is
an agreeable compromise that will avoid conflict between FCC and CAPA, and will
allow both groups to focus on other issues.
Q: What other issues has CAPA
addressed?
A: CAPA is involved in the evaluation of service units,
changes to benefits and health plans, and the University’s budget
situation. The last area is very important since P&A are the most
vulnerable classification. They are not protected by tenure and can be released
without any reason.
Q: Are only faculty voting on the Academic Unit
Governance Policy?
A: Yes. Judy Berning said that she talked to Dan
Feeney about allowing students to vote, but since the policy came through
faculty channels, only faculty will vote. Students could submit a separate
statement to the administration for their consideration prior to
implementation.
In closing, Randy Croce said that CAPA would help the
students with any efforts that they have and would be willing to hear reports on
any issues that CAPA should be aware of that impact students.
2. SSCC
CHAIR REPORT
Judy Berning said that she has talked with Cheryl
Meyers, Student Affairs Committee (SCSA) Chair, about SCSA reviewing the MPCC
proposal and formulating a response for the Student Senate. There has been some
hesitation, but she will make sure that SCSA tackles the issue this
spring.
She, Ryan Osero, and Yev Garif, met with President Bruininks. A
few topics included late night programming at the coordinate campuses and the
University student missing in downtown. He asked that SSCC set-up a follow-up
meeting to discuss the student experience on campus. Administrators to invite
include the President, Executive Vice President and Provost Maziar, Vice
President Jones, and Vice Provost Swan. The Student Reps to the Regents and
student body presidents will also be invited.
Another topic with the
President was the University budget and endowments. More private sources of
funding will be sought after for third and fourth year undergraduates, as well
as graduate students. In March, the Regents will be approving a set of core
values to guide the budget decisions. The President and Regents are supportive
of protecting students, but tuition will still increase by double
digits.
3. APPROVAL OF THE STUDENT CONDUCT CODE
Judy
Berning said that after SSCC expressed some doubts at their last meeting, she
talked with Kate Stuckert in the Chief of Staff’s Office to determine why
jurisdiction is defined vaguely. The response was that since there were no
major problems with the current definition, the administration did not want to
change it. Under the current language, jurisdiction is defined on a case by
case basis, so that the vagueness gives the University more flexibility. If the
students push for definite language, the administration likely will not approve
it.
Committee members made the following comments:
- Students are still concerned that the Code could be used in the wrong
way
- Definition on a case-by-case basis is not justified
- Rules should be set for consistency
- Someone should be invited to talk about how jurisdiction is decided
- Vague language might create problems in the future
- Would the Code cover students responding to a University event, but off
campus?
- Is it in the best interest of the University to take action against an off
campus event?
- Language should be written so that students know
- There is a difference between representing the University and being part of
a University event
- What is the appeals process?
Members decided that they
were not comfortable approving the Code at this time. They would like to talk
to someone involved in its implementation and review Codes at other
schools.
4. FEBRUARY 20 STUDENT SENATE AGENDA
The agenda
was approved as presented.
5. DISCUSSION OF STUDENT
WORKSHOPS
Judy Berning asked members for any topics that they would
like to see covered in a Student Senate workshop. Responses included: lobbying,
writing resolution/statements, parliamentary procedure, and conflict
resolution.
Q: How will the coordinate campuses benefits from the
workshops?
A: ITV could be used to reduce travel expense and
time.
A committee member suggested that some of the writing workshops
could be covered through an online tutorial, and that other units on campus
already offer workshops on some of the other topics.
6. STUDENT
SENATE CHAIR AS EX OFFICIO OF UNIVERSITY SENATE
Judy Berning said
that this constitution change was no longer necessary since it was determined
that all ex officio members of the Senate Consultative Committee, including the
Student Senate Chair, are voting members of the University Senate. This is a
new interpretation that was discovered when reviewing the constitution to
prepare the amendment.
7. OTHER BUSINESS
Judy Berning said
that the Educational Policy Committee (SCEP) has approved a word change in the
credit hour policy that would allow faculty to meet with students for less that
the number of credits.
Members expressed concern with this change since
many students are already frustrated with missed classes, expect course meeting
times, and are being cheated out of their education and tuition when classes do
not meet.
Judy Berning said that this item has been pulled from the
February 20 University Senate agenda and will be discussed by the Senate
Consultative Committee (SCC) at its meeting next week.
With no further
business, Judy Berning thanked all members for attending and adjourned the
meeting.
Becky Hippert
University Senate