[In these minutes: Student Conduct Code, Student Senate Budget, Student Senate Agenda]

STUDENT SENATE CONSULTATIVE COMMITTEE (SSCC) MINUTES

MARCH 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), John Amble, Kari Lindeman, Ryan Osero, Eric Steinhoff, Tom Walsh.

REGRETS: Nick Cecconi, Scott Ferguson, Yev Garif, Kelsi Holland, Dan O’Connor, Jasen Peterson, Nathan Saete.

GUESTS: Kathy Brown, Tina Falkner, Kate Stuckert.

1. STUDENT CONDUCT CODE

Judy Berning said that at the February Student Senate meeting some language changes were proposed regarding further defining on-campus and officially representing. These changes were forwarded to the Drafting Committee for review, at which point it was decided that the clarifying language would create more loopholes and actually work against the students. She then welcomed Kathy Brown, Chief of Staff, to discuss jurisdiction and the Student Conduct Code.

Kathy Brown said that she has been involved with the Student Conduct Code for the last 10 years as she advises units of the Code while in the Office for the General Counsel and worked with the Code while in Multicultural and Academic Affairs and Student Affairs. During this time she has become a student advocate for the process.

The Code was put in place 30 years ago and its jurisdiction has not changed since then. During this review, while many other elements were changed, jurisdiction was discussed but a decision was made to leave it as is. The jurisdiction in the Code is meant to cover students in three areas: students while engaged in class and earning credits, the physical campus of the University, and students at activities when representing the University in an official capacity. The Code is not meant to interfere with the personal life of students. The boundaries in the Code are straight-forward and will not be extended beyond the current bounds.

By not changing the language regarding jurisdiction, the University has 30 years of interpretations and precedents to guide its use. If new language was adopted, these precedents would no longer exist and students would therefore be open to new interpretations. It is also impossible to think of every possible violation and make language specific enough to cover all these instances.

Kathy Brown noted that there are also several layers of checks and balances that are built into the system. First, the Conduct Code Coordinator reviews reports that have been received and decides it there is enough evidence to charge the student under the Code. If so, a formal charge is made. The student then has the opportunity to an informal resolution with someone from Student Judicial Affairs. If informal resolution does not work, then the student can request a formal hearing with the Student Behavior Committee. If the student does not like the outcome from this hearing, they can appeal the decision to the President’s Student Behavior Review Panel. Throughout this process, students can state why he or she should not be found guilty, but also why the Code does not apply in their case.

The Review Committee spent much time on this issue and has mixed feelings about whether jurisdiction should be expanded or defined differently. In the end, they decide to leave jurisdiction as it has been for the last 30 years.

Q: How do students know about the different appeal levels?

A: The Code is always available on the web and as a paper copy. Once the new version is approved it will be published in the Minnesota Daily. During the hearing process, students are always provided with the procedures and inform on the process.

Q: A past event at Morris,that took place off campus, was charged under the Code. How is this possible?

A: It was determined that it was a team activity since coaches and players were both present, and therefore fell under the jurisdiction of the Code.

Q: How often is the Code used to charge students?

A: Each charge under the Code is used at least once each year since there are 10-15 students charged each week. Charges are applied cautiously though, since studentship should not define all student behavior, especially when off campus.

Q: How is ‘campus’ defined?

A: It is defined as University-owned property. This property is a matter of legal record. Before any charges are made, the Conduct Code Coordinator looks carefully at where an incident occurred to make sure that it is on University-owned property and not across the street.

Q: If jurisdiction is defined so consistently, then why can it not be included in the Code?

A: Jurisdiction has too many variables to be able to capture in a small paragraph. The policy is more useful with less detail.

Q: Without clear language, cannot the language be defined in indefinite ways?

A: Just as in a criminal case, past cases are used to establish precedent and limit new interpretations. From the many other Codes that were studied, the University’s has the clearest definition that most benefits the students.

Q: Will interpretations change?

A: Yes, but only if the language changes first, which is why it was finally decided to not change the definition of jurisdiction.

With no further comments, a motion was made and seconded to approve the Code. The vote was taken and the motion was approved with 5 in favor and none opposed. Judy Berning said that committee members who could not be present would be allowed to vote by email. [Following this electronic vote, the final vote was 6 in favor, none opposed, and one abstention.]

2. WRITTEN REPORTS

CROOKSTON
Nate Saete reported:
-This week CSA held appointments for next year's board. The results are:
Students Activities Chair: Jonathan Roefers
SLC: Jean Korkowski
Treasurer: Deann Roers
Regents Rep: Cameron Brauer
*SSCC still has yet to be appointed.
*Elections are being held this Friday for all other positions.
-Friday March 7th will be the last day our Bede Student Center will be open. The construction will begin this spring, and we're hoping for a Fall 2004 opening of the new student center.

MSA
Kari Lindeman reported:
Events:
News:
Issues:
Resolutions:

FINANCE AND PLANNING

Dan O’Connor, student representative to Finance and Planning Committee, submitted this report:
The SCFP met yesterday and two Tuesdays ago. The major topics of discussion were the State budget cuts and how the University is dealing with them. The Committee continues to think about what the University's priorities are and will be in the future and how those priorities will affect the manner in which budget cuts are distributed throughout the U. In addition to the budget issues, the Library Finance Committee gave a report about the status of the current Twin Cities libraries and the plan for future expenditures. The main issue raised was that the libraries are under-funded and thus are unable to purchase new periodicals and journals. This has lowered the U's position among research libraries in the Big Ten and around the country. The committee acknowledged the situation of the libraries and will continue to support responsible funding for the libraries as a part of the vital mission of the University.

MORRIS
Eric Steinhoff reported that the election rules have been approved, so now MCSA is in charge of the election process.

There were no reports from Duluth, GAPSA, or the Student Senate Chair.

3. ORAL REPORTS

CHAIR
Judy Berning said that most of her time has been spent on the Code. She has also met with Eric Steinhoff and Ryan Osero to discuss changes to the Student Senate. She will be meeting next week with Chris Frazier and Josh Colburn about the same topic. The SSCC Task Force is finishing its work and will have a report for the March Student Senate meeting. She has also been working on scheduling a discussion panel on ‘The Role of the Student Experience in the Educational Mission of the University.’ This will take place on April 17, so she will consider canceling the April 3 SSCC meeting.

STUDENT SENATE VICE CHAIR
Eric Steinhoff said he has been working on the budget, which will be presented later in the meeting.

4. 2003-04 STUDENT SENATE BUDGET

Eric Steinhoff said the he, Judy Berning, and Ryan Osero have discussed different ideas for Student Senate spending for next year. All these ideas have been added to the first draft of the 2003-04 Student Senate budget. Committee members now need to decide how funds should be spent and what priorities should be, possibly without more funding in light of the University’s budget situation.

Committee members then made the following comments:

Committee members spent considerable time discussing travel reimbursement for Student Senate meetings:

5. DISCUSSION OF IMPROVEMENTS TO THE STUDENT SENATE

Judy Berning said that she, Eric Steinhoff, and Ryan Osero had started to talk about the role of the senators and their campuses, the overlap in student governance, and what can be done to facilitate change.

Eric Steinhoff said that many views for change have been represented in the Student Senate budget priorities. This funding should help students know what is happening earlier in the year so that they can be an effective committee member or senator.

Ryan Osero said that a discussion topic was also streamlining the two chair positions. SSCC also needs to talk about what the Student Senate is doing and if the structure is appropriate for this role. If not, then changes need to be made.

Judy Berning stated that this item will likely carry into next year, and might include a survey of the senators. If members have any ideas during this discussion, please bring them forward.

6. MARCH 27 STUDENT SENATE AGENDA APPROVAL

Ryan Osero asked that the agenda be approved with one change, that Item 7 be changed to 15 minutes. The agenda as amended was then approved.

7. OTHER BUSINESS

Judy Berning said that she would write a comment for the Code when presented to the Student Senate. The comment would include information on the past precedents and the three areas for jurisdiction.

With no further business, Judy Berning thanked all members for attending and adjourned the meeting.

Becky Hippert
University Senate