[In these minutes: Student Senate Budget, March 25 Student Senate meeting,
Stadium funding, SSCC internal structure, Accountability]
STUDENT
SENATE CONSULTATIVE COMMITTEE (SSCC) MINUTES
MARCH 4,
2004
[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: Dan Weiske (chair), Joshua Colburn,
Levi Kary, Scott LeBlanc, Charles Stech, Jeremy Steil, Adam
VanWagner.
REGRETS: Sean Bell, James Kanten.
ABSENT:
Derek Brunsberg.
1. 2003-04 STUDENT SENATE BUDGET
UPDATE
Dan Weiske distributed an update on this year’s Student
Senate budget, noting that stipend money remained because a rationed amount was
awarded to Scott LeBlanc for the time that he served as SSCC Chair.
Q:
Was work added to the chair position following the merger?
A:
No.
2. 2004-05 STUDENT SENATE BUDGET PLANNING
Members
discussed next year’s budget, noting that they would like to know how the
travel fund was allocated. If it was based on the previous year’s
expenses, that is not an accurate way to predict future expenses, or allow for
growth in this area. They asked that more thought be put into planning for next
year in this area.
3. MARCH 25 STUDENT SENATE MEETING
PLANS
Dan Weiske proposed inviting coordinate campus members to the
meeting with the President and buying lunch for the senators at the Lucky Dragon
restaurant.
Member discussed ways to get more people at the meeting.
They proposed sending an announcement to all students to submit questions or
topics for discussion and inviting them to attend. It was suggested that this
plan be brought to the President’s attention first, so that he is not
caught off-guard. Possible discussion topics from SSCC included the capital
request, tuition, community relations, and University initiatives, although
other topics might come from the student body prior to the meeting. SSCC will
review the topics and questions sent in to determine which ones will be
presented at the meeting.
4. MARCH 25 STUDENT SENATE AGENDA
APPROVAL
Adam VanWagner stated that the Student Affairs Committee
does not know what else to do with the topic of housing. When they met last met
with Laurie McLaughlin, Director of Twin Cities Housing and Residential Life
(HRL), she stated that housing has a nice balance currently. When asked why
students are leaving, she said that an exit survey would be done this year to
address this concern. She circulated the survey, which contains only one
question and asks students to pick the one reason that they are leaving from
almost 10 choices.
HRL needs to find out why students are now leaving,
why student left and did not return, and why students never moved into on-campus
housing. HRL might be at a balance right now between supply and demand, while
other private units have vacancies. The timeline for students is also hard
since decisions for the following year start on February 2 and end on March 30,
but renter’s rights information is not distributed until the reapplication
process has ended, so students might be moving off-campus with false assumptions
about cost and safety.
Members made the following comments:
- Student Affairs should request the results of the survey
- More co-ops need to be pursued
- Twin Cities housing capacity was increased to 7000 since 1995
- University assumes less risk with co-ops
- Feasibility report is needed for the expansion of co-op housing
- University could partner with more private groups so the University does not
assume the risk but facilitates buildings that meet student needs
- Many students leave on-campus housing because of over-programming, but
off-campus options do not offer any programming; a balance needs to be
found
- Alternative housing options need to be explored
- There is a large demand for family housing
- How are housing options promoted
- Data is needed to show a need and the reasons why
- Student Affairs Committee cannot conduct survey, but it can provide feedback
on the questionnaire and review the results
- Topic should be discussed at the Student Senate
meeting
Adam VanWagner said that he would email his committee
to see if they have in interest in developing a resolution to bring to the
Student Senate for discussion or action.
Dan Weiske also proposed an item
on the agenda to discuss senators obligations. With these two additional items,
the agenda was approved.
5. STADIUM FUNDING DISCUSSION
Dan
Weiske reported that a stadium fee is not likely this year or next year. It
will be limited to the Twin Cities campus. Currently, there are many groups
working on this topic.
6. SSCC INTERNAL STRUCTURE
DISCUSSION
Dan Weiske said that he was thinking about ways to improve
the internal structure of SSCC. Two ideas he had were stipend reviews and
senators also serving on committees. He asked members their thoughts on these
two issues; the following comments were made:
- Assemblies are largely comprised of senators
- There is a minimal time commitment to be involved in the Senate which allows
senators to be as involved as they want to be
- Should senators receive priority when filling committee seats?
- It is a waste for coordinate campus committee members to phone in and listen
to discussions of Twin Cities issues
- There are different interests for being a committee member and a
senator
- Senators now are not connected in
- Senators could be encouraged, but not required, to sign up for a
committee
- Why are senators required to be part of MSA and GAPSA when they were elected
to serve in another body?
- Senators can send a proxy because the seat represents their college, but
proxies are not allowed at committees since the seat is considered a personal
commitment
- Historically, faculty and student senators were required to serve on
committees but attendance was poor and committees suffered
- There are a small number of faculty senators who also serve on
committees
- Is it good for senators to be involved in the assemblies?
- Students get more leverage by having senators serve on committees since they
know the issue and get to vote twice
- Should requirement for senators be to serve on the assembly or a committee,
with the option to do both?
- There is not one time when both the Senate and the assemblies are
strong
- There are no issues this year for the Student Senate because there is no
linkage
- MSA considered but did not start a Senate committee for
senators
7. ACCOUNTABILITY DISCUSSION
Dan Weiske
said that information on the University’s accountability mission for
auxiliary services was emailed yesterday. He then distributed paper copies and
asked that the committee spend time discussing topics to propose at the SCC
meeting.
Members made the following comments:
- Concerns about specific units need to be addressed
- These services are accountable to whom? Users? Students? The
administration?
- Who determines unit accountability?
- Will the efforts be expanded to the coordinate campuses?
- What is the student role and perspective in this effort?
- How will the effort foster recognition programs?
- How does this tie into the Great Service Initiative?
- What happens if a service unit is not primarily for students, but still has
student users?
8. OTHER BUSINESS
Q: Is the
Student Affairs Committee still proposing a Student Conduct Code review
subcommittee?
A: Since the Regents are instituting a 3-5 year cycle for
reviewing all policies, and a review of this type might be too much for the
committee, a subcommittee is not being proposed. When the review happens,
Associate Vice Provost will be in charge of it. Since he serves on the
committee, members will be able to consult on this and other student affairs
policies.
Q: Was an email sent regarding on-line governance
minutes?
A: An email is still to be sent, but it will ask the President
to promote the effort rather than call for binding action.
With no
further business, Dan Weiske thanked all members for attending and adjourned the
meeting.
Becky Hippert
University Senate