[In these minutes: September 30 Student Senate agenda approval, Revisions
to the Administrative Procedures for the Grievance Policy, Intra-University
Student Leadership Conference, Student Affairs Committee representative to SSCC,
Role of the Student Senate and SSCC, SSCC members to SCC under the proposed
revision]
STUDENT SENATE CONSULTATIVE COMMITTEE (SSCC)
MINUTES
SEPTEMBER 16, 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: Nathan Wanderman (chair), James Kanten, Taqee
Khaled, Jamie Larson, Seyon Nyanwleh, Tom Pielow, Stace
Vonderhaar.
ABSENT: Colin Schwensohn.
1. CHAIR’S
REPORT
Nathan Wanderman provided the committee a report on the
following topics:
BUDGET
Following the SSCC retreat, he
considered the concept of a shadow budget, and determined that this undertaking
would not be feasible or prudent for SSCC. Instead, he would like to propose
that a few students invest time in the budgeting process to develop expertise on
how this works and how best to get students involved. He plans to meet with the
Chief Financial Officer, Richard Pfutzenreuter, and Professor Chuck Campbell,
Chair of the Finance and Planning Committee.
TEACHING
EVALUATIONS
He met with Professor Marvin Marshak, Chair of the Faculty
Consultative Committee (FCC), about this topic. Professor Marshak supports the
students’ access to these questions. Nathan Wanderman then emailed
Professor Emily Hoover, Chair of the Educational Policy Committee (SCEP), who
said that SCEP is reviewing the report of their subcommittee and will then
determine the next action to be taken. In the meantime, Nathan Wanderman
suggested that he contact the General Counsel’s office to see if the
University can legally mandate that these questions be
released.
MEETING WITH PROFESSOR MARSHAK
In his meeting with
Professor Marshak, the issue of faculty and student collaboration on student
issues was raised. Professor Marshak would like to help change little things
that inhibit the quality of student life at the University. He asked SSCC to
brainstorm for these ideas and email him. Members noted that following student
issues: weekend activities at Crookston and campus lockdown at Duluth due to a
peeping tom.
SENIOR COMMITTEE DELEGATE
A draft of the Senior
Committee Delegate (SCD) position has been drafted, which asks for these
students to track other student attendance and report on what each committee is
doing. The proposal asks for the SSCC Vice Chair to oversee this function. He
then read the description.
Members then made the following
comments:
- SCD should encourage more general student involvement instead of senators,
so this should be a selection criteria
- There are too many committee and not enough funding to provide compensation
to SCDs
The proposal will be presented to the Student Senate
for discussion in two weeks.
CAUCUSES
This topic was discussed
at the SSCC retreat as a way to break the Student Senate into smaller groups and
have senators get to know other senators better. Each SSCC member will be in
charge of one of the following caucuses: Crookston, Duluth, Morris, TC graduates
and professional students, CLA senators, and all other TC undergraduate
senators. SSCC members will be responsible for facilitating the caucus
discussions and checking who is and is not present.
2. APPROVAL OF THE
SEPTEMBER 30 STUDENT SENATE AGENDA
The September 30 Student Senate
agenda was approved as amended.
3. PROPOSED REVISIONS TO THE
ADMINISTRATIVE PROCEDURES FOR THE GRIEVANCE POLICY
Carolyn Chalmers,
University Grievance Officer, joined the committee to explain the proposed
revisions to the Administrative Procedures for the Grievance Policy. The policy
and procedures, which covers all non-union employment grievances, are reviewed
every five years. When this last review was done, there were many comments
about the University Grievance Office (UGO) offering more help with informal
services that are less adversarial and legalistic.
From these comments,
the document was revised to change references to ‘grievance’ to
‘conflict resolution’ and to lay out more informal processes within
the office. The formal process will remain mostly the same. There is one other
change that will affect students. The current procedures ask that 10 student
employees be named as possible grievance panel members. However, there have
been problems maintaining this roster, keeping members trained, and having
student grievants choose other students for their panels. With this version, a
decision was made to eliminate student representatives to the Grievance Advisory
Board. However, a student representative will remain on the Grievance Advisory
Committee to oversee the review of the office and the Grievance
Officer.
The revised procedures have been approved by the FCC, and will
be presented for approval to the University Senate later this month. They will
then go to the President and Regents for approval and implementation.
She
asked how to make student employees more aware of her office and the services it
offers. Last year, there were about two dozen students who came in for
consultation and only one went to a hearing. She then asked members for their
comments or concerns.
Q: Do these procedures cover interns?
A: It
would cover paid interns in University of Minnesota programs.
Q: Is the
policy provided to all student workers?
A: No. The procedures are on the
web. A mass email to all student workers has been considered.
A member
suggested that the UGO talk with MSA, GAPSA, and COGS to help spread the word
about the revised procedures once they are approved. The UGO could also target
large centers of student employment with a flyer noting where to pick up the
policy.
4. DISCUSSION OF AN INTRA-UNIVERSITY STUDENT LEADERSHIP
CONFERENCE
Nathan Wanderman asked SSCC members to consider them
holding a leadership conference for representatives from all levels of student
governance on campus. The idea would be to discuss common issues among the
groups, generate ideas, and breath life into the Student Senate. He would
envision this meeting taking place next February.
Q; Who would be
invited?
A: A first draft of invitees would include assembly/association
presidents, St. Paul Board of College members, TC Board of Governors president,
residence hall presidents, college board presidents, and key student group
presidents. The goal would not be for a large invitee list, but a diverse
list.
Q; Who would plan the event?
A: SSCC oras subcommittee with
members from the Student Senate.
Members noted that funding could be
requested or a registration fee could be charged. It might help to plan the
event during around another campus meeting, such as SLC or
Regents.
Nathan Wanderman said that he would bring a rough outline, a
date, and funding sources back to SSCC at the next meeting.
5. STUDENT
AFFAIRS COMMITTEE REPRESENTATIVE ON SSCC
Members decided to ask the
Student Affairs Committee chair to serve first, and if she cannot, then to ask
if other members are interested in the position.
6. DEFINITION OF THE
ROLE OF THE STUDENT SENATE AND SSCC
Nathan Wanderman asked members to
consider the purpose of the Student Senate and SSCC in terms of academic issues,
residential life, and their relationship to other student governance efforts on
campus.
Members made the following comments:
- Groups such as MSA lobby for the students on certain efforts, but the
Student Senate has an institutionalized presence to affect change
- Student Senate should have a bigger role, but should not create rivalry or
conflict
- Better working relationship is needed for a stronger student voice
- Student Senate is more effective with direct administrative contact and
elected representatives
- Student Senate can better coordinate student efforts and facilitate
communication
- There is a difference between leverage and power
- It is harder to have one issue common all students to work on in the Student
Senate
- It looks like the Student Senate does less because of the nature of the
organization
- Most students issues do have an effect at other campuses
- Student Senate should be a resource for other student organizations
- Email regarding Student Senate role could be sent to administrators and
student organizations
7. APPROVAL OF SSCC MEMBERS APPOINTED
TO SCC UNDER THE PROPOSED REVISION
Nathan Wanderman said that one
issue undecided last year was how to assign the seven student seats being
proposed on the revised Senate Consultative Committee. The first six seats were
easily assigned: SSCC/Student Senate Chair and one member from each student
assembly/association. The question is how to fill the seventh seat. Members
discussed the two proposals being considered last spring:
- Last seat filled by the SSCC/Student Senate Vice Chair
- Last seat filled by second MSA representative since this organization
represents so many students
Members then discussed a third
option:
3. Last seat filled by a Twin Cities representative that will alternate each
year between MSA and GAPSA
Following discussion of the
proposals, a vote was taken and members vote 5-1 to approve option
three.
8. OTHER BUSINESS
Nathan Wanderman stated that
members can talk to him about any complaints with the meetings, or should feel
free to relay concerns through Tom Pielow, the Vice Chair. With no further
business, he thanked all members for attending and adjourned the
meeting.
Becky Hippert
University Senate