[In these minutes: Updates, Student Evaluation Questions, March 3 Student
Senate agenda, Letter from SSCC to SCEP, Future Lobbying, Strategic Planning for
Academics, Vice Chair Election]
STUDENT SENATE CONSULTATIVE COMMITTEE
(SSCC) MINUTES
FEBRUARY 17, 2005
[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), Rubens Feroz, Taqee
Khaled, Jamie Larson, Cati Popp, Colin Schwensohn.
ABSENT: Josh
Breyfogle, James Kanten, Seyon Nyanwleh.
1. CHAIR
UPDATES
Nathan Wanderman updated the committee on several meetings he
is having with administrators:
- Mary Koskan to discuss student release questions on the one-stop
site
- Was told that there is no money to
make these changes at this time
- When item was discussed with Craig
Swan, he like the idea so the project got a higher priority
- One-stop advisory committee also
supports this effort
- Schedule is to have the changes in
place for Spring 2006 registration
- Next year’s Student Senate
will need to monitor
- Susan Heegaard, Minnesota Higher Education Services Office
(HESO)
- Discussed student lobbying thus
far, and what else is needed
- Explained student position on state
grants
- Craig Swan
- Supports revisions to teaching
evaluations and the one-stop site
- Discussed changes to APAS report to
have requirements for all majors included
- Emily Hoover, Educational Policy Committee (SCEP) Chair
- Letter that was sent was the
committee’s opinion and not her personal opinion
- She agrees with SSCC
- Asked that SSCC’s questions
be forwarded to SCEP
2. APPROVAL OF REVISED STUDENT
EVALUATION QUESTIONS
Nathan Wanderman read a revised set of student
release questions, after receiving input from SSCC members and Emily Hoover,
SCEP Chair. Following revision by the committee, Nathan Wanderman stated that
he would email the final draft to SSCC, SCEP, and a survey expert for feedback.
They will then be placed on the March Student Senate agenda for approval before
going to the University Senate later this spring.
3. APPROVAL OF MARCH
3 STUDENT SENATE AGENDA
Nathan Wanderman presented the agenda for
approval. A member asked about the Mount Graham resolution that the Student
Senate discussed in December. The committee discussed the merits of forwarding
a resolution on a topic that has been decided versus expressing sentiments from
the Student Senate on the issue. Nathan Wanderman asked Taqee Khaled to tailor
the resolution to topics following the Summer 2004 audit. Taqee Khaled agreed
to work on the resolution and have it ready for distribution the week of the
Student Senate meeting.
With no further comments, the agenda was approved
as amended.
4. APPROVAL OF LETTER FROM SSCC TO SCEP
Nathan
Wanderman distributed a draft letter from SSCC to SCEP on the topic of student
release questions. He said in a recent meeting with Emily Hoover, SCEP Chair,
it was determined that the letter expressed the committee’s sentiment, not
just the chair’s. Since SSCC has devised a new set of questions, he
wondered whether the letter also needed to be sent. A member stated that the
letter was a formal response, on the record, to the previous letter and should
be sent. Following further discussion, it was decided to revise the SSCC letter
to serve as the introduction to the proposed student release
questions.
5. DISCUSSION OF FUTURE LOBBYING
Nathan
Wanderman asked members if SSCC should focus on any other lobbying at the state
this session. After a marginally effective meeting with the Governor’s
staff member, the next targets would be the chairs of Senate and House Higher
Education Committees. Should anyone else be included? Is it worth the effort
to contact the chairs if most budget decisions have already been made at the
committee level?
A member suggested lobbying members of the joint
committees and working on the biennial budget request.
6. DISCUSSION
OF STRATEGIC PLANNING FOR ACADEMICS
Nathan Wanderman said that the
University is in the second phase of its strategic planning and actual idea
plans are being proposed. This process is in two groups, academics and
administrative. Both groups will present their recommendations to the President
in mid to late March. If members have any ideas for these groups, please email
him by Monday.
7. VICE CHAIR ELECTION
With most coordinate
campus members not at the meeting, Nathan Wanderman proposed that the election
be handle via email. A request for nominees will be sent with a response
deadline of midnight on Sunday. A ballot will be distributed Monday morning,
with votes needed by midnight Monday.
8. OTHER
BUSINESS
With no further business, Nathan Wanderman thanked all
members for attending and adjourned the meeting.
Becky
Hippert
University Senate