[In these minutes: Strategic Planning with President Bruininks]

STUDENT SENATE CONSULTATIVE COMMITTEE (SSCC) MINUTES

APRIL 21, 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, Jamie Larson, Seyon Nyanwleh, Cati Popp.

REGRETS: James Kanten.

ABSENT: Josh Breyfogle, Taqee Khaled, Colin Schwensohn.

1. DISCUSSION OF STRATEGIC PLANNING WITH PRESIDENT BRUININKS

Prior to meeting with President Bruininks, the committee discussed topics to bring up with the President:

President Bruininks then joined the meeting. Nathan Wanderman began by discussing the concept of shared governance and noting that student input would be more helpful before a report is issued, not after.

President Bruininks said that all groups want to be involved in the strategic planning process but there are only so many members that the Regents will approve on each task force.

Nathan Wanderman said that a policy on shared governance in not intended to be an obstacle for the administration, but a way to get student input early in the process. He noted that at times there is good student participation on committees, but at other times, it takes more effort to get appointed to a committee then to represent the student viewpoint once appointed.

President Bruininks asked if this view has been shared with other administrators. Nathan Wanderman noted when he has spoken with some administrators, their response is that it is already being done, but students feel it can be better.

President Bruininks noted that the system might appear inconsistent and to have poor timing. A systematic, timely approach is what is needed. He suggested that this idea be shared with Vice President Rinehart and Vice Provost Swan to determine the best way to proceed. This could provide valuable opportunities for student learning.

Nathan Wanderman then turned to the proposal to close General College. While the committee has not voted on this proposal, there is unanimity that its access and admissions process needs to be maintained and incorporated into the other colleges.

President Bruininks agreed with the approach to work on admissions which can be an emotional process for students. He values the General College approach, which is to admit good students, while providing them with the help to succeed. He would like to see a cohesive academic unit with the same services being provided to more students. Then some students would not be segregated in one area, but fully integrated into the University community. There are some students which are currently not admitted to the University and this will not change, but the University will work to maintain diversity. The University is also building a strong partnership with two-year institutions.

A committee member said that students see the changes as a loss of community, so keeping aspects the same will help.

Q: Will decisions change between now and the final report?

A: There is still some time, but it is doubtful that much will change before recommendations gto to the Board May 2. Creative people will be part of the task forces that will shape what the new structures look like. An academic unit does not have to be a college for it to be respected.

Lastly, Nathan Wanderman noted that the administrative task force should allow for more open contract negotiations and the student support service task force should work on improving transportation and late night buses.

2. APPROVAL OF MAY 5 STUDENT SENATE AGENDA

The agenda was approved as presented.

3. OTHER BUSINESS

With no further business, Nathan Wanderman thanked all members for attending and adjourned the meeting.

Becky Hippert
University Senate