[In these minutes: 2006-07 agenda items, Discussion of Student Conduct Code
changes]
STUDENT SENATE CONSULTATIVE COMMITTEE (SSCC)
MINUTES
OCTOBER 12, 2006
[These minutes reflect
discussion and debate at a committee of the University of Minnesota Senate; none
of the comments, conclusions, or actions reported in these minutes represent the
views of, nor are they binding on, the Senate, the Administration, or the Board
of Regents.]
PRESENT: Joshua Beiningen (chair), Kristen Denzer,
Daniel Moore, Bree Richards, Trent Senenfelder, James
Skoog.
ABSENT: Jeni Kiewatt, Leslie O’Leary.
1.
WELCOME AND INTRODUCTIONS
Joshua Beiningen welcomed members to the
meeting and introductions were made for new members.
2. CHAIR’S
REPORT AND UPDATES
Joshua Beiningen said that the Senate Consultative
Committee met last week and heard about changes to the Code of Conduct and the
Student Conduct Code. SAC meets this Tuesday and will be talking about grants
and financial aid at the state level and student debt at the national level. He
reminded members that there will be a spring lobby trip and if anyone is
interested in attending, they should contact him for more details.
He
said that CAPA and CSC has asked for a student liaison to their committees.
Anyone interested should speak with him after the meeting.
MSA is dealing
with two safety issues. The first concerns the height of the Washington Avenue
pedestrian bridge railing and whether it should be raised two feet to prevent
jumpers and accidental falls. MSA is writing a resolution. Once approved, he
will bring it to the Student Senate. The second issue concerns student safety
when walking around campus. MSA would like a contact in Duluth to get more
information about the taxi program that is running on that campus. James Skoog
said that Jeni Kiewatt is the contact.
3. DISCUSSION OF POTENTIAL
2006-07 AGENDA ITEMS
The committee members walked through the list of
items generated at the September Student Senate meeting:
- GAPSA and the coordinate campus associations are looking at the issue of
graduate and professional married student or student with children housing. A
survey is being done in conjunction with the administration to see what these
students look for in terms of housing.
- Non-traditional student housing for undergraduates
- Student Conduct Code
- Following up with the resolution on a vendor code of conduct that the
University Senate approved last spring to make sure that businesses that work
with the University do not violate certain rights
- Student safety on and off campus, in regards to recent attacks on the Twin
Cities campus, and transportation issues, such as MSA’s after-hours bus
and Duluth’s taxi program
- Uniform teaching assistant preparation so that training and content is not
solely the discretion of the department or college
- Increasing green-initiatives on all campuses - local food use, wind,
recycling – through the use of a campus challenge
- Carbon neutrality on campus, which offsets carbon emissions through other
areas to try for a zero percent carbon output
- Medical amnesty which would allow Duluth students to report medical
situations due to alcohol consumption without being penalized for reporting
- Increasing priority for ADA initiatives in HEAPR requests as part of the
capital request
Q: Does graduate and professional student
housing affect each campus?
A: No, just the Twin Cities and Duluth. The
current survey on the GAPSA website is strictly for Twin Cities student
needs.
Q: What are the green-initiatives at Crookston?
A: This
information will be forwarded after the meeting once a list can be
compiled.
Q: What are the green-initiatives at Morris?
A: Wind
turbine powers extension service buildings and 60 percent of campus. If two
more built, will power all of campus and possibly county hospital and schools.
Other initiatives include: biomass facility is to be constructed,
self-supporting recycling center, replacing fleet service vehicles with hybrids,
using local foods at campus food service locations, and a water conservation
system.
Members also suggested the following topics:
- Divesting from the Sudan
- Safety walks on each campus with the administration, and a plan to make
changes
- TA preparation should be brought to SCEP or the Council of Undergraduate
Deans (CUD); Student Senate could approve a resolution asking for more
preparation for grading, pedagogy, office hours, class conduct, etc.
- Consider amending the Regents policy on Sustainability and Energy
Efficiency, Subdivision 4, to achieve green status on every campus according to
EPA benchmarks
- There are three ways to become a Green Power Leadership Partner: on-site
renewable energy, buying renewable electricity from power companies, or buying
renewable energy credits/certificates
- Campus climate challenge to increase clean energy
policies
4. DISCUSSION OF STUDENT CONDUCT CODE CHANGES WITH
VICE PROVOST JERRY RINEHART
Before Vice Prost Rinehart’s
arrival, members discussed the jurisdiction section of the Code, in relation to
subsection (a), and how to ensure that off-campus use is being applied fairly
and uniformly. Members also noted that there are no sentencing guidelines so
there is expansive power for the individuals or groups that can issue
sanctions.
Vice Provost Rinehart and Amelious Whyte then joined the
meeting, noting that for jurisdiction, the University does not have to apply the
Code to all behavior, but this change allows the University to do so under a
defined set of conditions. The first condition to be met is the offense being
of ”substantial University interest” which may vary by campus.
There is no interest by the President or the Regents to get into the everyday
life of students off-campus.
A member noted that it does not seem fair to
punish a student twice for the same offense, once by the city or county and then
again by the University. Amelious Whyte noted that this provision has not been
changed; students are currently able to be sanctioned twice for offenses that
occur on campus.
A member suggested that the language should be amended
to protect students from violations for petty crimes. Amelious Whyte said that
the administration would not want to write this language into the Code to make
it seem that the University does not care about petty crimes, even though that
is the intent.
A member said that students want to be reassured and
therefore adding language would help. Vice Provost Rinehart said that the
decisions to go forward under the Code will be reviewed by an oversight group,
but this language is best included in administrative procedures, not the Code
itself.
Q: How is the appropriate level of sanctions determined in each
case without sentencing guidelines? How can students have an idea about the
sanctions they might face?
A: There are guiding principles at the
beginning of the document, but most sanctions are based on the judgment of the
person making the decision. All sanctions are included in the Code. A
statement could be placed on the Student Judicial Affairs website that students
are subject to any of the sanctions for any violation of the Code. However,
revoking a degree has only been applied when the violation is based on incidents
while the person was enrolled and that might have affected the awarding of a
degree.
Several members then spoke against the inclusion of subsection
(a), and instead asked to clarify subsection (b) to make it the only instance in
which students could be charged for off-campus violations.
Vice Provost
Rinehart stated that when either subsection (a) or (b) are considered to be
violated, this simply triggers an investigation into the matter, but does not
automatically mean that a student is charged with a violation and assigned a
sanction. Originally, there were four conditions under which an off-campus
incident could be charged, but that list was narrowed to two by the
President.
Another member then said that the University is a public
entity of the state and as such is meant to turn out responsible citizens. If
students are willing to hold up their end of the bargain and be responsible
citizens, then the University has an obligation to provide an education.
However, if the student violates state or federal laws, then the student should
be subject to University investigation as well. For this reason, he likes the
inclusion of subsection (a).
A member questioned whether subsection (a)
would not open the University to potential lawsuits since a student can be
charged regardless of the outcome of criminal proceedings. Amelious Whyte said
that this language has been reviewed by the Office of the General Counsel for
compliance. Also the University has always had the ability to find a student
responsible of an on-campus violation even if the student is not found guilty by
the city or state.
Q: Could an employer hold an employee to the same
standards?
A: Yes, if the employer has the employee sign a contract which
includes violating state or federal laws. Students are at the University on a
voluntary basis, just as they are at a particular employer. They are then
subject to the values and culture of the University or the employer.
A
member noted that these new provisions feel more like an honor code, but that is
not what it is being called.
Q: How would these violations be
reported?
A: Most would be through police reports, but could also be
reported from a neighborhood association or city meeting.
Q; How can a
student appeal the fact that the administration considered the violation to be
of ‘substantial University interest?’
A; This would likely be
the case the student would make before the hearing board and the first decision
that the board would decide.
In closing, Vice Provost Rinehart asked the
committee if they were comfortable with extending the Code off-campus; the
response was yes with a few language changes. Vice Provost Rinehart said that
he would take these comments back to the administration.
5. OTHER
BUSINESS
With no further business, Joshua Beiningen thanked all
members for attending and adjourned the meeting.
Becky
Hippert
University Senate