MEETING OF THE UNIVERSITY SENATE

Support the U of M capitol Campaign Request. The SLC supports the U of M’s capitol bonding request, however should it become clear that the U will not receive the entire request the SLC’s priority is to see that each campus has a project represented in the final bonding bill.

Reintroduce the “More than Books” Campaign. This campaign seeks to expand the current tax exemption on Text Books to “other instructional materials,” “used directly in the completion in the course of study.”

DISCUSSION:

David Boyd, Executive Director for the Student Legislative Coalition (SLC), presented the legislative agenda, noting that two additional items were added this last week. The second item on the printed agenda is the “More than Books” campaign which would remove sales tax from all educational materials, not just books. This summer the proposal did not seem to be controversial but it might be harder to pass in light of recent budget shortfalls, although there is strong support from the House and Senate.

The first item in the printed agenda is to support the University’s capital campaign. A budget shortfall actually helps the capital campaign since the legislature sees it as an economic stimulus package.

The first addition to the agenda is to support the budget of the Higher Education Services Office (HESO). A 5% cut to HESO equals $7.5 million of their budget. HESO’s entire administration could be cut, which only amounts to $3.5 million, and other cuts would still be needed from grants, loans, and work study.

The second additional item is defending the University’s budget. The Senate leadership has already stated that higher education is not on the table for cuts this session, although the House has not adopted the same stance. SLC will be fighting to keep the University from absorbing any budget cuts that the state needs to make.

With no further discussion, a vote was taken and the motion was approved.

President Yudof said that he fully supports full student involvement on the 13 credit minimum. He has been amazed by the creativity of students and faculty on campus, and wants people to know that all possibilities are on the table for consideration.

Regarding graduation rates, his main concern is not whether students take four or five years to graduate, but that 50% of students never graduate. After the sixth year, there is only a one-in-ten chance that a student will ever graduate. He is not interested in financially oppressing students or holding them accountable for administrative mistakes, but he wants students to succeed.

In terms of incentives, money has been placed into student systems such as financial aid and registration, freshmen seminars were instituted to teach basic skills such as writing, and interdisciplinary minors and undergraduate research opportunities were broadened. Revenue streams were also changed so that colleges keep the tuition dollars that they generate. This provides the college with a financial and educational incentive to provide classes that the students want.

Studies have shown that students who live on-campus do better, so 1500 beds are being added. Graduate and professional student housing will be look at next since it has been neglected in the past. The main drawback in housing is that the state does not subsidize it so affordability is a key issue.

He said that there are number of factors that impede graduation. One is a lack of study space, which has been heightened by Coffman and Walter Library closing. Both of these buildings will be open within a year for student study use. Money has also been put into redoing general purpose classrooms and new buildings, such as the Art Building. He said that he monitors where there are problems, such as technology and advising, and is in touch with administrators to solve these problems, but he welcomes ideas from students as well.

One problem has been that over the past 25 years, the legislature has grown increasingly less supportive of higher education. Students need to become more active to combat this trend and make the legislature realize the role that higher education plays.

When controls are in place for factors such as the urban environment and the income distribution of students, the University under-performs every other comparable institution. This comparison is clearest when comparing the percentage of full-time students. The University has two times as many part-time students as the next comparable institution. The solution that private institutions use is a flat tuition rate, since students pay one price no matter how many classes they take.

There have been many suggestions made to address this problem. One solution has been a minimum tuition load. The exact number of credits is still debatable, individual exemptions from advisors would still be possible, and it would not be considered on a campus that already graduates its students. The default in this system would be that a student is considered full-time unless they make a case why they should be allowed to be part-time.

Another suggestion is a flat tuition. If this were to be instituted, it would need to be phased-in since current students did not agree to a flat tuition when they applied to the University. An issue with flat tuition is that it could raise tuition a few more percent at a time when students do not need another tuition increase. Under this plan, exemptions would still be needed to provide accommodations for some students.

A third suggestion has been requiring students to take a minimum number of credits per year, versus per semester. This plan takes into account fluctuations in classes being offered.

He concluded that he is not being motivated by national rankings. The University will continue to excel in other measures. His concern is that current students will never graduate and future students might be deterred from attending because of these statistics.

President Yudof then turned to the recent $2 billion budget shortfall that was announced by the state. His hope is that the forecast is high since it was taken immediately after the events of September 11. There will be a push by the legislature to make-up this shortfall through tax increases, deferment, budget cuts, and state revenues.

The University has been asked to submit a plan for a budget cut of 5-10%. The President is not willing to submit any budget figures since he does not feel that the University should be subject to this rescission since students are the least able to afford increases. If the University is forced to make budget cuts, there are limited choices: hiring freezes, salary decreases, or tuition increases. No matter what option is chosen, it will hurt students and it will affect the graduation rate. Therefore, students need to be active in lobbying the state to stop a budget cut.

Q: Do the figures used to determine the graduation rate include non-degree seeking students?

A: Non-degree seeking students are not included in these figures.

Q: Do some majors have a higher graduation rate?

A: Data have been collected by college, but graduation rates by major have not been looked at. It is true, though, that students who frequently switch majors are less likely to graduate.

Q: What does the $2.7 million investment in financial aid and scholarships cover? Is it just the technological advancements?

A: The $2.7 million is solely increased scholarship and financial aid dollars that were added this last year.

A senator said that while paperless financial aid has made the process much better, there are still staffing needs in the Office of Financial Aid that are not being met.

President Yudof noted that the office was previously understaffed but that money was allocated for increased staffing. He asked students to assess the offices on each campus and let him know if staffing problems still exist.

Whereas, The primary mission of the University of Minnesota is education; and

Whereas, The implementation of a Full Time Policy would greatly impact student academic culture; and

Whereas, The said proposal arose from an individual rather than a committee strong in student representation; and

Whereas, The “Report of the Graduation and Retention Subcommittee of the Council of Undergraduate Deans” on August 13, 2001 has outlined several innovative initiatives, as well laid bare educational shortfalls to be addressed; therefore be it

RESOLVED That the proposed initiatives, including but not limited to optional full year registration, an interactive graduation planning system, and greater use of E-mail communication, be discussed and implemented with significant student input and representation; and be it further

RESOLVED That areas of concern as outlined by the report, including but not limited to student-advisor communication, advising resources, and size and quality of undergraduate experience, be discussed and implemented with significant student input and representation; and be it further

RESOLVED That the University of Minnesota address these issues prior to the consideration of any full time policy; and be it further

RESOLVED That serious discussion and research take place prior to the implementation of any full time policy; and be it further

RESOLVED That discussion of a full time policy involve great student input and representation.

DISCUSSION:

Khaled Dajani, Chair of the Student Senate Consultative Committee (SSCC), said that this resolution does not oppose a full-time policy but it asks that issues from the Graduation and Retention report be worked on first to improve student life. Additionally, there should be adequate student input into any policy that it proposed.

Q: Many classes are three and four credits, which would then force students to take 15-16 credits to meet the minimum. What was SSCC’s reaction to the 13-credit policy?

A: The 13-credit figure is a concern that has been expressed to President Yudof since it forces many students to take a one credit class that they do not need for their major, but would need to be eligible under this proposed policy.

Q: Is this resolution strictly for the Twin Cities campus?

A: While President Yudof is only considering this change on the Twin Cities campus, he forwarded the idea to each Vice Chancellor for consideration on the coordinate campuses. Each campus would make its own determination. The resolution, however, is intended to be from the entire Student Senate.

Q: Does SSCC have a time, after which other issues have been addressed, when it would consider a 13-credit policy?

A: The resolution refers to other entities at the University addressing these issues, not just SSCC, since some committees are already working on these issues.

Q: Has SSCC considered appointing an ad hoc committee to discuss this issue?

A: Committees already in existence are meeting on this topic so SSCC did not consider creating a new one. SSCC wants to ensure that student input is considered by these other groups and that a policy is not put into place before its implications are fully discussed.

A motion was made to strike the third resolved phrase from the resolution. The motion was accepted as a friendly amendment.

Q: Is there a reason that there is no mention of full class sizes?

A: The Graduation and Retention report lists 30 items for consideration. SSCC did not want to include all 30 items in the resolution, so instead it chose a few and then added that the items are not limited to just what is included in the resolution.

A Morris senator noted that this issue has been discussed on campus and it does not appear to be a problem that affects the Morris campus since all classes are either four or two credits. The sentiment among the campus assembly is that if it is not broke, then why fix it.

Crookston then noted that this is a not an issue for them, while Duluth felt that graduation rates could be a problem for the campus in the near future.

A motion was made to add the resolved statement “That each individual campus has the option to set its own credit limit for full time students” prior to the last resolved statement. The motion was accepted as a friendly amendment.

Q: How would this policy affect international students?

A: SSCC did not discuss international students, but research in this area is implied.

A senator noted that international students might be one of the groups considered to be automatically exempted from this policy.

A motion was made to amend the title to “Resolution on Undergraduate Full-Time Policy from the Twin Cities and Duluth senators.” The motion was accepted as a friendly amendment.

With no further discussion, a vote was taken and the motion was approved.

Whereas, The Short-Term Task Force on Alcohol Policies’ report on March 29, 2001, “found that Twin Cities policies were complete, appropriate, and comparable to policies at other institutions. The Task Force also found that the institution provided excellent education regarding alcohol use at new student and parent orientation, at residence hall orientation, in brochures, letters and e-mails to students and parents, and in training of community advisors and security monitors;” and

Whereas, Parental notification is contrary to student development theory; and

Whereas, Students 18 years of age and over should be treated as independent adults; and

Whereas, Reporting would treat a subset of students differently: students in residence halls would be disproportionately subject to reporting; and

Whereas, In the case of partial parental notification, reporting may depend on whether the student is a financial dependant; and

Whereas, Parental involvement in some circumstances may not help a student; and

Whereas, Parental notification may change the relationship between student and University staff; therefore be it

RESOLVED That the University of Minnesota Student Senate does not support the strict enforcement of any current parental notification policy, except in the case of extreme emergency; and be it further

RESOLVED That the University of Minnesota Student Senate does not support the implementation of more stringent parental notification policies; and be it further

RESOLVED That discussion of said policies should include significant student input and representation.

*Adapted from an August 30, 2001 memorandum to the Faculty, Staff, and Student Affairs Committee of the Board of Regents, “Report on Student Alcohol Issues.”

DISCUSSION:

Khaled Dajani, Chair of the Student Senate Consultative Committee (SSCC), said that the Regents have been discussing this issue since a few alcohol-related students deaths have occurred. Focus has been placed on parental notification. Action will be taken early in 2002. Current federal and state laws allow the University to report alcohol violations to parents if a student is considered a financial dependent or if a student is in a life-threatening situation. A task force report notes that the University currently provides excellent services and education to students on the topic of alcohol.

Q: Are there any Senate committees discussing this topic?

A: No Senate committees are discussing this issue now, although the Student Affairs Committee has discussed it in previous years. It appears that only the Regents are discussing this issue, and without any student input.

Q: Who is the administrative person who deals with the alcohol policy.

A: The person is Ed Ehlinger, Director of Boynton and Chair of the Alcohol, Tobacco, and Other Drugs Committee. All reports from these groups are then forwarded to Vice President Robert Jones.

Q: When would a parent be notified under this policy?

A: At Duluth, parents are notified only for students who are under 21 years of age and a financial dependent. Any student over 21 years of age will not be subject to the policy. All students in life-threatening situations will also be subject to parental notification. On the Twin Cities, alcohol violations on-campus are kept internal with notification only in life-threatening situations.

Q: Student should learn to deal with the consequences of alcohol abuse. Why is there a problem with parental notification?

A: Students are attempting to be an adult, so involving parents in the discipline system takes away any personal responsibility that a student may have. If a student is caught on-campus, there are still consequences for him or her, without involving parents.

Khaled Dajani said that the law gives the University discretion in reporting violations. SSCC decided that the current policy is adequate and that students should not be subjected to further external sanctions.

A senator said that students who are dependents should still be involved in disciplinary sanctions.

Another senator said that some students do not receive any money from their parents but are still considered dependents.

With no further discussion, a vote was taken and the motion was approved.