The fourth meeting of the Student Senate for 2002-03 was convened in Cowles Auditorium, Minneapolis campus, on Thursday, February 20, 2003, at 11:34 a.m. Coordinate campuses were linked by telephone. Checking or signing the roll as present were 28 voting student members. Chair Ryan Osero presided.

Richard Pfutzenreuter, Associate Vice President for Budget and Finance, addressed the University budget in light of the recently released governor’s budget recommendation. He stated that the two year recommendation is $185 million, or 15 percent less than the previous biennium. In the current fiscal year, 2003, the University received $641 million from the state. The governor’s recommendation is for $541 million for 2004, which is a $100 million cut. In fiscal year 2005, the University will receive $544 million, or $3.2 million more than the previous year.

While most of the cuts will take place during the first biennium, there are several other expenses during this year that the University cannot avoid, such as opening the new Art Building, debt services, and utilities. Therefore, the total cut the first year is greater than the $100 million being discussed.

Mr. Pfutzenreuter then referred to a diagram, detailing state funding appropriations since 1995. From this diagram, it can be seen that next year’s request will be equal to the request received in 1998, thereby removing all increases the University has received, except from tuition increases.

The University receives appropriations from the state in two forms. Operations and Maintenance Funds is a lump sum that can be allotted to programs and initiatives by the University. The other form is State Specials, which restricts the way that the funds can be used in one of four areas. While the governor’s recommendation proportionally decreased funding for each of these areas, it is doubtful whether the legislature will take the same approach.

Another item in the governor’s recommendation was the elimination of the tobacco endowment, and funding to the University from this endowment. The governor has proposed that the approximately $22 million that the University receives now be paid by nine cents of the existing cigarette tax.

A third item in the governor’s recommendation was to ask the Regents to freeze salary increases for the biennium. Since the University was founded before the state, it has constitutional autonomy and therefore this part of the recommendation is only a request and not a mandate.

A related item was a request that tuition not be increased more than 15 percent per year during the next biennium. Mr. Pfutzenreuter was not sure how this figure was set, but stated the University was not discussing tuition increases over this amount before the governor’s recommendations.

To address this funding reductions, especially in the first year, there will be targeted reductions in programs, tuition increases greater than anticipated, a possible salary freeze, and reduction in benefits.

Mr. Pfutzenreuter then said that MnSCU was cut $141 million, or 11 percent. Their cut was lower than the University’s since their budget allows for increased enrollment, which happens when the economy decreases.

The governor also made recommendations for the Higher Education Services Office (HESO). This agency was severely under-funded in the last biennium. Funding was restored by taking $30 million each from the University and MnSCU. The University supported this funding move, but one concern is which students will benefit from this increase. If the current tuition cap is not increased, private school students will not benefit from the increased funding to HESO. University students, however, will benefit since tuition here is 40 percent lower than this cap. Even with this additional funding, there is still a shortfall in the state grant program since there is not anticipated increase in the second year of the biennium.

Other changes are the merging of HESO and the Higher Education Services Council, and making the director of HESO a gubernatorial appointment.

Q: Is the increase in state funding more than the cost of inflation? If so, why does it cost more to run the University?

A: Higher education costs are driven by the higher education price index. This index has seen more growth than inflation in the last 20 years, and therefore cannot be compared to the consumer price index. One reason for this is the difference in University purchases, which are highly technical and expensive equipment and scientific journals. If the state appropriation in the 1990s was adjusted for inflation, the chart would show that the increase is less than the consumer price index.

Q: Why is HESO stating that increases in their funding will benefit private college students more than University students?

A: Private colleges have a proposal that would reduce the amount of funding to state schools and increases the funding for financial aid, especially for private school students. While the governor’s recommendation does increase funding for financial aid, he did not propose increasing the tuition cap and the living and miscellaneous allowance. If these two figures are not increased, then private college students will not benefit from increased financial aid funding.

In closing, Mr. Pfutzenreuter noted that there is still a long way until the budget is finalized. The University is hopeful that the cut will not increase, and will fight to decrease the cut.

Ryan Osero announced that the President’s Inauguration will take place on February 28 and all students are welcome to attend.

Judy Berning then noted that the Student Committee on Committees has been asked to identify a student to serve as the 2003-04 Chair of the Student Affairs Committee. Any interested students should talk to her about serving.

MOTION:

To approve the Student Senate minutes, which are available on the Web at the following URLs. A simple majority is required for approval.

http://www1.umn.edu/usenate/ssen/021205stu.html

DISCUSSION:

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

Ryan Osero, Student Senate Chair, reported that this week, Governor Pawlenty released his budget recommendation for the next biennium. Included in this budget is a 15 percent decrease in state funding for the University, and a 9 percent overall decrease in higher education spending. This represents the greatest threat to affordable education in Minnesota.

Students need to remind legislators how education is moving from a public good to a private good and that the University has too much to lose to cut spending by this percentage.

For students, this decrease will lead to another double-digit increase in tuition. While President Bruininks has assured students that tuition will not be the first source to cover the revenue gap, it inevitably will rise.

Ultimately, students can determine the size of the tuition increase. To receive the best possible increase, students need to be engaged and need to contact their legislator from their district and the governor. Students need to tell family, friends, and coworkers how important education is them and the state as a whole, and how another sharp increase in tuition will jeopardize it.

To find more information, visit the Government Relations website to see how to get involved. And most importantly, attend Lobby Day on March 6^th.

Judy Berning, Student Senate Consultative Committee (SSCC) Chair, said that the most important topic for SSCC has been the Student Conduct Code, which will be discussed later today. SSCC also held a meeting with President Bruininks, during which a number of topics were discussed, such as the budget, international students, and affirmative action. From this meeting, a bigger discussion will be planned with several key administrators to discuss the role of the student experience in the educational mission of the University.

The Student Affairs Committee (SCSA) has received the Minnesota Private College Proposal (MPCC). This proposal was presented to the Student Senate in December for further action. SCSA will be meeting with parties from the University and MPCC, and then formulating a position. The SSCC Task Force will also be presenting its report later this spring. Other issues have been changes to the Student Senate and more student workshops.

Lastly, at the University Senate meeting this afternoon, a policy on Academic Unit Governance is being presented for action by the faculty. The policy deals with governance authority in departments. She encouraged all student senators to be present and voice their concerns.

Crookston – Jean Korkowski reported that Bede Hall will be torn down starting spring break week. All activities and offices are moving to different buildings on campus. CSA is organizing the first faculty/student showdown on campus. Faculty and students will compete against each other in different competitions to encourage more interactions between the groups.

Duluth – Nick Cecconi said that UMDSA has been dealing with budget issues affecting campus. Duluth Days were completed a few weeks ago and campus is now in the middle of Out Cold Week, both of which are great successes. UMDSA is also organizing for lobby day.

Morris – Eric Steinhoff stated that MCSA has been working on election reforms. The final plan was approval by MCSA and now needs Student Services approval. The changes removes the election commission from the Student Services Office. He would like to find out how each other campus conducts elections. Work is also progressing on the Activity Fee Review Committee Task Force, which will look at how student fees are allocated to different organizations. Other issues are lobby day and budget concerns.

Graduate and Professional Student Association – Raul Rosas noted that a joint meeting with MSA was held and work was accomplished. GAPSA is also organizing for lobby day and evening calling to legislators. Other issues have been tobacco sales in Coffman Union and representation of non-tenure and tenure-track faculty. There are several social events this spring. There are a set of planned networking events and the Impress the President event during Inauguration Week.

Minnesota Student Association – Adam VanWagner said that MSA recently held its first meeting with GAPSA. MSA also held a retreat a few weeks ago for about 30 members. The response was positive, so it will likely be repeated next year, but earlier in the year. A resolution was approved opposing high tuition/high aid financial aid models. Work is also progressing on lobby day.

Judy Berning, Chair of the Student Senate Consultative Committee (SSCC), said that the committee began looking at this changes in December. While most of the changes simply update language, one area that was not changed, but raised some concerns from SSCC is jurisdiction. In particular, Section I, item 2 seemed very broad and its interpretation worried some members.

SSCC proposed changing this line to read, “The University has a fundamental concern with conduct that breaches the peace, causes disorder, and substantially interferes with the right of others on campus or when officially representing the University off campus.” This change would provide a clear definition for jurisdiction.

The plan is for the revised Code to be approved by the University Senate this spring, so that it can be presented to the Regents for approval and be in place by Fall 2003.

Q: What is the process for incorporating a change into the Code?

A: Any changes proposed by the Student Senate would be returned to the original review committee, Drafting Committee, and the Office of the General Counsel for final approval before incorporation into the Code.

Tina Falkner provided background on the Code by noting that it is reviewed every ten years, with the last review taking place in 1991. This year’s review committee was composed of students, faculty, and staff. Major revisions included combining similar items, combining items within sections, removing archaic language, and clarifying titles.

The committee did discuss the issue of jurisdiction at length. The decision was made to not change the language on jurisdiction by making language more specific and creating loopholes. A radius around campus was also reviewed, but the committee realized that this would create other problems with campus neighborhoods given what areas are considered on-campus.

Q: Was there a problem in the past that encouraged the language change?

A: There was no specific problem, but after the SSCC review, some members still found gray areas. SSCC felt that if its members could not be clear on jurisdiction, then how could the average student.

Q: Is ‘on-campus’ defined by the Code?

A: The classroom is defined by the policy.

Q: How does the language ‘officially-representing’ ensure that the average student would not be affected?

A: Examples of officially-representing would be a member of an athletic team when at an athletic event or participating in a University-sponsored activity. Fans at an event would not be considered officially-sponsored.

A senator stated that they are in favor of the proposed language since it clarifies this issue for students.

Q: Would this policy cover students who are studying abroad with University funding?

A: If the study abroad uses University funding or is University-sponsored, then the policy would cover the activity. A clause is usually added to the rules in these cases, letting students know that they are covered by the Code.

Tina Falkner noted that every potential situation and violation is reviewed in depth before a final determination is made.

A senator proposed that the additional language be used in place of ‘on-campus’ in each of the 16 violations in the Code to maintain consistency.

Q: Would the proposed language be useful or a hindrance?

A: The titles for each violation cover on-campus issues, which is where most offenses occur, and the descriptions show how it can be applied to an off-campus situations, which arise very infrequently.

Q: If language is changed in Section 1, would this change how the Code is used?

A: As jurisdiction is more defined, the possibility exists for more loopholes, which might change how the Code could be used.

With no further comments, straw votes were taken to provide feedback to SSCC. A straw vote was taken on the language as originally proposed. The vote was 5 in favor and 19 opposed. A straw vote was then taken on incorporating the proposed language change throughout the Code. The vote was 20 in favor and 4 opposed.

A senator proposed a discussion of the Academic Unit Governance Policy before it is acted on at the Faculty Senate meeting this afternoon.

Judy Berning, Chair of the Student Senate Consultative Committee (SSCC), said that this policy is being presented for action today, but only faculty will be eligible to vote on it. The policy was presented to the faculty in December for discussion. The biggest concern in this document concerns the wording ‘ultimate authority’ which would rest with the tenure and tenure-track faculty only.

Q: How is this different from how departments currently operate?

A: Currently, there is no policy stating how departments should operate. The rationale for this policy is to state the responsibilities that accompany the granting of tenure to faculty.

A senator commented that while the number of academic professional staff members has been increasing, the number of tenure and tenure-track faculty has been decreasing.

Q: How can faculty say that only they get to vote on a policy that gives them the power within departments?

A: The policy originated with the Faculty Consultative Committee (FCC) and was forwarded to the Faculty Senate for approval.

Judy Berning encouraged students to stay for the discussion of this item at the Faculty Senate meeting.

Q: Has alternate language been proposed by the Council of Academic Professionals and Administrators (CAPA)?

A: CAPA has proposed language, but it might not all have been incorporated.

The meeting was adjourned at 12:50 p.m.