The sixth meeting of the Student Senate for 2003-04 was convened in 25 Mondale Hall, Minneapolis campus, on Thursday, April 29, 2004, at 11:35 a.m. Coordinate campuses were linked by telephone. Checking or signing the roll as present were 37 voting student members and one non-member. Chair Dan Weiske presided.

Dan Weiske welcomed the new 2004-05 student senators to the meeting. He then reminded senators that there is a University Senate meeting at 2:30 pm today.

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/040325stu.html

DISCUSSION:

With no discussion, a vote was taken and the minutes were approved.

Dan Weiske, Student Senate Chair, reminded members that senators interested in serving on a committee for next year should apply at this time since the Student Committee on Committees will be making initial appointments soon. At the last SSCC meeting, a report was received from the assessment of academic advising task force. They are looking at performance measures and goals in the area of advising. Other matters discussed by SSCC are future items on today’s agenda.

Adam VanWagner, Chair of the Student Affairs Committee, stated that the Student Services Fee Subcommittee met Tuesday, and will have more work next fall with the review of the Regents policy on fees. Any interested student is asked to apply for service on the committee. He announced that next year’s committee chair will be Kristen Denzer.

Crookston – Kyle Rollness reported that elections have taken place. Paul Christensen was elected president and DeAnn Roers is the new vice president. Campus clean-up just finished. CSA is wrapping up for the year, and looking forward to next year.

Duluth – Charles Stech said that Duluth is having a furniture pick-up when students leave campus. Elections have also finished, and two referendums were approved. One was to remove SLC from UMDSA and the other was to install a wind generator on campus.

Morris – No report.

Graduate and Professional Student Association – Jamie Larson said that elections were completed this week, and she was elected as next year’s SSCC representative. A constitutional amendment was also approved to allow the full assembly to remove the president, and not the executive committee. Next year’s GAPSA president is Abu Jalal.

Minnesota Student Association – Tom Zearley reported that he was elected as the new president, with Amy Jo Pierce as the vice president. Committee chair elections will take place next Tuesday. Most other work is wrap-up for the year, and tying up loose ends in the MSA constitution and bylaws.

The feasibility for a campus wide alcohol policy is possible, but unlikely. A sustained effort over several years is necessary to make it happen. In the current Regents environment the best course of action is to go and take baby steps. The reasoning behind this is that if the students try to push for a full wet campus initiative, then it will fail. However, if the students were to ask for a exemption for a single area on the respective campus to serve alcohol in a controlled environment then it would probably pass. When the regents see that each campus is not being over run with drunks then they might loosen the grip on alcohol even more.

The Twin Cities Campus currently has an exemption to serve alcohol at Northrop Auditorium. If something along these lines was introduced in a positive and protective environment, with sufficient data to back it up, then the serving of alcohol is possible.

Each of the members of the Alcohol Task Force was mailed a packet of all the alcohol data that we got. It has several pieces of info that are the key to the discussion.
---------------------------
The final recommendations from the Student Senate Alcohol Task Force Spring 2004 are:
1) A sustained effort is required over several years to make this happen. As a result we recommend that the Alcohol Task force is started again next year, with all campuses involved. Given the current atmosphere a sustained effort will be needed to bring the serving of alcohol to the campuses. All campuses should be involved because the issue of the serving of alcohol affected more then one campus.
2) Alcohol should only be served in a safe environment where a person can feel at ease, and it is possible to be sure that alcohol is only going to those who are of age. There should be a ceiling on the amount of alcohol consumed.
3) When/If an exemption is ever granted, it should be followed up by a sustained and comprehensive survey to make sure that it is helping out the safety of everyone involved. This survey is intended to show the effects of alcohol on the consumer.
----------------------------
The Alcohol task force met several times during this year, 2004, to discuss the need and ability to serve alcohol on the various campuses. We had interviews with people from Boynton Health Services and from the public Safety dept of the University.
When collecting data we received data from the several areas. The General Counsels office gave us some data about the ATOD meetings. There was also data received from the different campuses.

The interviews were the best source of information. Employees from the Risk management office, Public safety, Student Affairs and health services should be interviewed for information related to alcohol.
----------------------------
Chairs Notes,
-There seemed to be support from faculty and administration for this topic. I would recommend that they also be involved as it would create institutional memory and buy in.
-While we were discussing this topic another topic came up that I think needs a little attention next year. That is the environment that students deal with. They raise tuition but the overall student experience is lacking. This seemed to be the major issue at several of our meetings.

Charles Stech
Chair, SSCC Alcohol Task Force

DISCUSSION:

Charles Stech said that the Alcohol Task Force met several times during the year, and focused mainly on if alcohol could be served on campus, how to serve alcohol, and if done, how would it be done. A University-wide alcohol policy is in effect currently. Any amendments to it would be possible, but unlikely due to the current political culture. The Regents policy is a baseline, with each campus developing its own policies in conjunction. Exemptions are possible under the policy, as is the case for Northrop Auditorium, which has not had any incidents.

The task force focused on having a secure and safe serving environment on each campus. The final recommendations include a sustained effort over several years, involvement from all campuses, a ceiling on the amount served, and a survey follow-up when exemptions are granted.

Q: Is there a current policy on open intoxicants on campus?

A: If a container is unopened, then the policy does not apply. If someone has an open container on campus, then he or she is in violation of the policy.

Q: How did the task force define ‘safe environment’?

A: The task force wanted to make sure that drinkers would not hurt themselves or others, and that drinks would be limited to prevent binge drinking.

Dan Weiske noted that a vote on the reorganization will take place at this afternoon’s meeting. He then provided some background for new senators. Last year the Senate began to look at reorganizing to include civil service and academic professionals on topics that affect all groups on campus. A working group was formed with members from each representative group which developed the documents before the Senate today. These documents were also guided by a straw poll that was sent to all senators in March. The straw poll did not indicate a clear preference for change, but it did indicate that most senators did not favor keeping the status quo.

Key features of the proposal are the new representative numbers: 167 faculty, 60 students, 25 civil service, and 25 academic professionals. The percentage of the total will not change much for students, but faculty will lose 17 percent to include the other two groups. The Student Senate will still remain autonomous. The committee structure changes slightly, with the Student Senate having more control over student committees. The number of students drop from nine to seven on the Consultative Committee to allow both other groups seats.

A senator noted that this proposal does not include representation for unionized employees. A goal for any reorganization would be to increase the student voting block, which could be helped by allowing unionized employees in the Senate. Because this group is excluded, students should vote against this proposal.

Another senator noted that unionized employees are not allowed to participate due to state law. The reorganization was not done to exclude them, but the working group felt that the other groups should not be excluded just because unionized employees are.

A senator then said state law does not exclude their participation, but just makes their involvement problematic, which should not be enough to just stop the Senate from trying to include them.

This resolution was withdrawn from the agenda.

MOTION:

To approve the following procedure on Student Senate Stipend Review:

STUDENT SENATE STIPEND REVIEW

The Student Consultative Committee, less its stipend-receiving members, shall review the performance of duties of all stipend-receiving members and vote on the approval, reduction, or withholding of the portion of their stipends allocated for spring semester. A two-thirds affirmative vote by the Student Consultative Committee is required for modification of stipend disbursement.

The Student Consultative Committee recommendation shall be presented to the Student Senate for approval at or before the Student Senate's last regular meeting of spring semester. Stipend receiving persons have a right to answer questions about or speak regarding the Student Consultative Committee's findings at this meeting if they so chose. A two-thirds vote of the Student Senate is required to modify the Student Consultative Committee recommendation.

COMMENT:

The Student Consultative Committee discussed a stipend review proposal at its April 15 meeting, and is presenting this language for approval. The stipend review process will start with 2004-05 allocations.

DISCUSSION:

Dan Weiske noted that there is currently no process for stipend review in place. SSCC discussed this item and decided that a process should be started. This motion lays out the process for this review.

A senator said that the language is vague as to how these positions are to be evaluated. Instead of this motion, he would propose that if someone was not performing their duties, then they should not receive their stipend.

Another senator noted that this process is less vague than having nothing and it is a good step toward evaluation of the positions.

Q: Which positions receive stipends and how much?

A: The Student Senate/SSCC Chair for $2000, the Student Senate/SSCC Vice Chair for $1200, and the Student Affairs Committee Chair for $1000.

A senator stated that MSA has a stipend review process that works well and solidifies the responsibilities of each position.

Q: Are their plans for a more complete review process in the future?

A: This proposal is a first step. Once the process is done next year, the process can be refined, as well as the responsibilities for each position in the Senate Constitution.

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

Nathan Wanderman, a student senator from the College of Liberal Arts, was elected Student Senate Chair.

Dan Weiske noted that this position will be elected by SSCC at its meeting next week. Since all senators are eligible to serve, he asked if anyone wished to nominate themselves or someone else today. Jim Kanten and Tom Pielow were each nominated, and accepted the nomination.

Dan Weiske then reminded senators that they can come to next week’s meeting to be nominated for the position.

Emily Cox, Seyon Nyanwleh, and Grant Peterson were elected 2004-05 Twin Cities undergraduate Committee on Committees members.

The meeting was adjourned at 12:59 p.m.