The third meeting of the Student Senate for 2004-05 was convened in 165 Peik Hall, Minneapolis campus, on Thursday, December 2, 2004, at 11:32 a.m. Coordinate campuses were linked by ITV. Checking or signing the roll as present were 31 voting student. Chair Nathan Wanderman presided.

President Bruininks said that a concern for him and students is to keep higher education accessible and affordable. He stated that the University put forth a sound and respectful budget request in light of the state’s budget forecast, which as of yesterday is an expected $700 million deficit on July 1, 2005. Therefore, unless the state decides to raise revenues, the University still has a challenge, but it is a fraction of what it was two years ago. The University is hoping that there is no reduction in its base budget.

He said that when the University increases its enrollment, there is a formula in state law that provides an adjustment to the University’s budget, generally two years after the increase. Two years ago, the University and MnSCU both experienced substantial increases in enrollment, and the University is near record enrollments at the Twin Cities and Duluth this year. Due to the state law, if the state honors its commitment, the University’s budget would increase $15 million per year recurring and $40 million in one-time funding. The University has not decided where these funds would be spent in relation to funding from the biennial request, but the highest priority will be addressing student needs.

At the press conference yesterday to discuss the budget forecast, the Governor said that he would do what he could to honor that commitment. The announced $700 million deficit even includes $200 million to honor these commitments to the University and MnSCU. President Bruininks called the Governor yesterday to thank him for remembering the state commitment, even though there is no guarantee that funding will be approved in the end.

He then noted that funding is a big issue for students and the future of the University since this Governor will not increase taxes to create more revenues. There is a fundamental flaw in the Minnesota tax system which creates revenue shortages, but more funding is needed to ensure quality institutions in the state.

President Bruininks then reminded senators that this year’s request has three parts: Biosciences for a Healthy Society, Attracting and Retaining Talent for Minnesota’s Future, and Creating and Sustaining Essential Research and Technology Infrastructure, and asks the state for a 50-50 partnership of $42 million each year.

Fundraising for scholarship support has been made the highest priority this year and $34 million was raised last year, much of which will be matched by internal resources. The University’s goal is to raise $150 million in a permanent endowment within the next few years.

He said that he is not sure at what rate tuition will increase, but it will be lower than last year, hopefully not double-digits. He asked students to lobby hard for the biennial budget and the capital request from last year.

President Bruininks then stated that Provost Sullivan is looking at the University’s vision and strategic direction for the future, and is heading up the strategic planning and positioning initiative. A briefing on this topic will be provided at the University Senate meeting later today, but he noted that more discussions should take place with other student groups. The initiative states that the University is one of the best institutions in the world and wants to retain this status, as well as making commitments to improvement. Budget cuts cannot be used as an excuse for mediocrity.

Q: In a recent article in a Minnesota business magazine, a proposal was presented to have Crookston and Morris become campuses in the MnSCU system. What is the University’s response to this proposal?

A: Vance Opperman was asked by Governor Pawlenty to co-chair a commission on the future of higher education in the state. A report was published late this summer, but did not contain this proposal. The proposal, offered by Mr. Opperman personally, was that Crookston, Morris and the Extension Service should be moved to MnSCU so that the University could focus on research. The University does not agree with this proposal. Regarding extension, the purpose is to link research to the needs of the state’s citizens. For Crookston and Morris, there is no good reason to transfer assets between systems.

Q: If Duluth does a large portion of research in the state, why are there no Ph.D. programs offered on this campus?

A: There are some graduate programs under review now that would involve a strong cooperative relationship between Duluth and the Twin Cities, and this should be the way to proceed. In the state statutes, there is a law regarding mission differentiation. It states that the University should be the primary granter of advanced graduate and professional degrees. A state of 5 million people with limited resources should not multiply costly Ph.D. programs. However, niche areas should be identified for the Duluth area to extend graduate education.

Q: There is a rumor on campus to close Crookston within the next five years. Is the administration considering this proposal?

A: This issue will be more thoroughly discussed when the administration is at Crookston on December 16. With growing costs and reductions in resources, the University has to make choices in the future. A special study will be called within the next few months regarding Crookston and other parts of the University, but no decision has yet been made. If the University wants to approach the future creatively, there needs to be a clear view of what the University is trying to accomplish, what the challenges are, demographics, financing, student recruitment, use of current funds, administrative overhead, and the needs of the region. If these issues are ignored, costs continue to increase and are passed onto students. A study of Crookston will also look at the other assets in that area, the Research Station and the Regional Extension Service Center.

Q: What is the administrative response to professors who do not allow students to complete evaluations at the end of the semester?

A: The administration believes in the importance of evaluations and insists that evaluations be included in requests for promotion and tenure because teaching does matter. There needs to be a cultural commitment that faculty are responsible to students and need to ask for student evaluations. If evaluations are good in other areas, then they are good for teaching as well. The University works to improve the quality of its teaching through evaluations and recognition through the Academy of Distinguished Teachers. This Academy advises the administration on how to improve teaching. Other improvements include increased training and support, especially mid-career programs.

Q: How can students best engage the state legislature?

A: Students should be connected to the Legislative Network and the Government Relations Office. They can also be informed about the request and then attend at the lobbying day at the capital in large numbers. Lastly, get to know your senator and representative, and talk to them with a clear message about the big picture idea for University funding.

In conclusion, President Bruininks said that he would like to return in the spring to talk about other creative ways to increase the scholarships initiatives and support ideas for students.

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/041104stu.html

DISCUSSION:

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

Nathan Wanderman, Student Senate Consultative Committee (SSCC) Chair, said that the committee has been working on three resolutions, which appear on this agenda. The Intra-University Student Leadership Conference planning is progressing, with the event being planned for mid to late spring semester to work on issues of student governance collaboration. Lastly, SSCC is working to create a solid lobbying plan.

Crookston – Paul Christensen reported that the campus assembly is tomorrow. The main topic at that meeting is a campus smoking ban.

Duluth – Tom Pielow said that UMDSA recently had an open house.

Morris – Nate Hilfiker said that MCSA is working on revising its bylaws and recently had its bowling night. The assembly approved the curriculum for the next course catalog.

GAPSA - Jamie Larson said that a joint executive meeting was held last night with MSA. The goal is to get the groups to work better together. GAPSA’s other goal is to raise graduate and professional student involvement.

MSA - Nathan Wanderman said that MSA is working to streamline the election process and prepare for the fees process.

Nathan Wanderman, Student Senate Consultative Committee (SSCC) Chair, said that details on the conference have been delayed, but he would like feedback from members about the goal for the conference. Should it be an opportunity to extend relations between student government groups or should the conference accomplish specifics items?

A senator responded that the conference should be a way for other student groups to use the Student Senate as a forum for the University system. Important student issues being discussed now, as well as those that recur, should be discussed at the conference.

Another senator said that the conference should have both purposes, as well as making the Student Senate more known to University faculty and students. The conference should also address ways to get students involved in student government.

A senator then stated that extending relations between groups should be the main goal since students need to get to know each other and what their respective groups do.

Nathan Wanderman, Student Senate Consultative Committee (SSCC) Chair, said that the SSCC is attempting to get a meeting with the Governor between the end of January and the beginning of February. The goal would be to present the student perspective on the University’s biennial request, which is to preserve the integrity of the University. The most effective way to approach a meeting with the Governor, and any future testifying at the capital, would be to have a small group trained and prepared to speak. If anyone is interesting in participating, please email him, since this small group will start to meet early spring semester. Lastly, he asked that senators keep their colleges involved and help to organize those efforts.

MOTION:

To approve the following resolution.

Resolution Regarding One Stop Improvement

WHEREAS Students fill out an evaluation of teaching at the conclusion of each course; and

WHEREAS The evaluation of teaching includes a student release section with questions focused on the instructor’s style and curriculum content; and

WHEREAS The student release section is a useful tool for students registering for classes; and

WHEREAS The accessibility of released student sections is unsatisfactory; therefore be it

RESOLVED That the Student Senate recommends to One Stop that a teacher evaluation link be added to each course and instructor in the course guide; and be it further

RESOLVED That if a course is new or a instructor has not taught before, the student be notified as such; and be it further

RESOLVED That if a instructor has not consented to the release of his or her evaluation, the student be notified as such.

Approved by SSCC, November 18, 2004

DISCUSSION:

Nathan Wanderman, Student Senate Consultative Committee (SSCC) Chair, said that goal of this resolution is to ask the One Stop Office to redesign the course selection website to include a link to professor evaluations instead of having to go to a different web page to find them, thereby providing more education for students when registering for courses.

A senator suggested that the term ‘instructor’ be changed to ‘faculty.’ This change was accepted as friendly.

Q: What is the goal of the second resolved statement since students might not want to register for a course if a professor does not have any evaluations yet? Is the third resolved statement necessary, since non-release is the implied reason when evaluations are not available on the web?

A: It is important for students to know the difference between no evaluations due to no previous experience at the University and non-consent to release evaluations.

The senator asked that this distinction be included in the wording for the second resolved statement.

Q: Can faculty selectively release evaluations?

A: For each course taught, the faculty will receive the evaluations and a waiver to release the evaluations.

Nathan Wanderman said that SSCC is looking at developing better evaluation questions to replace those currently in use. Once approved, this resolution will not be forwarded to the University Senate, since it does not affect faculty, but will be forwarded to the One Stop Office.

With no further discussion, a vote was taken and the resolution was approved as amended.

MOTION:

To approve the following resolution.

Resolution to Encourage Faculty to Release Student Release Sections

WHEREAS Students fill out an evaluation of teaching at the conclusion of each class; and

WHEREAS The evaluation of teaching includes a student release section with questions focused on the instructor’s style and curriculum content; and

WHEREAS Knowing this information will improve sustained enrollment and serve to drastically reduce schedule changes once classes have started; and

WHEREAS Informed understanding of course selection leads to increased course satisfaction; and

WHEREAS The percentage of student release sections released reached an all time high in Spring of 2004 of 22.9%; and

WHEREAS That percentage is unsatisfactory; be it

RESOLVED That the Student Senate strongly encourages the faculty of the University of Minnesota to release student release sections.

RESOLVED That deans, department heads, and department chairs should make the release of student release questions by their faculty a priority.

Approved by SSCC, November 18, 2004

DISCUSSION:

Taqee Khaled, Student Senate Consultative Committee (SSCC) member, said that this resolution encourages deans and department heads to make evaluation releases a priority among their faculty since the overall release from classes spring semester 2004 was only 22 percent. The goal of the resolution would also be to improve student course selection and reduce course switching at the beginning of each semester.

Q: Why is the overall release percentage so poor?


A: It is because faculty are not signing the waivers to release their course evaluations. Most faculty appear to not sign the waiver more because they think students do not care to read them rather than because the faculty received poor evaluation results.

A senator noted that while this is not a big issue at the smaller campuses, it should still be approved.

Another senator stated that evaluations cannot be released because of the union’s negative stance at Duluth.

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

WHEREAS Mount Graham, (Dzil Nchaa Si’an, to the Apache), is considered sacred by a significant portion of the San Carlos Apache; and

WHEREAS the contention of the University of Arizona that Native American concerns were either resolved or received positive, neutral, or non-response from the Apache population was addressed and refuted in a letter from Sandra Rambler of the San Carlos Apache Reservation to then University of Minnesota president Mark Yudof on December 9, 2001; and

WHEREAS Robert Tippeconnic, formerly of the United States Forest Service and supervisor of the Draft and Final Environmental Impact Statements on the MGIO, admitted in an article in the Phoenix New Times on June 16, 1993, that he knew the Apache believed Mount Graham was sacred but would be reluctant to discuss concerns with non-Indians and yet made no concerted effort to evoke Apache concerns; and

WHEREAS it is unethical to take advantage of the tribe’s perceived lack of clarity in communicating its protests to the MGIO in order to advance University interests; and

WHEREAS it is at best unfair for an international coalition of academic institutions, lawyers and lobbyists to confront a single tribe in a legal case; and

WHEREAS the claim that Mount Graham is on federal land and ultimately does not need the tribe’s permission is predicated on the United States of America’s regrettable history of asymmetric dealings with its native population and, specifically, upon President Grant’s 1873 reassignment of Mount Graham to federal status from its 1871 designation as part of a reservation,

BE IT RESOLVED that the Student Senate urges the Board of Regents to remove the University of Minnesota’s financial investment and academic participation from the MGIO as a matter of principle despite the losses involved therein.

DISCUSSION:

Taqee Khaled, Student Senate Consultative Committee (SSCC) member, said that he researched the topic of the University’s partnership with the University of Arizona in relation to the MGIO. The telescope is located on federal land that borders the reservations of four Native American Indian tribes and is considered sacred ground by the San Carlos Apache tribe. The telescope project has evolved through two decades of discussions, with different views being expressed by the tribe as council members have changed over these years. While the University is already invested in the project, this resolution, only for discussion at today’s meeting, proposes a difficult choice by asking the University to withdraw from the project for ethical reasons.

A senator noted that the University contribution to date is a $5 million investment in the MGIO, which yields the University 22 days of observatory time, and $40,000 towards a scholarship fund for the tribe.

Q: What is the basis for the dispute over the land for the MGIO?

A: In 1871, a treaty was signed which included Mount Graham within the border of a new reservation for an Apache tribe. In 1873, the border for the reservation was shifted to exclude Mount Graham, and this landmark became federal property.

A senator said that it is important for the University to acknowledge the concerns expressed by the Native Americans and respect their wishes regarding this land.

Q: Are there alternate locations for the University to do its research?

A: Mount Graham is one of the top site in the United States and there are no other U.S. sites with open viewing time to purchase. If the University withdrew from MGIO, there are a list of other institutions that would buy its viewing time. The MGIO is already built, so the University’s withdrawal would not impede construction.

Nathan Wanderman reminded senators of the University Senate meeting at 2:30 p.m. today. He then invited all senators to lunch at the Big Ten restaurant following the meeting. Lastly, he reminded SSCC members that they have a meeting next Thursday.

The meeting was adjourned at 1:12 p.m.