The sixth meeting of the Student Senate for 2005-06 was convened in Studio C, Rarig Center, Minneapolis campus, on Thursday, May 4, 2006, at 11:35 a.m. Coordinate campuses were linked by ITV. Checking or signing the roll as present were 21 student members. Chair Josh Breyfogle presided.

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/060406stu.html

DISCUSSION:

Due to the minutes not having been posted to the web, the item was withdrawn.

Josh Breyfogle, Student Senate/Student Senate Consultative Committee (SSCC) Chair, thanked the senators and alternates that were present at the last meeting of the year. He said that he will continue to working on the issue of student binge drinking over the summer.

MSA – Rick Orr said that MSA has elected new SSCC and executive board members.

GAPSA – Tony Kouba reported that GAPSA’s president recently resigned due to other time commitments, but next year’s board members have been elected.

Morris – Nathan Hilfiker stated MCSA held elections two weeks ago, which includes the students who will serve on the Activities Fee Review Committee. The Chancellor’s farewell was on Monday. Lastly, MCSA has submitted its report on who MCSA would like as the next chancellor, and is hoping for an answer from the administration within the next few weeks.

Crookston – Dion Sturgeon stated that the CSA board was elected in April and there are five more student senators in the fall.

Duluth – Josh Breyfogle noted that UMDSA has finished elections and the new congress started Monday. The Chancellor’s graduation party is at Glensheen tonight

There was no update.

Josh Breyfogle, Student Senate/Student Senate Consultative Committee (SSCC) Chair, said that he is still looking at student binge drinking.

Rick Orr, Student Committee on Committees Chair, said that the committee recently met and decided to appoint students to two-year terms on committees so that not all student members rotate off each year. The appointment process will also start earlier in the fall.

MOTION:

To amend Article V, Section 1 of the Student Senate Bylaws as follows (language to be added is underlined; language to be deleted is struck-out). As an amendment to the Student Senate Bylaws, the motion requires either a majority of all voting members of the Student Senate (22) at one regular or special meeting, or a majority of all members of the Student Senate present and voting at each of two meetings. This is the first meeting at which this motion is being presented.

...

D. STUDENT CONSULTATIVE COMMITTEE

...

Membership

The Student Consultative Committee shall be composed of:

- one student from the Crookston campus
- one student from the Duluth campus
- one student from the Morris campus
- five students from the Twin Cities campus, as follows:
In 2004-05, and every other year thereafter, there shall be three
undergraduate students and two graduate/professional students. In
2005-06, and every other year thereafter, there shall be four undergraduate
students and one graduate/professional student.
- the chair and vice chair of the Student Senate

Student members shall be elected and/or appointed in accordance with procedures determined by the respective campuses’ student constituencies, subject to the following provision: at the time of their election, Twin Cities undergraduate students shall be members of the University Senate. A student member will relinquish their seat in the University Senate upon election to the Student Senate Consultative Committee.

Student vacancies shall be filled in accordance with procedures determined by the respective campuses for the balance of any unexpired term until the next regular election.

The chair of the Student Senate shall also serve as the chair of the Student Consultative Committee. The vice chair of the Student Senate shall also serve as the vice chair of the Student Consultative Committee. Chair and vice chair elections should be subject to the following provisions:

The seven members who serve on the Senate Consultative Committee shall be composed of:

- one student from the Crookston campus
- one student from the Duluth campus
- one student from the Morris campus
- three students from the Twin Cities campus, as follows:
In 2004-05, and every other year thereafter, there shall be one undergraduate student and two graduate/professional students. In 2005-06, and every other year thereafter, there shall be two undergraduate students and one graduate/professional student. The undergraduate students shall be elected by the committee from the eligible members.
- the chair Student Senate

...

COMMENT:

Last year the Student Consultative Committee approved this procedure to determine which students would serve on the Senate Consultative Committee. This procedure was used to allocate students this year. This motion just incorporates this procedure into the charge for the committee.

DISCUSSION:

Q: Is this procedure already being done and for how long?

A: This practice is already in place, but has been done for only one year.

Q: What was the prior practice?

A: There was no previous practice since prior to the Senate reorganization all Student Senate Consultative Committee (SSCC) members served on the Senate Consultative Committee (SCC). With the reorganization, the number of students was reduced from 10 to seven, and therefore a procedure was needed to chose these students.

A senator made a motion to suspend the rules to amend the proposal to change the composition of the SSCC from five Twin Cities students and one Duluth student to four Twin Cities students and two Duluth students to have the total Twin Cities composition equal to the total coordinate campus composition.

The motion was seconded and a vote was taken. The motion failed with only 6 in favor, 16 opposed, and 3 abstentions.

With no further discussion a vote was taken on the original motion and the motion was approved with 24 in favor, one opposed, and one abstention.

MOTION:

To amend Article V, Section 1 of the Student Senate Bylaws as follows (language to be added is underlined; language to be deleted is struck-out). As an amendment to the Student Senate Bylaws, the motion requires either a majority of all voting members of the Student Senate (22) at one regular or special meeting, or a majority of all members of the Student Senate present and voting at each of two meetings. This is the first meeting at which this motion is being presented.

ARTICLE V. STUDENT SENATE MEMBERSHIP, ELECTIONS, AND OFFICERS (Changes to this article are subject to vote only by the Student Senate)

1. Membership

For the purpose of electing representatives and alternate representatives, if any, to the Student Senate, qualified students shall vote within each of the following units of the University:

TWIN CITIES: Agricultural, Food, & Environmental Sciences: Architecture and Landscape Architecture; Biological Sciences; Continuing Education; Dentistry; Design; Education and Human Development; Food, Agricultural, and Natural Resource Sciences; General College; Graduate School; Human Ecology; Law; Liberal Arts; Management; Medical School; Natural Resources; Nursing; Pharmacy; Public Health; Technology; Veterinary Medicine

CROOKSTON

DULUTH: Business and Economics; Education and Human Service Professions; Fine Arts; Liberal Arts; Medicine; Pharmacy; Science and Engineering;

MORRIS

...

COMMENT:

The Twin Cities collegiate changes are being proposed based on the results of the Strategic Positioning process. The Duluth changes are being proposed based on the fact that these colleges have been merged with the colleges in the Twin Cities. Representation for these programs has been assured through changes with GAPSA.

DISCUSSION:

With no discussion a vote was taken and the motion was approved with 23 in favor, none opposed, and five abstention.

MOTION:

The Student Senate Stipend Review Committee has reviewed the performance of the following stipend-receiving students: Matt Painschab, Student Affairs Committee Chair; Joshua Breyfogle, SSCC/Student Senate Chair; and, Rick Orr, SSCC/Student Senate Vice Chair. The recommendation from the committee is that:

The Student Senate Stipend Review Committee felt that the effort exhibited by Joshua Breyfogle, the SSCC/Student Senate Chair, was more equivalent to the role of the Vice Chair, and that the effort exhibited by Rick Orr, the SSCC/Student Senate Vice Chair, was more equivalent to the role of the Chair. The committee therefore recommended switching the total stipend amounts for these two people.

DISCUSSION:

Will Kusch, member of the Student Senate Consultative Committee (SSCC), took over as chair for this motion since both the chair and vice chair wanted an opportunity to speak on this item.

Joshua Breyfogle stated that the Stipend Review Committee appeared to assign arbitrary numbers to the stipends for himself and the Vice Chair. While he acknowledged the excellent job that Rick Orr did this semester, Rick Orr did not do the full job of the chair and he did the work that was specified for the duties of the chair position. He knows that the he made errors this semester, but feels that a better resolution would be to award him only 80 percent of this semester’s stipend, and not switch stipend amounts with Rick Orr.

A Stipend Review Committee member said that figures being proposed are not arbitrary, but instead award Josh Breyfogle a total yearly stipend equal to the vice chair position and Rick Orr a total stipend equal to the chair position. The Committee felt that Rick Orr fulfilled the duties of the chair position, above that of the vice chair position, by attending all the meetings and giving extra effort. The Committee did ask each person to answer a series of questions, and the responses from Joshua Breyfogle were disappointing to all members.

A vote was then taken on the motion and it was not approved with only 5 in favor, 6 opposed, and 14 abstentions.

Due to the large number of abstentions, Will Kusch asked senators what other information they would need to make a decision, since the body needs to approve the stipends before they can be awarded.

A senator moved that the questions and responses, as well as position descriptions, from the Stipend Review Committee, as well as new responses to the same questions, be forwarded to all senators and that an electronic vote then be taken on the current motion. If the Student Senate does not approve the stipends, the motion be referred back to the Stipend Review Committee for final vote.

The motion was seconded.

A senator noted that the electronic vote will only produce a yes or no answer, but will not allow for discussion if senators feel that the numbers being proposed are not accurate. How can this message be conveyed to the Stipend Review Committee?

Another senator then proposed that senators vote against the motion and instead authorize SSCC to make the final decision.

A senator noted that the Student Senate did not vote against the motion, but refused to take action due to the lack of information available.

A motion was made to call the question and a vote was then taken. The motion was approved by a majority vote.

MOTION:

To approve the following statement.

The Student Senate recognizes that there is a lack of graduate and professional student housing on both the Twin Cities and Duluth campuses.

The Universities of Minnesota has a responsibility to its graduate and professional students to provide an adequate amount of graduate and professional Student housing that is accessible to campus. This housing should be developed in a way that fosters community, which in turn will improve the culture of the University of Minnesota graduate and professional schools.

Therefore, be it decided that the Student Senate supports any efforts by the Graduate and Professional Student Assembly (GAPSA) and the University of Minnesota – Duluth Student Association (UMDSA) to urge the University of Minnesota Administration to create more graduate and professional student housing on both the Twin Cities and Duluth campuses.

DISCUSSION:

Rick Orr said that this item was withdrawn from the March agenda because a senator had some issues with the resolution, but those issues have not been brought forward since, so there has been no change in the language.

A senator said that the resolution focuses on on-campus housing, but the issue for graduate and professional students is affordable housing.

A senator proposed a friendly amendment to change ‘on’ in both the first last paragraphs to ‘for.’ This was accepted as a friendly amendment.

Q: Has UMDSA already taken action on this issue, as GAPSA has?

A: UMDSA has held discussions on housing for professionals in the city of Duluth, but no action has taken place.

With no further discussion, a vote was taken and the motion was approved in 25 in favor, none opposed, and no abstentions.

MOTION:

To approve the following resolution.

Whereas, many students are required to enroll in classes which cover material that the student already has a proficiency in; and

Whereas, very few courses give students with the above mentioned proficiency the ability to “test out” of courses which provide no progress in education; and

Whereas, some students do not attend lecture and suffer falling grades because of it, often because they can’t learn what they already know and don’t want to waste their valuable time; and

Whereas, many students are double majors with similar required classes and often have difficulty making one of two of the classes count for both requirements; and

Whereas, this addition should be helpful in lowering loans from taking fewer semesters, raising the four-year graduation rate, and gives those students without access to AP or PSEO the opportunity to be released from classes (though without getting credit); and

Whereas, the acquisition of knowledge is the essential goal of every University course; therefore be it

RESOLVED, Student Senate will lobby the University administration and University Senate to end the continued practice of unnecessary class enrollment by aiding departments in the creation of a “test out” process similar to the process of the Language Proficiency Exam (LPE).

DISCUSSION:

Rick Orr began by yielding his time to Kevin Wendt, Speaker of Forum in MSA and author of this resolution.

Kevin Wendt said that this resolution works in companion to item 11 to address student concerns on this issue.

Q: In the second whereas, how will one define what courses ‘provide no progress in education?’

A: This would be defined as classes that students are required to enroll in but for which the student already has a proficiency.

A senator noted that different perspectives are presented in all classes and that is the purpose of a liberal arts education. Course material may be similar, but no course imparts the exact same knowledge.

Another senator then stated that this resolution does not require that a student test-out of classes, but it simply asks that an option be created. With the price of attending increasing each year, some students may not want to pay for class content that they have already learned.

A senator said that while he agrees with the general spirit of the resolution, he feels that the way the resolution plans to carry out its intended purpose is misguided. It is not up to each student to design his or her own curriculum; this is decided by the faculty. Faculty should decide which courses should be eligible for a test-out, not students. This resolution also does not take into account the different levels of courses in different disciplines. These procedures would only appear to work for a small percentage of all classes.

Another senator said that this resolution would not affect a student’s total tuition since the University still requires a minimum number of credits to be eligible for graduation. The resolution also has an organizational problem. How would some departments conceptualize benchmarks for testing-out of a course? This process would create a greater burden on departments, which are funded by total enrollment in their courses. The resolution is not clear about who the Student Senate is asking and what is actually being requested.

A senator noted that this resolution does not state that students should have the ability to choose what courses they wish to test-out of in a department. The decision is being put to the departments to decide which of their courses would be eligible for testing-out. The concern of this body should be what is in the best interest of students, not the burden to departments.

A senator then said that Morris has a scholastic committee that can approve test-outs for courses. The University should not lower its standards by approving this resolution

Another senator commented that the resolution does not lower University standards but allows students to test-out of courses for which they already know the material.

Kevin Wendt proposed an amendment to the resolution, to add ‘for which a test is applicable’ to the end of the resolved clause. This was accepted as a friendly amendment.

Kevin Wendt then noted that for some classes, discussion is the integral part of the class and this resolution is not tailored to allow testing-out of these classes. This resolution is meant for courses in which a test is easily created and easily given to students. Departments would decide which courses would have a test available, and then be responsible for creating the content of the test.

Q: Currently, students can petition a department to be released from taking a course. How is this different?

A: A policy is currently in place, but only for CLA courses, and since it is by special request, departments can turn down the request. This resolution would institute the CLA policy for the entire system.

A senator said that even if a petition process is in place, this resolution might make the procedure easier for all students.

With no further discussion, a vote was taken and the motion was approved with 16 in favor, nine opposed, and one abstention.

MOTION:

To approve the following resolution.

Whereas, students understand that they are expected to know all pertinent material presented in lecture or assigned readings; and

Whereas, students understand that all pertinent material presented in lecture or assigned readings may be legitimately included in all evaluation tools (homework, testing, etc.); and

Whereas, students understand that evaluation of their performance is not based on the actual reading of a required reading, but upon the student’s knowledge of the material contained within that reading, regardless of how that knowledge is obtained; and

Whereas, many students are required to enroll in classes which cover material that the student already has a proficiency in; and

Whereas, current policy allows evaluation to be based on participation in or attendance at lecture rather than simply on the knowledge and mastery of material presented in lecture; and

Whereas, pop-quizzes are regularly used as a measurement of attendance, not a measure of grasp of the quizzed material; and

Whereas, many classes have a better mechanism for un-scheduled mid-semester quizzing by announcing quizzes on specific material one lecture prior, a practice well-received by students of all learning styles; and

Whereas, some student do not attend lecture and suffer falling grades because of it, often because they can’t learn what they already know and don’t want to waste their valuable time; and

Whereas, dropping the attendance requirements can not hurt these students more than they are already hurting themselves; and

Whereas, students possess many diverse learning styles; and

Whereas, students understand that courses heavily reliant upon the discussion of course material contain discussion sections which may be a suitable tool for evaluation; and

Whereas, students understand that discussions, laboratory sections, and the other section classifications are often a necessary component of courses separate from lecture sections; therefore be it

RESOLVED, in the absence of such a “test out” process being implemented, Student Senate will lobby the University administration and the University Senate to support student rights and diverse learning styles by disallowing evaluation based on lecture attendance or participation for those student maintaining an A or B grade; and be it further

RESOLVED, this resolution applies only to lectures sections with designations LEC or LET; and be it further

RESOLVED, courses which rely heavily on discussion as the process of learning and understanding be appropriately labeled as seminars (SEM) or colloquium (COL).

DISCUSSION:

Rick Orr began by yielding his time to Kevin Wendt, Speaker of Forum in MSA and author of this resolution.

Kevin Wendt said that this resolution works in companion with the previous one and was originally part of the previous item, but was then separated into its own resolution. This resolution is meant to be in place when test-out procedures are not present for a course. The focus of this resolution is that students have different learning styles. If a student can prove that he or she has the knowledge, the student should not be forced to attend a lecture if the student will not learn anything by attending.

A senator commented that the fourth-to-last whereas clause is a non sequitur and should be removed. And in the first resolved clause it refers to a test-out procedure, but that procedure has not been mentioned anywhere else in the document. In this same resolved clause, the resolution being asked for is unenforceable and therefore the entire clause should be deleted as well.

Kevin Wendt proposed a friendly amendment to the first resolved clause to remove ‘such’ since then it does not imply a previous reference. The remainder of the resolved clause is enforceable because of the issuance of mid-term alerts to students who are not earning an A or B grade. The fourth-to-last whereas is meant to respond to concerns that students will be hurt by a lack of attendance requirements, not by a lack of course knowledge. He suggested a friendly amendment to reword the clause to read, ‘dropping the attendance requirements cannot hurt these students more than having students who understand the information and successfully pass examinations failing a course based on attendance.’

There two amendments were accepted as friendly amendments.

A senator said that there is an assumption embedded in this resolution that lecture is being used in place of class, and the assumption is that lecture style is always being used during the class sessions. Most course lecture sessions are not just lecture, but also incorporate small groups and discussion. This resolution also seems to be a back-door way of getting at courses for which a test-out procedure will not be created. She suggested focusing on students for whom the material is germane and would learn if in attendance. Another assumption of this resolution is that a student’s absence only hurts that student, but absences can also affect the students and faculty who do attend each class. She felt that this resolution should not be approved.

Kevin Wendt said that the resolution explicitly states in the last two resolve clauses that it should only apply to lecture classes. Colloquia or seminars are not meant to be included in this resolution. The resolution would force all courses to be reclassified using the current guidelines that are in place to label courses for how they are actually taught.

A senator noted that students should not assume they know a course’s pedagogical style just by it being labeled as a lecture course.

A motion was then made and seconded to extend debate five minutes. A vote was taken and the motion to extend debate was approved with 17 in favor, eight opposed, and no abstentions.

A senator then noted that it is impossible to limit a class to one style for the entire semester.

Q: How many classifications are used by the University?

A: There are 12 classifications.

Another senator said that the decision about the course style is made by the department, but any change is an appeal made to the college. It will not be possible to file appeals each semester based on who is teaching the course.

Kevin Wendt stated that the reclassification process should then be made easier so that the notation can be changed and accurately reflect the course to students each semester.

A senator said that a new reclassification process is in line with other changes being promoted by students, such as revised student evaluations. The University is also trying to better clarify courses to students so that the best decisions are being made.

A senator stated that grade level should not be referred to in the first resolved clause and made a friendly amendment to have ‘for those student maintaining an A or B grade’ removed from the clause. This was accepted as a friendly amendment.

Another senator then questioned the deference that should be given to faculty as to what should and should not be mandated of their students. One way to accomplish this is to force faculty to post all course syllabi on-line prior to the start of registration. If the syllabus states that the course requires lecture attendance, then students have assumed the responsibility to attend lecture when registering for the course.

Kevin Wendt agreed with the point made, but it does not help students who need a particular course to graduate, and this course is only taught by one person each year, so the student has no choice in registering for another course or section.

With no further discussion, a vote was taken and the motion was not approved with only 11 in favor, 15 opposed, and no abstentions.

Joshua Beiningen, a student senator from the College of Natural Resources, was elected Student Senate Chair.

John Faustgen and Ron Miller were elected 2006-07 Twin Cities undergraduate Committee on Committees members. The final position will be elected at the first fall meeting.

The meeting was adjourned at 1:10 p.m.