The second meeting of the Student Senate for 2007-08 was convened in Studio C, Rarig Center, Minneapolis campus, on Thursday, November 29, 2007, at 11:33 a.m. Coordinate campuses were linked by telephone. Checking or signing the roll as present were 19 student members. Chair Ronald Miller presided.

Pamela Stenhjem, Chair of the Council of Academic Professionals and Administrators (CAPA), said that the Academic Freedom and Tenure Committee is considering an academic professional (P&A) representative on the committee. CAPA is also involved in retiree benefits discussions. A resolution is coming to the University Senate today for action. CAPA wrote a letter of support, but also urges that the dialogue not just focus on faculty but all retired employee groups.

Lastly, CAPA did a survey last spring on work done by P&A employees. The preliminary results show that P&A are being asked to do more work as faculty are provided more time for teaching and research. P&A employees want to be more engaged, but most do not have time. CAPA is hoping that the University will conduct a similar survey in future years instead of CAPA being required to do it themselves. Once the results are finalized they will be shared with all groups.

Ronald Miller, Student Senate/Student Senate Consultative Committee (SSCC) Chair, said that the Student Advisory Committee for the Higher Education Services Office recently discussed the new federal regulations on student financial aid and textbook cost changes, of which the second item is on today's agenda for action. SSCC discussed two items for today's agenda, student release questions and Senate attendance.

Crookston - Katie Jeremiason stated that CSA is sending an email survey tomorrow to students and faculty regarding the proposed smoke-free policy and then a forum will be held on December 5. December 7 is the city's Winter Wonderland, during which CSA will be running a Santaland.

Duluth – Jeni Kiewatt said that UMDSA received a student service fees presentation and is working on the top 10 initiatives from the Chancellor.

Morris – Jeffrey Wencl said that campus is proposing to add an environmental studies major. There is also a discussion about a Morris regulation that of the 60 upper division credits, no more than 48 can be within a student's major. This means that there are 12 credits that students must take outside their major, and the regulation also prohibit a students from taking additional courses in their major when they have room in their schedule. The campus assembly will be voting on removing this restriction.

Graduate and Professional Student Assembly – There was no report.

Minnesota Student Association - Mark Lewandowski noted that MSA approved a resolution on textbook cost reform. Other projects are the MSA Express van, a presidential primary party, Support the U day spring semester, Lend a Hand Hear the Band concert, and a student forum to hear concerns.

To approve the following resolution.

Resolution on Fair Trade Coffee

Whereas, Coffee is the second-largest legally traded commodity in the world market only behind oil; and

Whereas, Coffee is generally produced in developing countries where workers and farmers suffer from exploitative conditions as well as a lack of access to market information; and

Whereas, farmers are forced to sell their coffee below market value at less than the cost of production and subsequently pushing them into severe hardship or leaving no option but to sell and leave their land; and

Whereas, with Fair Trade Certified coffee farmers obtain prices of 100-200% higher in comparison to non-Fair Trade; and

Whereas, workers on Fair Trade farms have safe working conditions, equity for women, freedom of association, and strict prohibitions on child labor; and

Whereas, the Fair Trade system works within cooperatives where long-term trading partnerships are established allowing farmers to get advance credit on coffee purchases to ensure that farmers can avoid insecurity surrounding the next harvest; and

Whereas, Fair Trade cooperatives are committed to community development and democratically decide on how to invest Fair Trade revenues in infrastructure such as healthcare and education; and

Whereas, Fair Trade coffee uses sustainable production practices, and is often Organic and Shade Grown improving the health of the environment and consumers alike; and

Whereas, the Minnesota Public Interest Research Group (MPIRG) surveyed students in 2005 at the University of Minnesota Twin Cities, Duluth, and Morris campuses and found that 85.8% students felt that it was important to have Fair Trade products provided on campus; therefore be it

RESOLVED that the University of Minnesota require in all food service contracts it signs into with food service providers that all coffee sold on its campus’ (Twin Cities, Morris, Duluth and Crookston) must be 100% Fair Trade Certified including all coffee retail locations, catering operations, and residence halls; and be it further

RESOLVED that whenever possible, this coffee be Organic, Shade Grown, and purchased from a local roaster.

The Minnesota Public Interest Research Group (MPIRG) looks forward to bringing the issue of Fair Trade Certified coffee at the University of Minnesota campuses to your attention and it is MPIRG's hope that the Student Senate will endorse this resolution.

In 2005 the Social Concerns Committee passed a resolution on Fair Trade coffee stating that Fair Trade should be offered on campus and that when possible, it be Organic, Shade Grown, and purchased from a local roaster. After meeting with University Dining Services/Aramark MPIRG learned that the one Fair Trade coffee option at all of their locations amounts to approximately only 8% of the total coffee on campus. MPIRG hopes that the Student Senate will consider this resolution that takes the motions of the 2005 resolution a step further by requiring that all contracts have 100% of the coffee served and sold at the University of Minnesota be Fair Trade Certified.

It is MPIRG's belief that this is a step that students and faculty of the University of Minnesota support and demand. At the University of Minnesota Morris over 300 student petition signatures have been collected in support of 100% Fair Trade coffee. The University of Minnesota Duluth just began a petition drive on November 9 and they already have 75 student signatures. The University of Minnesota Twin Cities Campus has collected 1,460 student petition signatures , 56 faculty signatures, and 15 student group endorsements including Oromia Student Union, University Pro-Choice Coalition, The Wake, Campus Atheists and Secular Humanists, Women’s Student Activist Collective, Anti-War Organizing League, Minnesota Public Interest Research Group, La Raza Student Cultural Center, EcoWatch, Vietnamese Student Association of Minnesota, Students United for Corporate Responsibility and Ethics (SUCRE), STAND: A Student Anti-Genocide Organization, Democracy Matters, Amnesty International, and Students Against Youth AIDS.

Fair Trade Certification is a viable alternative to the injustices of our current trade system; as stated in the resolution Fair Trade benefits farmers, their communities, and it is better for the environment as well as (U of M) consumers. It is time for the University of Minnesota to exemplify the principles of its students and faculty and become a participant in the Fair Trade movement. MPIRG hopes that the Student Senate will assist efforts in making the University fair and just.

Ryan Kennedy, from the Minnesota Public Interest Research Group (MPIRG), began by noting that MPIRG is a student-led, student-directed, non-partisan group that works on issues of public interest. MPIRG would like the Student Senate's approval of this resolution. Similar efforts are in place at eight other campuses. For the Twin Cities, efforts began in 2005 with a survey that showed overwhelming support for 100 percent fair-trade coffee on campus.

Coffee is the target of MPIRG efforts since it is the second largest commodity behind oil. Fair-trade efforts provide a livable wage to workers for their product as a way to break the cycle of poverty. Money is also invested locally in community development.

MPIRG is working on three campuses. For the Twin Cities, 76 faculty, 1486 students, and 15 student groups have signed onto this resolution. At Duluth, 365 students and 15 faculty have agreed. For the Morris campus, 234 students, 13 faculty, and 7 student groups are in agreement.

Q: What actions have been taken at other institutions?

A: Macalester and St. Catherine are 100 percent fair-trade without seeing a price increase. Morris is also 100 percent fair-trade.

Q: Is the cost of fair-trade coffee feasible?

A: The cost is comparable to other gourmet coffee. Fair-trade also controls costs by eliminating the middle man.

Q: Who overseas fair-trade coffee co-ops?

A: Members of the cooperative farms.

Q: Does the weakening dollar lessen the impact for farmers?

A: No since there are many organizations involved in purchasing fair-trade coffee.

Q: How does fair-trade coffee improve working conditions for free-trade producers?

A: While the process does not improve conditions for free-trade workers, these workers see the prices that fair-trade farmers achieve and the community development that is possible.

Q: Is it possible for Starbucks to only serve fair-trade coffee.

A: Starbucks supports fair-trade processes.

A senator then noted that there are costs to a system that certifies coffee as fair-trade.

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

To approve the following resolution.

Designated Supplier Program (DSP) Resolution
November 2007

WHEREAS, the University of Minnesota must unequivocally insist upon safe, decent working conditions for those who manufacture University-licensed apparel; and

WHEREAS, academic institutions, together with international organizations, the United States government, human rights groups, and business and labor organizations must work together on concrete steps to ameliorate the dire conditions endured by garment workers in many countries around the world; and

WHEREAS, the University has adopted a Code of Conduct establishing standards of manufacturing for licensees producing University apparel, and affiliated with the Workers Rights Consortium (WRC) as a means of monitoring this production; and

WHEREAS, the provisions of the current Code of Conduct are not being adhered to by licensees, as evidenced by the December 2006 WRC Licensee Factory Report listing of the Hermosa factory of El Salvador as a producer of Minnesota clothing; and

WHEREAS, the University has been invited by the WRC to partake in a Working Group for development of the Designated Suppliers Program (DSP), an initiative designed to address problems of policy enforcement; and

WHEREAS, a central goal of the Working Group has been to identify key stakeholder concerns about the DSP and to develop ways to address these concerns in order to enhance the effectiveness of the program; and

WHEREAS, participation in the Working Group sends a strong message to licensees, students, and the community that the University is active in raising the labor standards of its licensed apparel manufacture; and

NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the University of Minnesota shall accept the invitation to the Designated Suppliers Program Working Group, and move to adopt the Designated Suppliers Program to ensure that licensees are adhering to the standards set forth by the University.

This resolution was approved by the Morris Campus Student Association on February 19, 2007.

Matt Abbott, from the Minnesota Public Interest Research Group (MPIRG), stated that this resolution addresses the apparel and licensing process for the University with a goal of responsible purchasing. The University signed a Vendor Code of Conduct in 2000 that would require manufacturers to address worker issues before being allowed to print University merchandise. Issues have been noted but the University has not taken the lead in addressing these issues.

A group called the Workers Rights Consortium (WRC) monitors manufacturers and has reported that several companies are not following the guidelines in the Vendor Code of Conduct. Companies are breaking local labor laws to achieve lower prices. When these companies are reported and fined their manufacturing costs increase. Many choose to leave an area and start a plant in a new location to keep prices low. The WRC and 38 other institutions are working to improve labor conditions and keep factories intact so that incoming funds are not removed from communities.

Q: Does this resolution limit the companies and/or locations that can produce University apparel?

A: No. This resolution still allows the University to purchase from these companies, but it requires basic working conditions in factories. Currently, the production cost is only one to three percent of the retail cost of an item.

Q: What is the University's incentive?

A: The University has an interest in enforcing its own Vendor Code of Conduct.

Q: If the University already has a contract in place with negligent companies, what changes can the University make?

A: Changes will be made by the University joining with other institutions that are requiring the same standards. New contracts should be reworded to included the designated suppliers program (DSP).

A senator noted that licensing agreements should include DSP language in writing so that it is easier to follow-up with companies.

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

To approve the following resolution.

Whereas, course book prices have risen at twice the rate of annual inflation over the last two decades, and

Whereas, the average estimated cost of books and supplies for full-time students is $898 per academic year, and

Whereas, at least one University of Minnesota department has been successful in negotiating with publishers to reduce textbook costs, and

Whereas, many professors are not currently aware of the different measures that can be taken to decrease student book costs without hurting course quality or compromising academic freedom, and therefore:

Be it resolved that the Student Senate supports the promotion of lowering class book costs, and

Be it further resolved that the Student Senate supports ongoing programs to negotiate with textbook publishers, especially related to high enrollment courses, and

Be it further resolved that the Student Senate supports the implementation on a system-wide basis of the Best Practices on Reducing Textbook Costs written by the Textbook Cost Containment Review Committee at the University of Minnesota – Twin Cities campus.

This resolution was approved by the Minnesota Student Association in October 2007 and is being brought to the Student Senate for system-wide approval. Following is the accompanying best practices guidelines.

Best Practices on Reducing Textbook Costs
The faculty must play a front line role in controlling textbook costs. This can be accomplished by considering cost, along with textbook quality and ancillary features, from the very beginning of the adoption process. The Best Practices outlined below can significantly lower the costs of textbooks to students. Most notably, faculty should work with the Bookstore to encourage price competition between publishers and to leverage the University’s substantial buying power into cost reductions for students.

Best Practice #1:
Faculty should consider cost in addition to quality and other features when selecting textbooks
When selecting books, faculty should consider cost as an important factor from the beginning of the book selection process. Faculty should select books that deliver high quality course material at a reasonable cost to students. In some cases, textbooks with adequate illustrations should be selected over texts with superb graphics that cost more. Before choosing a book, faculty should weigh the instructional value of ancillary material provided for the instructor; for example: a CD containing the book’s illustrations is useful, but a CD with pre-prepared PowerPoint lectures is superfluous.

Best Practice #2:
Negotiate with publishers for textbook costs
Faculty can have a significant impact on textbook costs through negotiations with publishers; this strategy can be particularly useful in large-enrollment courses. The University of Minnesota has some of the largest textbook accounts in the country and should use our buying power to negotiate lower prices. Highly successful negotiations have recently taken place in chemistry and technical writing/rhetoric, and the University Bookstore is prepared to dedicate a staff member to working exclusively on such negotiations if and when the demand increases. Departments and DUGS should help instructors reach a consensus on common text(s) for courses and to agree to use that text for an extended length of time. It is also recommended that during negotiations a firm price is set: “no price, no adoption.”

Best Practice #3:
Raise awareness of why textbook costs are relevant and timely for faculty, and improve communication and processes through use of Directors of Undergraduate Studies
Some faculty members do not understand the implications of their textbook choices, and may not have been as informed as they have at the Department Chair level. We recommend that textbook selection decisions become the oversight of the DUGS to be certain that faculty have considered cost during the selection process. We expect departments to report to DUGS on their textbook selection process, whether other books were considered, whether they attempted to negotiate, and ultimately why a particular textbook was chosen. Members of this task force will meet with each college’s DUGS during early Fall 2007 to share relevant data on textbook cost.

Best Practice #4:
Place textbook orders on time
The simplest way to impart change on textbook costs is to place orders on time with the University Bookstore. This is particularly relevant for large courses, the texts for which are often known early. We recommend that the Bookstore send periodic notices to the DUGS contacts detailing what percentage of their orders have been placed. On-time orders should be an expectation.

Best Practice #5:
Use packing/bundling only when it provides a cost benefit for students
Although some packaging of multiple books can provide a cost benefit for students, many times it does not – particularly if it involves books/items that are not necessary for the course. We recommend that the Bookstore (and this task force) develop a set of guidelines for faculty and departments to consider regarding bundling.

Best Practice #6:
Place textbooks on reserve in library
The library is happy to assist in placing textbooks on reserve. Although it has not been found that this service is used frequently, it can be helpful in instances in which students have chosen to share a text with a classmate or are opting not to purchase a non-essential text. Reference books especially should be placed on reserve in the library, not required for purchase.

Best Practice #7:
Course packet containment
Although not a “textbook” cost, the cost of course packets for students contribute greatly to their overall costs each term. Faculty members should work with the University Libraries to determine whether the University has electronic subscriptions to any of the articles included in the course packet. With University subscriptions, students would be able to link to the article for free instead of paying for royalties.

Best Practice #8:
Refrain from always using new editions
Constant use of new textbook editions increases text costs for students both in terms of the purchase of new textbooks and the decreased value for used books that are sold back to the Bookstore. We recommend that faculty allow the use of old editions and indicate the appropriate page numbers for multiple editions in their syllabi. The Bookstore also needs to be notified when faculty members will be using/allowing older editions, so they know those editions can be bought back at the end of the previous term.

Best Practice #9:
Communicate with students regarding textbook usage and cost
Faculty members can help students understand the textbook choices they have made and the cost implications of such. We recommend that a significant part of a required textbook be necessary for the course, as well as that faculty take time on the first day of class to explain what each book is used for and why each book/piece is required.

Q: What action will take place with approval of this resolution?

A: The University is already working with professors and the best practice list has been discussed with the Council of Undergraduate Deans as a way to implement processes within each college. Greater awareness by faculty is the biggest challenge. A letter to department chairs received a high response. MSA is working with the Twin Cities Bookstore to implement a student-to-student book exchange starting December 10. Unfortunately there is not one solution to this problem, but these best practices grant flexibility to departments and faculty.

A senator noted that Duluth already has a policy of this kind in place, with implementation set for fall 2008. There have been no problems on campus and faculty have been asking students for help on class materials.

Q: What impact does the Bookstore have?

A: The Bookstore does not make a profit from textbooks sales and only orders what faculty request. Therefore the areas to target are faculty and publishers.

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

In spring 2006 the Student Senate and the Educational Policy Committee (SCEP) approved the following set of student release questions.

After the student release questions were completed, the faculty decided to look at their five mandatory questions. They have proposed changes, which are on the Faculty Senate agenda for approval today, and have suggested that the Student Senate consider changes to the student release questions. The Student Senate Consultative Committee (SSCC) discussed this topic at its October and November meetings and would like Student Senate feedback on the revised set of questions.

The changes are:
Question 1 was changed since the current question ask students at the end of the semester to approximate the number of hours per week spent on work for the class, which can vary significantly by week. SSCC instead is proposing a revised question.

Question 5 has been reworded to mirror Question 4.

Question 6 has been expanded to include some aspects of Question 7 and also ask about the grading method in the class. The scale has also been changed to mirror the seven-point scale being used on the faculty questions.

Question 7 has been eliminated since some questions were incorporated in Question 6 and others did not seem necessary.

Ronald Miller, Student Senate/Student Senate Consultative Committee (SSCC) Chair, said that after the Student Senate revised its student release questions the faculty decided to revise their set of questions. Their revision process has taken over a year, but a final set of questions will be presented to the Faculty Senate today for approval.

During this process, he spoke with Professor Cathrine Wambach, Chair of the Educational Policy Committee (SCEP), about making slight revisions to the student release questions. She met with SSCC and a revised set of questions were proposed. However, this set raised additional faculty concerns.

Therefore he is asking the Student Senate for their input on the two sets of questions in the agenda. If the Student Senate agrees with the current set, nothing else should be required. If the Student Senate wants to revise the questions, then they would require SCEP and University Senate approval before they could be used. The goal is to have a revised evaluation sheet available for use as soon as possible.

A senator noted that question 7 addresses areas that may not work in a class, but should refer to the class and not the instructor since the same instructor does not always teach each of these sections.

A member of SSCC stated that the revised set was proposed to reduce the number of questions being asked to make sure that students complete the entire section and to remove any confusion.

A senator noted that he likes current questions 1 and 7, since question 1 can help the professor assess the work load in the course.

Another senator felt that question 1 would not be helpful to faculty, just students.

Ron Miller reminded senators that these questions are intended to help students in course choice and are not structured to directly provide feedback to faculty.

Q: Do students see the results of these questions?

A: Currently, there is a set of ten questions that are seen by students if the faculty member agrees to release the results. The first set of the questions on the agenda, while approved, have not been used on evaluations sheets because the University was waiting for the faculty questions to do one re-printing. Faculty release will still be required on these questions, since it is a state statute. Duluth and Crookston are unionized so their results are not released.

A senator stated that question 3 is helpful since it asks about the difficulty in a course. However, the revised question 1 used the term 'significant,' which is vague.

A senator made a motion to make this an action item on the agenda. A vote was taken and the motion was approved.

A motion was then made and seconded to reaffirm approval of the student release questions labeled as current on the agenda. A vote was taken and the motion was approved.

Ronald Miller, Student Senate/Student Senate Consultative Committee (SSCC) Chair, said that the current process on the Twin Cities to elect senators is for a college to hold its own election or use the All-Campus Election Commission (ACEC) spring semester. Seats that are not filled spring semester, or when vacancies arise, are then the responsibility of the student board in each college.

Currently, many seats are going unfilled. This is due to college boards that exist but are not functional, or in some cases college boards do not exist.

SSCC has discussed this topic and would like to propose that any seats not filled by a date, such as August, would then be the responsibility of the Student Senate to fill. The Student Senate would send targeted emails to students in affected colleges to apply for the position. A committee would then meet to review applications and select senators. Final approval would rest with the Student Senate.

A senator stated that this does not seem to be a bad idea since college boards are working on their own issues and not worrying about filling Student Senate seats.

Ron Miller said that he would bring language back to the Student Senate in spring.

The meeting was adjourned at 1:09 pm.