The second meeting of the Student Senate for 2008-09 was convened in Studio C, Rarig Center, Minneapolis campus, on Thursday, December 4, 2008, at 11:30 a.m. Coordinate campuses were linked by telephone. Checking or signing the roll as present were 40 student members. Chair Ryan Kennedy presided.

That the Student Senate approve the appointment of the following Twin Cities student senators:

LeAnn Alstadt – College of Liberal Arts

Theresa Chan – College of Design

Haley Dochwat – College of Food, Agricultural, and Natural Resource Sciences

Jonathan Fritz – College of Continuing Education

Will Geng – Medical School

Jay Harmer – College of Pharmacy

Andrew Heairet – Institute of Technology

Kristina Hefty – College of Education and Human Development

Nathaniel Hoffman – College of Liberal Arts

Thomas Hull – Graduate School

Randi Jundt – College of Biological Sciences

Yun Li – Graduate School

Tim McDevitt – Carlson School of Management

Angelique McDonald – College of Liberal Arts

Alexander Schostag – Institute of Technology

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

Susan Cable, Chair of the Civil Service Committee (CSC), said that the CSC is the governance body for civil service employees at the University. At the July retreat, the committee kicked off a year-long leadership development series, with a portion of each CSC meeting devoted to this topic. Senior administrators are then invited to participate in this series. President Bruininks was at the July meeting to discuss leadership ideas, challenges, and how to interact with many groups.

She then said that CSC has issues in common with other campus groups, such as facing the budget shortfall and tuition increases. Issues for CSC this year include positions not being filled when people accepted the retirement option, the new financial system, a job family study and new classifications, and a revised CSC search committee process since there are no alternates currently serving on CSC.

Long-term goals for CSC include continued leadership development, governance, and service; short-term goals are dealing with the budget crisis, job classifications leading to conflict resolution, and personal meetings with small groups of civil service employees. She then invited students to attend CSC meetings held each month.

There was no report

There were no updates

Donna Peterson, Associate Vice President in the Office of University Relations, joined the meeting to speak about the 2008 biennial budget request to the legislature. The University receives about 27 percent of its budget from the state. The request this year is modest, based on the state's financial challenges, and requests funding for salary increase needs, middle-class scholarships, and research enhancements. These items would maintain the momentum and makes clear the needs of the University.

Today it was announced that the state is facing a huge budget deficit. The forecast is for a shortfall of $4.8 billion for the next biennium and $426 million for the current year. Since the University receives seven percent of the state's budget, the University's cut would be between $150-200 million. This is a significant amount considering that 70 percent of the funding that the University receives is used for salaries. An example being used by the University is that a $70 million cut would amount to a loss of 800 positions, based on an average salary of $60,000.

The press conference to announce this forecast was starting at the same time as this meeting, so this body will need to hear how this will be resolved. In past years, the Governor has not been willing to raise taxes, so then the only option is cutting costs.

The Governor's budget will be released on January 15 and then there is another budget forecast at the end of February which helps the legislature craft their bills. It is possible that the February forecast will be worse than the one today.

She said that six years ago the state also experienced a budget shortfall, which amounted to a $185 million cut to the University. That year there were no salary increases, employees were charged more for their health insurance, and tuition increased sharply. Efforts were also made to be more efficient, so this will not be an easy option this time.

Q: What is the state's biennial operating budget?

A: It is about $35 billion, so this shortfall is about 13 percent.

Q: Does the University have a strategy to increase state appropriations in the long-term?

A: Yes. The University's strategy after the last shortfall was to come back in subsequent years with a strong case for increased funding. A challenge this year is that the United States is in the same situation as the state, so it is harder to know when and how all levels will recover. It is possible that the budget projections will not be better for the next biennium.

Q: Is there a sense of the Governor's projected budget?

A: The question will be that if the Governor does not raise any revenue, then where will cuts be made. The University's grassroots efforts will be trying to engage faculty, staff, students, and outside community members to contact the Governor and legislators to make the case for the University.

Q: In the past, has the Governor spared the University from major cuts?

A: No. In the budget shortfall of about $4.2 billion six years ago the University did receive a $185 million cut to funding.

Q: If the University does not receive its entire appropriation, then how will it fund these initiatives?

A: The University will have limited options, as the only way to make up these funds are through cutting jobs and programs or increasing tuition. When the state has not kept up with the needs of the University in the last 10-15 years, tuition has increased.

Q: Is the state required to balance its budget?

A: Yes, each biennium it needs to be balanced.

Q: Will the University return to double-digit tuition increases?

A: This depends on the amount of the cut that the University receives and how the University determines how to best handle these cuts, either through loss of jobs and programs or tuition increases.

Q: Have University endowments decreased?

A: This is a huge issue for many endowments. Fundraising is hard in these times, and cannot be used to replace state funds.

Donna Peterson thanked the Student Senate for the opportunity to address the biennium and said that she would return spring semester once the Governor's budget is released.

Whereas, The Minnesota Student Association (MSA) does not have the power to revoke the membership of inactive undergraduate Twin Cities Senators, leaving many spots on MSA unfilled; and

Whereas, Full membership is integral to the functioning of MSA and their role as representatives of the entire undergraduate student population of the Twin Cities Campus; and

Whereas, The Crookston, Duluth, and Morris campuses already have mechanisms to revoke the membership of senators who do not participate in both Student Senate and their student assemblies; therefore be it

RESOLVED That the University of Minnesota Student Senate will have the power to revoke the membership of Twin Cites undergraduate student senators who do not participate in MSA, and that the Student Senate Bylaws will be appropriately changed to reflect this.

Q: What is the average attendance by non-MSA members at forum meetings?

A: At the last meeting, of the 50-60 MSA members present, only 12 were senators. Senators can opt-out of attending MSA meetings, so are not counted towards MSA's quorum, but they leave their college without representation at MSA.

Q: What would be the method for removing senators?

A: If a senator would not follow the MSA attendance policy, they would be removed from their Senate position. The current MSA procedure is to send a student an email after two missed meetings to see if the student has an excuse for missing the meetings. After the third missed meeting, the MSA Speaker of Forum then recommends to the Executive Board that the member be removed. A unanimous vote is required to remove the member.

Q: Can MSA currently remove senators?

A: MSA can remove a senator's rights to be a member of MSA, but cannot actually remove their Senate seat and fill it with another interested student.

Q: Why does the Student Senate need to make a change?

A: Students are actually elected by their college, so at this time MSA does not have the power to remove senators. The Student Senate needs to change its Bylaws to provide this authority to MSA.

Q: How does this change affect graduate students?

A: It does not since graduate and professional students are not voting members of the Graduate and Professional Student Assembly (GAPSA). Student boards, however, always have the authority to remove their own members.

Q: Does this amendment change the election process?

A: No.

Q: If senators are already missing meetings, should another requirement, attendance at MSA meetings, be added?

A: Twin Cities undergraduate senators are already required to attend MSA meetings, so this amendment does not add any requirements.

Q: Do only Twin Cities undergraduate senators vote on this amendment?

A: No. Since it is a Bylaw amendment, it will require approval from the entire Student Senate.

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

Whereas, The University’s and state’s average student debt is higher than the national average which gives Minnesota the fifth-highest student debt[1] in the nation at an average of $24,995 per student[2]; and

Whereas, Even Though student loans are likely to go unaffected by the recent economic crisis[3], students’ financial situations are bound to suffer in ways outside of loans for the next few years; and

Whereas, University of Minnesota President Robert Bruininks acknowledged that “we’re headed for a difficult situation”[4] in regards to tuition in the struggling economy and that he was “somewhat disappointed that we didn’t have the ability to drive down tuition more for students”[5]; and

Whereas, There is currently limited student input in the tuition process and there is no formal stance to which students might rally around; and

Whereas, Students must be protected from the potential hazards of the recent economic crash and opportunist loan companies; therefore be it

RESOLVED That the University of Minnesota Student Senate endorses a 5.5% yearly tuition increase cap in order to protect students from the backlash of the economic problems, limit the amount of interaction students have with loan companies, and to slow the steady incline of tuition over the past several years; and be if further

RESOLVED That the University of Minnesota Student Senate supports the 5.5% cap expiring after two years in order to leave future flexibility for both students and administrators and so that there is continual motivation to re-negotiate and improve the tuition status so that by revisiting the cap, oversight is provided for students as to the reasons for increases or decreases in the tuition thus keeping students informed on the needs of the University and keeping administrators aware of the concerns of their students.

Q: Who has approved this resolution?

A: It was approved by the Minnesota Student Association, the Crookston Student Association, and the University of Minnesota Duluth Student Association as written. The Morris Campus Student Association amended the resolution.

Q: If the resolution is approved, but tuition is still increased above the cap, then what will be the response?

A: Options, such as letters to the editors of the school newspapers, would be considered closer to when the decision is made. The response will depend on the situation at the time.

Q: Will a meeting be held with the President?

A: A meeting has not been scheduled. However, the Student Representatives to the Regents are talking about this resolution with the Regents next week on this topic.

Q: What is the Student Senate trying to achieve in these challenging times?

A: Tuition increased 7.25 percent last year and 13-14 percent during the last budget shortfall. However in 2000 and 2001, tuition increased .5 to 2.5 percent. When the University made its budget proposal, it was based on a 4.5 percent increase. This resolution does provide some room for a slightly greater increase than what was proposed.

Q: Has the Student Senate ever passed a resolution capping tuition increases?

A: Not in the last 15 years.

Q: When tuition has increased, has enrollment decreased?

A: No.

Q: In light of the budget summary, is the proposed cap unreasonable? Should the Student Senate be arbitrarily picking an amount for the cap or should it be based on a national average?

A: It is not unreasonable or arbitrary since it is based on the University's projected increase, and is specific to the circumstances in this state.

A senator said that students need to talk with the administration, but also concentrate efforts on the state legislature and the Governor.

Q: What is the likelihood that the University will actually follow what is being proposed if standards will decrease?

A: This is not known, but the resolution is meant to create a point around which students can rally and draws a line that can be explained to the legislature. The University will not let quality decrease.

Q: What is the total increase in tuition since 2001? What is the total percentage in state cuts during that same period?

A: Tuition has increased 119 percent in eight years for the Twin Cities. The state's appropriation to the University has not decreased, but the University's portion of the total state budget has.

Q: Where are tuition dollars spent? Can the University be more efficient with these funds?

A: This spending is not completely transparent, so it is hard to identify inefficiencies.

With the time for this issue at an end, a motion was made and seconded to extend debate by 10 minutes. The motion to extend debate was approved.

A senator said that the state should assume responsibility for research at the University; these expenses cannot be covered by the students. A message needs to be sent to the state legislature that students cannot afford these costs. The resolution should also take inflation into account. A friendly amendment was proposed to the first resolved cost to read, "...endorses a 5.5% yearly tuition increase cap, adjusted based on a 2% inflation increase, in order to..."

This was not accepted as a friendly amendment. The motion was seconded and a vote was taken. The motion was not approved.

A senator stated that this resolution should be challenging for the University and the legislature to abide by since it is a unified message from the students.

Another senator said that students should focus their attention on the legislature and the Governor to make this statement. Students should work to fight the battle collaboratively with the administration.

A senator then stated that this amendment was not proposed to the general Morris student body for action.

Another senator noted that students should not be naïve since the University only has two options, cut spending or increase tuition.

A senator then proposed a friendly amendment to the first resolved clause to read, "...5.5% combined yearly tuition and fees cap..."

This was not accepted as a friendly amendment. The motion was seconded and a vote was taken. The motion was not approved.

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

Whereas, Rising textbook costs have become a large burden for many University of Minnesota students already facing increasing tuition costs; and

Whereas, Professors and departments have a majority of the control over textbook publishers with their purchasing power; and

Whereas, The Minnesota Public Interest Research Group (MPIRG) has created a textbook affordability campaign that asks professors to sign a pledge to take specific steps towards lowering textbook costs for students. The campaign will also put out a brochure for students with information for saving money when buying textbooks; therefore be it

RESOLVED That the University of Minnesota Student Senate endorses the textbook affordability campaign of MPIRG.

This item was withdrawn from the agenda.

The University of Minnesota Student Senate has been working on the Student Release Questions, which are asked during the end-of-semester assessment of a professor’s performance, with the idea that the results from these questions would be released to the students. Currently, in order for these results to be released, a professor must take initiative to release their results, which has only been done by about 50 professors from spring semester 2008.

For this process to be automatic, and for all of the results to be released without requiring the professors to sign up individually, the questions to be categorized as public information according to the Minnesota Government Data Practices Act. The Student Senate supports this action, and asking the Faculty Senate, and possibly University Senate, for support as well spring semester.

Ryan Kennedy, Chair of the Student Senate Consultative Committee (SSCC), said that the SSCC heard from the Office of Measurement Services on the results from the new student release questions (SRQs). Currently, professors need to allow these results to be released. This resolution asks that the SRQ results be made available without faculty consent since they are not supposed to be used for promotion and tenure or annual reviews.

Q: Will results still be anonymous?

A: Yes.

Q: How will students access the results?

A: They will be posted on the One-stop website, linked from the course guide.

Q: Who created the SRQs?

A: The Student Senate created these questions, which were finalized last year.

Q: What is the faculty reaction to this resolution?

A: Faculty reaction has not been requested, but students responses to the SRQs have been overwhelmingly positive.

A senator said that these results would be useful when speaking with legislators since it reflects student satisfaction with their instructors.

Another senator then proposed a friendly amendment to the last sentence to read, " The Student Senate supports this action, and asking the Faculty Senate, and University Senate is needed, for support as well spring semester."

This was accepted as a friendly amendment.

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

Ryan Kennedy, Chair of the Student Senate Consultative Committee (SSCC), said that this has been a hot issue at the Twin Cities Campus and there have been many presentations on the topic. Therefore, at this meeting, he would like to hear how the policies are working at Crookston and Duluth.

Duluth has been a smoke-free campus since September 1, 2007, although the residence halls just became smoke-free at the start of this academic year. While there is a policy, there is no enforcement, so the student government is looking into how this policy can be enforced. Signs and posters have been added to campus, but people are still smoking on campus. This creates a bigger problem since receptacles have been removed, which means that cigarette butts just litter the ground in the same areas where people used to smoke. When the policy was proposed, it was discussed in terms of a culture change on campus, not an enforcement of the policy, however this has not been the case.

Q: Are students and staff still smoking on campus?

A: In the first year, the policy was more closely followed and there were fewer people smoking on campus. This year, however, it is starting to get worse since people realize that there are no consequences. At the residence halls, it is a big problem.

Q: Has a culture change been seen?

A: There was a little change, most obvious the first semester. If work is not done long-term, it disappears very quickly.

The Crookston campus will be a tobacco-free campus in three weeks, but there will be formal policing of the policy. The student association does envision a problem after the first semester if there is no penalty. The campus also has a large international population who are not accustomed to this ban. Further complicating the issue is that the Northwest Regional Research Center is located 10 feet from campus, and this facility is not tobacco-free.

Ryan Kennedy said that when a representative from the Office of Student Affairs on the Twin Cities campus spoke to the Minnesota Student Association, he was asked about enforcement. His response was that the University has no way to enforce the policy and cannot write tickets.

A senator said that Century College has implemented a similar policy, but with designated smoking areas. If someone is smoking in an undesignated area, then a ticket is issued.

Another senator said that the College of Biological Sciences Student Board has also considered designated areas.

A senator stated that smoking is a dependency problem, but banning this action does not solve that problem. Action should be channeled to increased awareness and facilities.

Another senator noted that designated smoking areas would create a better response from the community. A further recommendation would be the inclusion of shelters at the designated sites.

Q: What was the response from smokers at Century College when designated smoking areas were created?

A: A smaller campus makes the policy easier to enforce, but most times the enforcement is simply to ask the person to go to a designated area. Smokers seemed pleased with having somewhere to go that provided shelter.

A senator said that most smokers respect the rights of community members by obeying the current regulations. However, smokers have rights as well that need to be respected.

Another senator said that he is reluctant to recommend creating shelters on campus.

Ryan Kennedy said that since a decision will be forwarded to the administration in early 2009, he suggested that the Student Senate adopt a recommendation in favor of designated smoking areas instead of a campus ban.

A senator suggested that a subcommittee be created to draft a resolution. This would be presented to SSCC next week for review an revision, and then be sent to senators for approval.

The Student Senate was adjourned at 1:32 p.m.