1994-95 UNIVERSITY OF MINNESOTA No. 2
STUDENT SENATE MINUTES
February 16, 1995
The second meeting of the Student Senate for 1994-95 was convened in 25
Law Building, Minneapolis campus, on Thursday, February 16, 1995, at 11:30
a.m. Coordinate campuses were linked by telephone. Checking or signing the
roll as present were 34 voting student members. Mr. Joel Bergstrom, Student
Senate Chair, presided.
I. MINUTES FOR NOVEMBER 3, 1994
Action
APPROVED
II. CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENTS
Action
MOTION:
To approve the following amendments to the Senate Constitution, Bylaws,
and Rules: [language to be deleted is [bracketed]; new language is in CAPS]
(Senate Constitution, Article III, Section 6b (p. 5))
6. University Senate and Student Senate Officers
a. . . . .
b. The officers of the Student Senate shall be a chair AND a vice
chair[, a clerk, and a treasurer].
[The chair and vice chair shall be elected by the Student Senate
at its last regularly scheduled spring quarter meeting from the
members of the Student Senate.] THE CHAIR AND VICE CHAIR SHALL BE
ELECTED AT A SPECIAL SPRING QUARTER SESSION OF THE STUDENT SENATE
ATTENDED ONLY BY STUDENT SENATORS ELECTED FOR THE FOLLOWING YEAR.
THE OUTGOING CHAIR SHALL PRESIDE OVER THE ELECTION. NON-SENATORS
AND OUTGOING STUDENT SENATORS MAY NOT BE CANDIDATES FOR THESE
POSITIONS. The chair and vice chair shall not be from the same
campus. In the event that no one is nominated for the vice chair
position from a separate campus, the position will be open to all
qualified members of the Student Senate. Term of office shall be
July 1 to June 30, and the personS holding office [is] ARE
eligible for re-election. The duties of the chair are (1) to be
the official spokesperson of the Student Senate; (2) to set the
Student Senate agenda, to be approved by the Student Consultative
Committee; (3) [to organize and chair the Student Lobbying
Advisory Committee;] TO SERVE ON THE BOARD OF THE
COALITION/UMCHE, THE UNIVERSITY'S STUDENT LOBBYING ORGANIZATION;
(4) to serve as the University's representative on the Student
Advisory Committee; (5) TO SERVE ON ONE CENTRAL UNIVERSITY
ADVISORY COMMITTEE AND TO DELEGATE STUDENT MEMBERS FOR OTHER
ADVISORY COMMITTEES; (6) TO SERVE AS THE CHAIR OF THE STUDENT
CONSULTATIVE COMMITTEE.
The duties of the vice chair are (1) to assume the duties of the
chair in the event of an absence or incapacity of the chair; [and]
(2) to assume responsibilities delegated by the chair; (3) TO
SUBMIT TO THE SENATE OFFICE AN ANNUAL BUDGET REQUEST FOR THE
STUDENT SENATE AND STUDENT CONSULTATIVE COMMITTEE, TO BE APPROVED
BY THE STUDENT SENATE DURING ITS FALL QUARTER MEETING; (4) TO
ORGANIZE AN ANNUAL ORIENTATION FOR MEMBERS OF THE STUDENT SENATE;
(5) TO MONITOR STUDENT SENATE ATTENDANCE AND ENSURE THAT THE
STUDENT SENATE HANDBOOK IS UPDATED AND DISTRIBUTED; (6) TO SERVE
ON A CENTRAL ADVISORY COMMITTEE THAT IS NOT ATTENDED BY THE
STUDENT SENATE CHAIR IF THERE IS MORE THAN ONE SUCH COMMITTEE
ACTIVE; (7) TO SERVE AS THE VICE CHAIR OF THE STUDENT CONSULTATIVE
COMMITTEE.
[The clerk and treasurer shall be appointed by the chair subject
to the approval of the Student Senate. The duties of the clerk
and treasurer shall be prescribed in the Senate Bylaws. The
Student Consultative Committee shall periodically review these
officer positions.]
c. . . . .
(Senate Bylaws Article I, Section 8 (p. 11))
Article I. University Senate Membership, Elections, and Officers
. . . .
[8. Treasurer of the Student Senate: The treasurer of the Student Senate
shall be the chief budget officer of the Student Senate. The treasurer shall
chair the budget subcommittee of the Student Senate.]
(Senate Bylaws, Article III, Section 4 (p. 16-20))
4. CONSULTATIVE COMMITTEES
The Senate Consultative Committee shall be composed of 10 elected members of
the faculty, 9 elected students, and the vice chair of the University Senate.
The faculty representatives shall serve as the Faculty Consultative Committee;
the 8 elected student representatives and the chair and vice chair of the
Student Senate shall serve as the Student Consultative Committee; the 8
elected student representatives and the [vice] chair of the Student Senate
shall [comprise] CONSTITUTE the 9 voting student members of the Senate
Consultative Committee.
. . . .
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:
1993-94 4 undergraduates, 1 graduate/professional
1994-95 3 undergraduates, 2 graduate/professional
1995-96 4 undergraduates, 1 graduate/professional
1996-97 3 undergraduates, 2 graduate/professional
1997-98 4 undergraduates, 1 graduate/professional
the chair and vice chair of the Student Senate
THE CHAIR AND VICE CHAIR SHALL HOLD NO MORE THAN TWO CONSECUTIVE TERMS.
Student members EXCEPT FOR THE CHAIR AND VICE CHAIR shall be elected in
accordance with procedures determined by the respective campuses' student
constituencies, subject to the following provisions:
- At the time of their election, students shall be members of the
University Senate (except for Crookston).
- Students shall serve a one-year term, and are eligible for re-election.
No student member is eligible to serve more than three consecutive
terms.
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. IF EITHER THE CHAIR
OR VICE CHAIR HAS ALREADY BEEN ELECTED TO THE STUDENT CONSULTATIVE COMMITTEE
AS A REGULAR MEMBER, HE OR SHE MUST CONCEDE HIS OR HER PRIOR POSITION TO
ANOTHER STUDENT, TO BE CHOSEN AS SOON AS POSSIBLE BY THE APPROPRIATE STUDENT
CONSTITUENCY. The VICE chair of the Student Senate shall serve as an ex
officio, nonvoting member of the Senate Consultative Committee [if not
otherwise elected in his or her own right]. The vice chair of the Student
Senate shall serve as a voting member of the Senate Consultative Committee.
Duties and Responsibilities (of SSCC)
a. To meet separately, when necessary, to discuss with the president, or
others, matters of concern to the student body.
b. To serve as [the nucleus of an] THE executive and steering committee of
the Student Senate.
[c. To provide for a budget subcommittee of the Student Senate. The budget
subcommittee shall be chaired by the treasurer of the Student Senate.
Three members shall be appointed by the chair of the Student Senate
with one member from each of the following committees: Student Senate
Consultative Committee, Student Committee on Committees, Student
Lobbying Advisory Committee. These appointments are subject to the
approval of the Student Senate.]
Chairs: The chairs of the Faculty Consultative Committee [and of the Student
Consultative Committee] shall be elected by [their] HIS OR HER respective
members from among their number for a one-year term of office. [Chairs] THE
CHAIR OF THE FACULTY CONSULTATIVE COMMITTEE shall be eligible for re-election
to that position. THE CHAIR AND VICE CHAIR OF THE STUDENT CONSULTATIVE
COMMITTEE SHALL BE ELECTED BY THE STUDENT SENATE IN ACCORDANCE WITH ARTICLE
III, SECTION 6B, OF THE SENATE CONSTITUTION. The chair of the Faculty
Consultative Committee shall serve as chair of the Senate Consultative
Committee.
[The Student Consultative Committee shall have a chair and a vice chair who
shall be from separate campuses. The vice chair shall assume the duties of
the chair in the event of an absence or incapacity of the chair and shall
assume responsibilities delegated by the chair.]
(Senate Rules, Article III, Section 2 (p. 34))
2. Ex Officio Members of Senate Committees
Ex officio members shall be appointed from each of the offices listed below
and are non-voting positions unless otherwise noted.
. . .
Senate Consultative--Vice chair of the University Senate (voting); Chairs of
the Finance and Planning and Educational Policy Committees; elected
representative from the Duluth faculty eligible to vote in Senate elections;
VICE chair of the Student Senate
DISCUSSION:
Mr. Rabun Taylor presented the motion to amend the Senate Constitution,
Bylaws, and Rules to merge the vice chair and chair positions of the Student
Senate and Student Senate Consultative Committee. He said the main reason for
merging the positions is to simplify the structure and alleviate some of the
problems that have occurred in the past because of disagreement, dissent, or
just a lack of communication. Many believe that merging the positions will
strengthen the student governance structure, said Mr. Taylor.
One senator expressed concern that there would be less opportunity for
input from a broad range of students if the positions are merged. Others
argued that the process would be more streamlined with more efficient channels
for communication.
Without further discussion, the motion was approved by a majority of
members present and voting. The amendments will be forwarded to the Senate
Consultative Committee for consideration and hopefully to the University
Senate for action spring quarter.
APPROVED
III. ELECTION OF STUDENT SENATE VICE CHAIR
Action
Mr. Corey Kopacek from the Duluth campus was elected to fill the vacant
Student Senate vice chair position.
IV. STUDENT LOBBY DAY
Information
Ms. Kim Isenberg, the Executive Director of the U of M Coalition for
Higher Education (UMCHE), reminded senators that February 22 is Student Lobby
Day at the State Capitol and encouraged everyone to attend to talk with
legislators and show support for the University. Mr. Cecil Smith, President
of the Graduate and Professional Student Assembly, said a motion to approve
the legislative agenda will be brought up under New Business. If approved, it
will be presented to the Legislature on February 22.
The current schedule for Lobby Day is:
- Town meeting at 9:00
- Press conference at 10:00 in Room 181 of the State Office Building
- Rotunda at 12:00 with remarks by Senator Stumpf and various student
leaders
- University of Minnesota Division meeting in the afternoon, at which
time each of the student body presidents will testify
Mr. Smith also encouraged students to attend this event to emphasize
what is happening at the University, particularly the erosion of quality in
programs. The Lobby Day agenda this year is focused on the U2000 Partnership
Proposal, he said. It shows UMCHE's perspective and what they want to see
emphasized. It also responds to issues concerning the budget. Governor
Carlson has recommended giving the University $61 million of the $87 million
that was requested, although only $8 million would be recurring funds. The
University understands that it needs to make reductions but that must be done
strategically. The UMCHE document also shows that tuition increases at the
University are directly linked to reduced state funding. If time permits,
UMCHE would like to hold a Divison meeting on campus in order for students and
faculty to express their concerns.
Ms. Debbie Burchinal, Legislative Affairs Director for the UMCHE, told
senators a workshop is scheduled for Friday (2/18), from 12:00-1:00 p.m. to
brief students on issues being discussed at the Legislature in preparation for
Lobby Day.
Students were asked to wear maroon and gold to distinguish themselves as
University of Minnesota students.
Two other events students should be aware of are: March 15, the UMCHE
will be joining with all other state institutions for the "march in March."
On April 5, the U of M will again be lobbying at the State Capitol.
V. BIENNIAL BUDGET REQUEST
Information
Mr. Cecil Smith reported that the Council on Graduate Students has been
active in distributing material about the removal of the student interest loan
subsidy. This is a federal level issue that will affect Minnesota and which
has forced the Governor to amend his budget. Another important budget
component is tuition, he said. The University has responded to the Governor's
budget and how it would affect tuition. If the University must reallocate $28
million, it would mean a 10.5% tuition increase for next year and a 7.75%
increase the following year.
One student asked what the Coalition's position is on the Governor's 3%
tuition cap. Mr. Smith responded that the Governor realizes there needs to be
a cap on tuition increases, however, he leaves the door open for allowing
institutions to raise tuition. Increases over 3% have to be subsidized by the
State Grant Program so that low income students still have access. The
problem with this plan is that it drives up tuition for everyone and only the
most needy qualify for state aid. Middle income families generally are not
eligible for this money. Mr. Smith argued that low tuition increases are the
best form of financial aid. Ms. Isenberg added that the issue needs to be
discussed among the students. Several questions asked were:
- What happens in the next biennial budget?
- Where does the money go?
- Does each institution have its own financial aid program?
Mr. Smith also noted that if there is a tuition increase, the potential
for attendance in the Graduate and Professional programs might decrease
because there is no state grant for these areas. Another student asked if the
community colleges are also experiencing a lack of funding from the state.
"Yes," said Mr. Smith. In fact, they are experiencing even more problems
because they are also contending with the merger of the three other systems of
public higher education on July 1, 1995. That project will cost approximately
$150 million for which the Governor has provided only $10 million. The
project was passed, said Mr. Smith, because it was supposed to save the state
money but in actuality it will cost the state more.
Mr. Smith said students should also be aware that the Legislature has
been looking more closely at campus closings.
VI. REGENTS TUITION POLICY
Information
Mr. Rabun Taylor reported that the Board of Regents passed a new tuition
policy and outlined some of the primary changes:
- it calls for single upper and lower division rates on each campus
- at the graduate and professional levels the tuition rates will
continue to vary according to the level of the program
- the University is asking the colleges to provide a guaranteed
tuition plan to entering students
- new language has been added concerning course program and college
fees
Provost Infante, Mr. Taylor said, has envisioned the fee process as
quite restrictive. He has expressed his opinion to students that fees should
be independent of tuition, and that the costs related to each should be kept
distinct. We are encouraged by the provost's comments, but at the same time
we recognize that the boundaries between operations and maintenance
instructional costs and "special" instructional costs can be very elastic.
The students, therefore, exhort the Regents to oppose the assessment of fees
that recover costs currently being recovered by tuition. If in fact the
University were to implement such a policy, it would further subvert the state
tuition formula, in which tuition ideally recovers all instructional costs not
accounted for by state appropriation.
Mr. Taylor went on to say that it is the students hope that the new
guaranteed tuition plans will be accompanied by guaranteed (or at least
estimated) fee plans. Significant assessments like the IT and Crookston
computer fees should be included in the guarantee, as well as other
predictable course- and program-related fees.
An issue on which there is some confusion is the "base tuition" for each
campus. If this is genuinely tuition, and not simply a registration fee, then
should it be justified as such to the University community? What costs does
it recover, and are they related to instruction? What limitations will there
be on its size?
Students are unsure whether tuition rates on low-cost campuses will
continue to subsidize high-cost campuses. This issue is of concern to
students at the Morris campus, for example, who at present pay tuition that is
higher than their own instructional costs. How will the University recover
losses in income incurred from students who change campuses?
In conclusion, Mr. Taylor said students must ask again that the Regents
ponder a philosophy of tuition. To what end is tuition assessed, and what
costs should it recover? The lack of such a philosophy is perhaps convenient,
as it allows (for example) the recovery of waivers, which can hardly be termed
an instructional cost, from the tuition pool, or the assessment of fees toward
instructional costs. Such flexibility may seem desirable in light of the
state's flagging commitment to the University, but in the long run it
encourages the kind of reactivity that undermines the confidence of students
and the general public in the University's educational commitments.
VII. REPORT OF THE AD HOC COMMITTEE ON PARTICIPATION
Information
Ms. Barbara Thompson updated the Student Senate on the activities of the
Ad Hoc Committee on Participation. The committee was formed last spring to
investigate the responsiveness of student senators and committee members in
the Senate structure and to review how the Student Senate interacts with the
University as a whole. During the summer the committee prepared a set of
recommendations that were approved by the Student Senate in the fall.
At that time, a resolution was also passed to form a committee to
develop a handbook for student senators. The chair of the committee has
recently resigned and development of the handbook has been assigned to the
Student Senate Consultative Committee. The primary focus, Ms. Thompson said,
should be to keep the Ad Hoc committee going, pursue its recommendations, and
to complete the handbook. An outline of the proposed handbook has been
developed and is available for review. It is divided into four parts: 1)
general information, 2) introduction to the Student Senate, 3) senators
responsibilities, and 4) questions and answers.
VIII. ACADEMIC FREEDOM AND RESPONSIBILITY STATEMENT
Discussion
Mr. Rabun Taylor drew senators attention to the proposed Academic
Freedom and Responsibility Statement that appears under Item X on the
University Senate agenda. He explained that the University currently has
three academic freedom statements (1938, 1963, and 1971) and the Board of
Regents has recommended development of a single policy statement. The
proposed policy will be discussed by the University Senate at the meeting
later in the day and will be presented for action at the April Senate meeting.
Students will note that the policy is very brief, which some feel is an
advantage. Others are not as comfortable with that.
One senator expressed concern that the document uses terms it doesn't
define, such as "... duties of membership in the University community..."
Are students comfortable with that?
Mr. Taylor asked senators to review the document from a student
perspective to see if it meets the needs of students and to come prepared to
the Senate meeting at 2:00 p.m. to discuss it.
IX. OLD BUSINESS
NONE
X. NEW BUSINESS
Mr. Cecil Smith called for a suspension of the rules in order to
entertain two items of new business: 1) a motion to approve the document
"U2000: Renewing the Partnership between the State and Students," and 2) a
resolution concerning restructuring of governance, both of which were
distributed. The motion was seconded and approved.
"U2000: RENEWING THE PARTNERSHIP BETWEEN THE STATE AND STUDENTS" [document
available in the Senate Office]
One senator speaking in opposition to the document said she believes it
represents buying into a process that has been imposed on the students by the
administration without consultation and without discussion. By approving it,
it sends the message that students support U2000 without knowing enough about
it. It puts students in a position that is not defendable, she said, and it
asks the state to defend something that students cannot even defend
themselves. She referred students to page three of the document in which the
University commits itself to certain goals. "Where does this commitment come
from?" she asked.
Another student inquired about the statement, "The students of the
University of Minnesota broadly endorse this plan..." Mr. Smith responded
that four of the five student campus assemblies formally approved the U2000
proposal, which is where that statement comes from. He said he shared some of
the concerns that the first senator mentioned, but the reality is that the
Board of Regents have adopted and have committed the University to the first
five critical measures and are working on the next eight. This agenda was
developed through extensive work and input from all representative groups.
The strategy that has been adopted is to emphasize and call attention to the
areas under U2000 that best respond to the needs and the interests of students
and to make these a priority in the Legislature.
If student senators endorse this document, said one person, they better
understand that they are endorsing a tuition increase of up to 19% if the
University does not receive full funding from the Legislature. Students just
do not have enough information on this item to vote on it at this time, she
said.
A student from the Morris campus, speaking in favor of the document,
proposed a friendly amendment pertaining to the Morris section of the
document. He recommended striking the second item under the U2000
investments, "innovative education, offering Masters degrees in Twin Cities
College of Education by distance learning" and the fourth item, "cornerstone
outreach activity through the West Central Experiment Station" and replacing
them with, "88% of entering freshman recruited from the top 25% of the High
School graduating class" and "improve research facilities in providing for
more funding for student and faculty collaborative research" because they were
more pertinent to the Morris campus. The amendments were accepted as friendly
and, therefore, required no action.
Another student speaking in favor of the proposal said he did not feel
the legislative agenda reflects any scenario besides the best case scenario.
He did not see anything in the document that reflects student endorsement of
the worse case scenario, such as a 19% tuition increase. Students are trying
to emphasize the positive. The negative implications have and will continue
to come up in the process of preparing the University budget, which is very
different from preparing the budget request.
Citing from page 2, another senator said, "Students have clearly carried
the brunt of the real cuts in state appropriation to the University, both
through tuition increases and dangerous erosion in quality of internationally
competitive programs. We can now move forward with a strategic plan that
guides an equitable distribution of responsibility for the future of our
University." This suggests that the responsibility is also placed on the
administration and the state, which is the key point to the Partnership
Proposal.
At this time a senator called for the question and the motion to approve
the document, as amended, was approved by a majority of members present and
voting.
APPROVED
"RESOLUTION ON RESTRUCTURING GOVERNANCE"
Resolution
NOTING that the Transition Advisory Committee issued its final report to
President Hasselmo on December 28, 1994;
FURTHER NOTING that the report recommends the appointment of a "reconstituted
Governance Task Force to design a consultative and governance framework to be
proposed, adopted, and implemented during the 1995-96 academic year;"
FURTHER NOTING that students are full partners in the issues, concerns, and
conduct of consultative governance at the University of Minnesota;
BE IT RESOLVED that the membership of the Governance Task Force should include
representation from students, appropriately selected by the existing student
governance structures;
BE IT FINALLY RESOLVED that consultation on the membership of the final Task
Force should be between the full Senate Consultative Committee and the
President.
DISCUSSION:
Mr. Taylor explained that the Transition Advisory Committee, which was
comprised of faculty, students, civil service, and academic professionals, had
been formed to "look at how existing governance structures should interface
with the new administrative organization, and to serve in an advisory capacity
to the Transition Task Force." A final report was submitted to the president
at the end of December 1994. One of the committee's recommendations was that
the Faculty Consultative Committee, in consultation with the President, should
appoint by the end of January 1995 a "reconstituted Governance Task Force to
design a consultative and governance framework to be proposed, adopted, and
implemented during the 1995-96 academic year." The Student Consultative
Committee believes the full Senate Consultative Committee should constitute
the task force membership and that is the basis for the resolution.
A recommendation to strike the first "appropriate" in the fourth
paragraph was accepted as a friendly amendment, and the motion, as amended was
approved.
APPROVED
XI. ADJOURNMENT
The meeting was adjourned at 1:05 p.m.
Martha Kvanbeck
ABSTRACTOR