The fourth meeting of the Student Senate for 1997-98 was convened in 25 Law Building, Minneapolis campus, on Thursday, May 14, 1998, at 11:40 a.m. Coordinate campuses were linked by telephone. Checking or signing the roll as present were 32 voting student members and 1 ex officio member. Mr. Jesse Berglund, Student Senate Chair, presided.

Jesse Berglund welcomed the newly-elected senators to the meeting and encouraged them to stay for the Senate and Assembly meetings in the afternoon. The Twin Cities Campus Assembly meeting will convene at 2 p.m. followed by the University Senate meeting at approximately 3 p.m.

Heather Aagesen, Vice Chair of the Student Senate, accepted nominations for the position of Student Senate Chair. Jesse Berglund and Brandon Lacy were nominated. Each candidate was given an opportunity to speak and answer questions, after which a vote was taken and Jesse Berglund was elected.

Nominations were then taken for the vice chair position. Deanne Nordberg was nominated and approved by acclamation.

To adopt the following as a standing rule of the Student Senate:

If all but two of the Student Senate coordinate campus "voting members" (as defined in Robert’s Rules of Order Newly Revised) vote against a motion at a meeting of the Student Senate, the motion will be postponed until the next regular meeting of the Student Senate, at which time an amended version may be presented to the Student Senate.

COMMENT:

The rationale behind this amendment is that even if all the coordinate campus senators vote against a motion in the Student Senate, the number of votes on the Twin Cities outweighs the votes from the coordinate campuses. If the Student Senate is going to represent the views of all students, then the voices from the coordinate campuses should be able to make a difference in voting.

This amendment does not attempt to veto a motion on the floor. As it reads, it simply asks that the motion be postponed for one meeting so that revisions, proposed by the coordinate campuses, can be considered.

HEATHER AAGESEN, Vice Chair
STUDENT SENATE AND
STUDENT SENATE CONSULTATIVE COMMITTEE

With no discussion, the motion was overwhelmingly approved by a majority of members present and voting.

To amend the University Senate Constitution, Article III, Section 4b, as follows: (language to be deleted is struck out; new language is underlined.

b. The elected representatives of the students to the University Senate shall be chosen by secret ballot by the student constituency enrolled in the several institutes, colleges, or schools as specified in the bylaws. Only full-time students in each institute, college, or school shall be eligible to vote. Each institute, college, or school shall establish its own procedures to determine qualification as a full-time student. of those students eligible to vote.

There shall be one student member for each initial 1,000 full-time students or fraction thereof in each student constituency plus one additional student senator for each additional 1,000 full-time students or major fraction thereof in such constituency. At Morris and Crookston there shall be two student senators for each initial 1,000 full-time students or fraction thereof in each student constituency plus one additional student senator for each additional 1,000 full-time students or major fraction thereof in such constituency.

• University College students shall be eligible for election if they have earned at least twelve credits in residence during the previous five years and are carrying at least three credits at the time of voting.

• All other students shall be eligible for election if they have earned within the past year and are currently carrying at least two-thirds the number of credits required for full-time student status as defined by the Office of the Registrar for their college of enrollment. Graduate School students carrying one credit ABD (all but dissertation) at the time of voting or who are certified as the equivalent of full-time students by the Graduate School shall be eligible for election.

The Student Senate Consultative Committee feels that distinct credit limits should be established for each group represented in the University Senate. Furthermore, by reducing the total number of credits required to begin serving in the University Senate, it allows students in their second term at the University to be elected as a senator from their respective collegiate unit.

Following comments made at the April 16 Student Senate meeting, the motion was revised to reduce credit totals for all colleges and schools to two-thirds the number required by the Office of the Registrar.

KEVIN NICHOLSON, Chair
STUDENT SENATE CONSULTATIVE COMMITTEE

Mr. Kevin Nicholson, chair of the Student Senate Consultative Committee (SSCC), reviewed the proposed motion and reminded senators that the issue had been discussed at the April Student Senate meeting and also at several SSCC meetings. The motion would lower the Senate eligibility requirements allowing students to be eligible to serve as senators earlier in their college careers. It is hoped, he said, that this will result in the filling of seats that normally remain vacant. He then opened the floor for discussion.

Q: Why are the eligibility rules on "serving" and "voting" different?

A:The rules have always been different. This does not represent a change in Senate practice. Senate "seats" and voting eligibility are based on full-time enrollment while service eligibility is based on credits earned.

A friendly amendment was then made and accepted to change the last line of the first paragraph to "Each institute, college, or school shall establish its own procedures to determine qualification of students eligible to vote."

With no further discussion the motion as amended was approved.

Abby Flottemesch, the Duluth Student Assembly President, reported that Dan Bart was elected as the new student assembly president and that UMD students are still working on faculty evaluations with the unions.

Deanne Nordberg, newly-elected Student Senate Vice Chair, reported that Sean Lazenby was re-elected as student body president at Morris and that students are actively involved in the chancellor search. She announced a celebration for the funding of the Morris Science Center and an upcoming retirement party for Chancellor Johnson.

J.P. Maier, GAPSA President, said that officer elections have been completed and he has been re-elected President. Cheryl Jorgensen will also be continuing as the Legislative Liaison. This summer GAPSA will be dealing with the tax issue from last year and he asked MSA for its support on this matter.

Brandon Lacy, SSCC member, also reported that Twin Cities undergraduate student elections have been completed and Nikki Kubista was elected president and Erin Ferguson vice president. Last week, the Assembly voted to support the current system for fees and took the stance that if it is changed, MSA would be integral in developing a new system.

Jesse Berglund congratulated newly-elected senators and student assembly officers. He said that the campus visits and orientation were both successful and would be continued in the future. He thanked Kevin Nicholson, Heather Aagesen, and the rest of SSCC for their work and support during the past year.

Kevin Nicholson reported that the last coordinate campus visit (to Crookston) was recently completed and everyone had a good time. He believes that the visits to the three outstate campuses this year by the Student Senate Consultative Committee strengthened the bond and communication among the campuses. He hopes that this practice continues in the future. In closing, he thanked Jesse Berglund for his leadership and work this year on behalf of all University of Minnesota students.

Kevin Nicholson and Jesse Berglund recognized Becky Hippert, Student Senate Liaison and staff for SSCC, for her help and support throughout the year.

The Constitutional Review Committee is off to a slow start, reported J.P. Maier, chair of the committee, due to busy schedules and the amount of required reading. He hopes students will be available over the summer.

Q: Do you have a timeline for a report to the Senate?

A: If there is sufficient work over the summer, then by the first Senate meeting in the Fall.

A senator suggested that meetings be held at more reasonable times to allow for coordinate campus participation.

Vice Provost Craig Swan discussed the proposed tuition increases for undergraduate students. He reported that while the Legislature was very supportive of the University this year, overall it received $80 million less than requested. Moreover, there was a last minute change to move more funds from recurring to one-time. This translated into a budget shortfall. The administration addressed this shortfall partly through administrative cuts and a tuition increase (on average 3%). Because of the Regents commitment to equalize lower and upper division tuition across colleges, juniors and seniors will see an increase of less than 3%, while freshmen and sophomores will see an increase of more than 3%. Coordinate campus increases will be slightly higher than 3% and graduate student tuition will rise by 3%. Professional student tuition will vary by program. The Carlson MBA program will increase more this year and then will be held stable for the next two years. The Regents are holding an open forum on May 28 to discussion the entire budget proposal and Vice Provost Swan encouraged students to attend. He then opened the floor for discussion.

Q: What about tuition in the Medical School?

A: Vice Provost Swan did not have the information readily available and asked interested students to speak with him after the meeting. On a broader scale, he is asking deans to talk with their students about tuition. For undergraduate tuition, there is a basic increase that is applied across colleges, so these deans have less discretion.

Q: If this increase is approved, is the administration considering lowering other costs to students such as food and books?

A: These concerns will be handled jointly by the Office of the Provost and the Office of Student Development and Athletics.

Q: What is the difference between current lower and upper division tuition rates? Have the Regents decided how they will arrive at a uniform rate? Will it be one of the current figures or somewhere in the middle?

A: The hope is to be at a uniform tuition within 2-3 years. The current differential is $80 to $88.

Q: How has IMG affected tuition decisions?

A: It has impacts on course access. If more students want a course, the dean now has the resources to offer it. Previously, the dean would need to ask the provost for funds. Also, deans of professional schools have more discretion when setting their tuition rates, which determines the revenue for the college.

Q: Professional school tuition rates usually include the phrase ‘what the market will bear.’ This led to increases last year of 10-30% which forced many students to leave school. How can this problem be solved?

A: IMG has forced professional schools to use a market comparison focus for tuition rates. This is an important issue for students to discuss with the deans. Traditionally, market comparison would be what other comparable universities are charging, with most being out-of-state universities.

Q: Why would professional schools have comparable rates if they want to attract students to their programs?

A: Some private universities will channel resources back to financial aid to attract more students.

Professor Fred Morrison, University Parliamentarian, discussed with student senators items on the Senate and Assembly dockets regarding constitutional and bylaw amending procedures. Over the years, he explained, the Senate and Assembly have experienced difficulty in securing the required attendance to adopt constitutional and bylaw amendments. Oftentimes, important legislation that receives overwhelming support has been left unapproved due to the Senate’s and Assembly’s stringent voting requirements. In view of this ongoing problem, the Business and Rules Subcommittee, which includes student representation, was asked to examine the voting practices of other institutions as well as Robert’s Rules of Order, the parliamentary authority for the Senate and Assembly. The Subcommittee learned that the requirements for amending the constitutions and bylaws are not only inconsistent with other institutions but are strongly discouraged by Robert’s Rules of Order.

As a result of the Subcommittee’s findings, proposed language was developed that more closely matches other higher education institutions and is consistent with Robert’s Rules of Order. At the same time, the Subcommittee preserved the rules on advance notice to ensure that changes cannot be made without full notification to all senators of pending legislation.

Professor Morrison encouraged students to review the proposals before the Senate and Assembly meetings and said it is the Consultative Committee’s hope that students will support these changes.

Q: There have been amendments passed that had little to no student consultation before they were brought to the Senate. This proposal seems to increase the marginalization of student input since students do not have the luxury to miss class to attend a Senate meeting where an issue of interest is being discussed. Under the current proposal, was there any discussion regarding the marginalization of student input?

A: The issue of marginalization was not raised. Student participation in favor of a motion would still be vital to its approval.

A senator stated that under current conditions students do not comprise one-third of the Senate and, therefore, would not be able to successfully block a motion.

Laura Taken reported that the Student Legislative Coalition (SLC) is readying for next year’s biennial request and board transition. Interested students should contact the SLC office.

The meeting was adjourned at 1:00 p.m.