The fourth meeting of the Twin Cities Campus Assembly for 1997-98 was convened in 25 Law Building, Minneapolis campus, on Thursday, May 14, 1998, at 2:00 p.m. Checking or signing the roll as present were 112 voting faculty/academic professional members, 28 voting student members, 1 ex officio member, and 5 nonmembers. President Mark Yudof presided.

Student Senator Jesse Berglund was elected vice chair of the Assembly for 1998-99.

II. EDUCATIONAL POLICY COMMITTEE
Statement of Standard Undergraduate Academic Policies and Practices

That the Twin Cities Campus Assembly approve the following policies to standardize policies and practices for the Twin Cities campus for undergraduate students. The specific language to be acted on by the Assembly is underlined; all other language is explanatory or comment.

[This language accompanied the original report making recommendations for policy changes and was prepared by the Office of Planning and Analysis; the Committee on Educational Policy forwards it with approval.]

The purpose of this report is to propose that many policies and practices for Twin Cities undergraduate students be standardized. There is currently very significant variation across colleges.

This variation confuses and frustrates students.

This variation is a factor in the poor graduation and time-to-completion rates for Twin Cities students, who complete, on average, nearly 30 more credits than what is required for their degree programs.

This variation places great demands on staff in collegiate and central student support offices and on our student information systems, making them more complicated and costly to maintain than they need to be.

This variation is an obstacle to the development of a single undergraduate bulletin for the Twin Cities campus.

The change to semesters is an opportunity to rethink various aspects of our instructional programs. This must include the variation in undergraduate academic policies and practices on the Twin Cities campus. This is a problem now, and it will be even worse on semesters if it is not addressed.

There are 19 colleges/programs offering undergraduate degrees on the Twin Cities campus (counting each allied health program separately). For the 19 Twin Cities colleges/programs:

There is good reason for some variation in various policies and practices among Twin Cities colleges. But in many cases this variation exists for no apparent reason. It is instead the result of individual colleges and programs, lacking any common direction, doing what they think is best for students. The cumulative result, however, is a situation that is not in any student's best interest, especially those students who transfer from one college to another, only to discover a new and unexpected hurdle.

The Twin Cities colleges and programs have been consulted in developing the proposals presented in this report. Inevitably, if there is to be greater uniformity, there must be compromise where differences currently exist. The overall objective is to create an academic culture for our Twin Cities students that is rigorous, but fair, and far less confusing than what they currently face.

Some current policies and practices are shaped by the unique circumstances of an individual student. It should be emphasized that each Twin Cities dean has the power to grant exceptions to policies, when special circumstances call for exceptions to be made. Policies should not be designed for the exception, but exceptions should be granted when appropriate.

The Twin Cities colleges and programs are very different from one another. They each offer unique degree programs and courses. They each have unique facilities to support instruction and research in their disciplines. The faculties of these colleges are also all unique in certain respects, reflecting the character of the various disciplines. This kind of variation is good. It is what defines each college.

Much of the variation examined in this report, however, is not good. It adds nothing to a student's educational experience. It adds nothing of value to a college or program. Some of it is about significant matters (e.g., definitions of satisfactory academic progress). Some of it is just plain silly (e.g., committee names). All of this variation should be eliminated, both for the sake of our students and for the sake of our faculty and staff.

The report is organized under the following major headings: admissions, registration and course entry, grades and grading, student performance, and degree requirements and graduation.

Note: There are a number of other Senate and Assembly educational policies closely related to the policies proposed for action in this document. The Committee on Educational Policy assures the Assembly that at some point--it hopes in the not too distant future--these educational policies will be assembled in one place and ordered in a manner that is easily understood and readily accessible to faculty, staff, and students alike.

In general, the admission of new high school (NHS) students and the admission of new advanced standing (NAS) students are handled in consistent ways. There is considerable variation, however, for some specific admissions policies and practices, as detailed below.

This effort is to be coordinated by the Director of the Office of Admissions, who works closely with each college.

This does not represent any change in the current policy and practice.

2. New High School (NHS) and New Advanced Standing (NAS) Admissions Standards:

Each college is responsible for setting the standards that are to be used by the Admissions Office in admitting students to the college. For automatic admission by the campus priority deadline, New High School standards must be expressed by the college in terms of a minimum AAR or SAR score. Each college is also responsible for establishing whatever criteria are to be used for admission after the priority deadline. These standards and criteria are subject to the review and approval of the Provost for the Twin Cities campus and the Vice President for Health Sciences.

This does not represent any change in the current practice and policy.

3. Conditional Admit: There is some confusion regarding conditional admit, because it is used in two different ways:

(1) Conditional Admit to Matriculate: Strictly speaking, all students are admitted subject to certain conditions (e.g., that they graduate from high school). Conditional admit in this sense means that a student will not be allowed to matriculate (or transfer to the University) unless certain conditions are met. This is the first way in which conditional admit is used, and the conditions vary by college and program (e.g., whether all high school preparation requirements need to be met or whether one or two deficiencies are allowed and, if so, in what areas).

(2) Conditional Admit to Graduate: Conditional admit is also used in a second sense to mean that a student can matriculate (or transfer to the University), but subject to certain conditions that must be satisfied before the student can graduate (e.g., that any deficiencies in satisfying high school preparation requirements are made up). Such conditions are in addition to normal degree requirements.

4. Readmission: The Twin Cities campus does not have a readmission policy for students who leave school for an extended period.

5. Transfer Issues: In evaluating the course work of transfer students, some colleges and programs accept "D" grades, while others do not, and some colleges and programs accept courses that others would not.

The evaluation of transfer course work from outside the University is a complicated process. Each college and program is involved in evaluating course work in its disciplines. Whether or not transfer courses meet program or major requirements is a separate issue (see also item 20, D grades).

6. Old Program Rules: There is variation among colleges regarding whether students returning to the University are to follow old or new program requirements. The amount of time students may be out without any possible change in program requirements varies by college.

(See also item 12, leaves of absence.)

7. Sunsetting: Some units do not accept course work if it was taken more than a specified number of years ago (anywhere from five to ten years). In these cases, the content is considered "sunsetted" and a student must retake the course(s) in order to be up-to-date in the discipline. There is some variation in the time limits for sunsetting course work. Currently each unit can set the maximum time limit before a student must retake the course.

8. Declaring a Major: There is variation across colleges and programs in how students declare a degree program or major. There is also variation within colleges. CLA uses a premajor designation for many students.

There may be variation across colleges in how degree programs and majors are declared. Some colleges admit freshmen who have not declared a major. Some colleges and programs admit only upper division students who must choose a major when they transfer to a college. The procedures required by some departments are too complex and will not work on a semester-based calendar, when students will have only eight terms to make decisions about their education, rather than twelve.

When the University changes to semesters, CLA should abandon its premajor status and move students directly from undecided to major status. The only exception should be for students who plan to transfer to another college (e.g., allied health premajors).

Use of the words "declared" and "undeclared" are preferred to "decided" and "undecided" in connection with selecting a major, in all policies. If premajor status is abandoned, there needs to be a method of indicating the interest(s) of the student in the way that premajor status currently allows. If the student's status or plan is "undeclared," this can be done by use of sub-plans in the student's record. It is important to maintain this information for advising purposes.

All colleges shall review the policies and procedures for declaring a degree program or major within the college. The practice of requiring students to complete prerequisite course work, often in the discipline, should receive the most careful scrutiny, along with the use of other second-tier admissions standards.

9. Second-Tier Admissions Standards for Programs/Majors: Undergraduate students move through their degree programs in different ways. Some are admitted as freshmen to both a college and a major. Others are admitted to a college, but not to a major. Some are admitted to a college (e.g., CLA, General College) with plans to transfer eventually to another college.

Most colleges and some programs and majors have established various second-tier admissions standards for students who want to transfer to the college or declare a major. These second-tier admissions standards take various forms. Sometime a specified minimum GPA is required. Sometimes the successful completion of certain prerequisite courses--courses that sometimes must be taken in a particular sequence--is required. Sometimes the successful completion of certain prerequisite courses with a specified minimum GPA is required. In the absence of any campus-wide policy or procedure, these second-tier admissions requirements have been developed and implemented by each unit. The result is a confusing and frustrating set of expectations that limit student choice and impose additional barriers to graduation.

On quarters, there are a minimum of 12 registration periods when students most commonly change their status (e.g., declare a major, change a major, or transfer from one college to another). On semesters, there are a minimum of 8 registration periods--one-third fewer. On semesters, students will have to make decisions about choice of major and transfer to a different college sooner than is the case on quarters. On semesters, second-tier admissions standards must be very carefully developed and implemented.

10. Full-time/Part-time Definitions: There is variation across the campus his how full-time and part-time student status are defined. For example, the minimum credit load required for a student to receive maximum, full-time federal financial aid (e.g., a Pell grant) is 12 credits, while the minimum credit load required for a student to receive a maximum, full-time Minnesota state grant is 15 credits. Although this variation is because of different government policies, not because of different college policies, colleges and programs are inconsistent in how they describe the situation. As a consequence, too many students confuse the 12 credit federal financial aid minimum with what is actually required to graduate in four years (i.e., 15 credits per term).

11. Undeclared: This is a "major" status for students who have not declared their major upon admission or for students who are in the process of transferring out of one major or unit to another major or unit. CLA begins putting an OW hold on undecided students with 90+ quarter credits. This is cleared either by seeing an adviser and declaring a major or by affirming that the student is still undecided. Theoretically, given current policies and practices, a student could stay undecided forever. Allowing students to remain in the "undecided" status beyond 60 semester credits is not conducive to timely graduation. Requiring students to declare a major before or upon the completion of 60 semester credits will be even more important with a semester-based calendar.

All freshmen-admitting colleges shall have an undeclared student status. All students shall be required to declare a major or be accepted into a program before or upon the completion of 60 semester credits. Once 60 credits have been completed, a student will not be allowed to register until they declare a major. (The student will be required to declare a major at the end of the term in which they complete 60 or more credits.)

12. Leave of Absence (LOA): Some colleges have a leave of absence policy for students who decide to leave school and not register for a period of time and who notify the college of their intent. There is variation in requirements for return and whether a student is to follow old or new program requirements.

Colleges and programs are sometimes proactive in recommending that students take a leave of absence or "stop out," usually for personal reasons. This is a very individualistic practice. In recommending that a student "stop out," leave of absence policies and procedures should be used.

There should be a standard leave of absence form for all Twin Cities colleges; the form should have a place for indicating how long the leave of absence will be.

13. Adviser Approvals: A variety of adviser holds are now being used to force students to see an adviser during their initial registration during orientation or during all freshman registration periods or during all lower division registration periods.

Removing unnecessary barriers to a student's academic progress is a laudable aim. However, there is a strongly-felt concern that individuals given responsibility for advising should have the discretion of imposing an "adviser hold" on a student's registration. This holds true at any stage during a student's undergraduate career.

As a way of developing options, for students who wish it, that allow students to reduce formal contact with advisers and accept more responsibility for their academic progress, it might be advisable to set up a pilot "self-advised" track for undergraduates.

14. Credit Limits per Quarter: The maximum number of credits allowed before a student needs collegiate approval varies across units, from 18 to 21 quarter credits. A few units now set a minimum credit requirement, usually by default based on required "lock-step" registrations, particularly in specific health science areas. These requirements vary.

15. Limited Enrollment Courses: Minimum and maximum enrollment limits can be set for any course section of any kind (e.g., lecture, laboratory, recitation, studio). There is significant variation in how such limits are set.

Most colleges and departments have no policy regarding the cancellation of low enrollment courses.

Enrollment limits in course sections are very necessary, for pedagogical reasons and because of limitations imposed by facilities constraints (e.g., size of classrooms, size of laboratories). All enrollment limits in course sections should be proposed by a department/program head/chair and approved by the appropriate dean.

In the day school, low enrollment courses or low enrollment sections of courses are canceled only by the department offering the course. In University College and Summer Session, low enrollment courses or low enrollment sections of courses can be canceled by the University College and Summer Session administrations, which fund the courses.

Under IMG the difference between the way in which University College and Summer Session and the rest of the University are funded is significantly different. The funding for all campuses and colleges is directly affected by the tuition revenue they generate. Low enrollment courses and sections can affect tuition revenue, since the instructional staff assigned to them could be reassigned to areas of higher student demand. It is sometimes programmatically necessary to offer low enrollment courses and sections, but such decisions should be carefully made according to the policy of the college.

With regard to this issue, the primary difference between University College and Summer Session and the rest of the University's campuses and colleges is that faculty teaching in UC and Summer Session are usually paid on an overload basis. This is not an absolute difference. Some faculty teaching in UC and Summer Session do so as part of their workload under their regular 9-month or 12-month appointment. Some instruction in other colleges (e.g., the Carlson School of Management) is on an overload basis. Any college may pay faculty on an overload basis.

16. Prerequisites: Where prerequisites have been set, bulletins and course materials should explain that prerequisites may be enforced. Their purpose is to advise students to take only those courses for which the prerequisites have been met.

17. Repeating Course Work: There is no policy stipulating how many times a student may repeat a course and under what circumstances. Some colleges permit a course to be repeated only when a student failed to earn a grade of C or better in the course. Some colleges allow a student to retake a course in which a passing grade of C or better was earned. This is not addressed in new grading policy.

SCEP takes the position that the policy on repeating courses adopted in the uniform grading policy should remain University policy, and recommends no change. The uniform grading policy does address the question of whether a student may repeat a course when a grade of C or better was earned: the policy places no restrictions on the circumstances under which a student may repeat a course. (Although it is unclear why anyone would do so, the uniform grading policy does not prohibit a student from repeating a course even though he or she may have earned an A in the course the first time.) The uniform grading policy adopted by the Senate reads as follows:

"In those instances when a college or campus permits a student to repeat a course, (a) all grades for the course shall appear on the official transcript, (b) the course credits may not be counted more than once toward degree and program requirements, and (c) only the last enrollment for the course shall count in the student's grade point average. The preceding sentence of this policy shall not apply to courses using the same number but where students study different content each term of enrollment; all such courses falling under this provision must be approved by the college."

18. Auditing Courses: Students auditing a course are required to pay full tuition, but do not take exams or do homework. An auditor is entered on the class roster (grade report), is counted as filling a seat in a controlled entry course, and is counted in an instructor's student contact hours. The rules for auditing course work are fairly rigorously enforced at the undergraduate level. A few units allow students to retake a previously audited course for a grade.

The number of students who take previously audited courses for credit is probably very small. Students who wish to "scope out" a class before taking it for credit--a practice we certainly wish to discourage--are much more likely to sit in on it without registering than to register as an auditor. In contrast, there are instances in which students may change academic plans such that they need to take a previously audited course for a grade. Overall, the policy is best written with the latter type of student in mind, rather than the former.

19. S/N Grading Base Issues: Most units do not allow S/N grading in program and major course work unless the S/N grading system is preset by the unit for a specific course. Some units set a quarterly limit such as one S/N course for freshmen and two S/N for sophomores. There is inconsistency in what colleges say in bulletins about how many credits can be taken S/N.

According to Senate policy, the maximum number of S/N credits allowed to a student is 25% of degree-qualifying residence credits.

20. "D" Grades: Currently, there is variation in whether D grades are allowed in major course work. Some units use A/B balance and others require C or above grades in major course work.

Academic Progress, Academic Probation, and High Academic Achievement: Colleges and programs use different systems for monitoring academic progress, different probation systems and holds for students who are in academic difficulty, and different systems for recognizing students who perform with distinction. This is the area where there is the greatest and most significant variation among collegiate units and programs.

There are different systems of monitoring academic progress, all of which are used in slightly different ways. There are different ways of using the probation system. There are different systems for recognizing high academic achievement. Within a single college one way of monitoring academic progress is sometimes used to identify students in academic difficulty, while another way of monitoring academic progress is used to identify students who perform with distinction.

There is no compelling reason for different colleges to use different systems. It is confusing to students as they move from one college to another. This is an area where there are also high systems costs because of all of the different kinds of reports that must be run every quarter and at the end of each academic year.

All colleges and programs should use the same standards and systems for monitoring academic progress, the same academic probation system, and one of two ways of recognizing high academic achievement. Academic progress, academic probation, and academic honors are discussed separately below.

SCEP's recommendations follow.

21. Academic Progress: All colleges and programs require students to maintain satisfactory progress. The federal Department of Education also requires the Twin Cities campus to make sure that students receiving federal financial aid maintain satisfactory progress. The campus-wide definition used by the Office of Scholarships and Financial Aid (OSFA) recognizes some of the differences among colleges (e.g., it will use a GPA higher than 2.00 for students in those colleges that require a higher standard). Academic progress is also monitored to identify students who perform with distinction.

Colleges and programs use three different systems to monitor academic progress: i) GPA, ii) coefficient of completion, and iii) honors points.

Most colleges use only quarterly and cumulative GPA to monitor academic progress, either for purposes of identifying students in academic difficulty or for purposes of identifying students who perform with distinction.

Six colleges use coefficient of completion to monitor academic progress. Coefficient of completion is a measure of the percentage of course work that a student completes successfully. For example, if a student attempts 15 credits and completes 9 credits successfully with a grade of C- or better, then the student's coefficient of completion is 60 percent (i.e. 9/15). Most of the colleges that use coefficient of completion use it in conjunction with GPA. CLA is the only college that uses just coefficient of completion to monitor academic progress, although CLA uses it only to identify students in academic difficulty. CLA uses GPA to identify students who perform with distinction.

Those colleges that use coefficient of completion, use it in different ways (e.g., the value of the coefficient of completion required for satisfactory progress varies and the way in which withdrawals are handled varies). The exact formula used in CLA is: (credits graded A, B, C, S)/(credits graded A, B, C, S, D, F, N, I). The expectation in CLA is that a student will complete at least 75 percent of the credits attempted each academic year (first summer session through spring quarter).

Coefficient of completion can be a more lenient way of judging satisfactory academic progress than using just GPA. For example, a student who takes four 4-credit courses and completes three with a grade of C and one with a grade of F will have a coefficient of completion of 75 percent, which is satisfactory in CLA, but a GPA of less than 2.0, which is not satisfactory in most colleges.

The honor point system is an academic progress system that is used only by the Carlson School of Management (CSOM). Students earn honors points for each grade received (i.e., 2 for an A, 1 for a B, 0 for a C, -1 for a D, and -2 for an F. A student is placed on probation when he or she accumulates so many negative honors points.

The new University Grading Policy requires that a student's GPA for a term and cumulative GPA must be calculated at the end of each academic term.

22. Academic Probation: Students who are not making satisfactory academic progress are initially placed on probation and may eventually be suspended. Most colleges have agreed to move to the "P" system. This is a probationary system that includes three holds: P1 (warning), P2 (contract), and P3 (suspension). There is some variation in how colleges use the "P" system, in part because of how they monitor academic progress. Some colleges and programs do not use the "P" system and continue to use old N holds or their own college specific holds. Some colleges and programs do not use holds when a student is placed on probation or suspended. University College does not currently recognize the holds put on suspended students.

SCEP concluded that the three-step probationary system was too complicated, and recommends instead the following simplified academic probation system.

Students may appeal suspension decisions to the college's Student Scholastic Standing Committee (SSSC). Readmission after a year's suspension is not automatic. To be readmitted, a student must petition the SSSC in writing and show evidence of changes in circumstances that demonstrate that the student will succeed in an academic program.

23. Dean's List: There are various ways of recognizing high achievement on the Twin Cities campus. Most colleges and programs have a dean's list to recognize students at the end of each quarter. The dean's list system includes a quarterly transcript notation that recognizes high quarterly GPA. Not all colleges and programs have a dean's list and for those that do the required GPA varies. The College of Education and Human Development does not have a dean's list. It instead sends "good progress" letters to students completing 12 or more credits with a GPA of 3.75 or above. These letters, however, are not noted on a student's transcript.

24. Student Scholastic Standing Committee (SSSC): All colleges and programs have a committee to which student academic progress issues are referred. The names of these committees vary slightly. In order to assist students in understanding where these issues are dealt with, SCEP recommends a uniformity in names.

25. GPA Requirement for Graduation: There is some variation in the GPA required for graduation (e.g., some colleges only require a minimum cumulative GPA of 2.00 in courses in the college or courses in the major program).

26. Special Requirements: Some colleges and programs set other requirements or conditions in addition to the minimum GPA requirement. Human Ecology, for example, requires a GPA of 2.5 in the major program. CLA sets a limit on the number of D's, even if a student's GPA is greater than 2.00. Agriculture requires a coefficient of completion of .75.

27. Residency Issues: There is some variation in how the University's residency rule is applied. Some colleges require that a minimum number of credits be taken in the college. Among colleges that have such a requirement the number of credits varies. Some colleges and programs require that the last 30 credits must be taken while the student is enrolled in the college or program.

Residency is a University requirement that should not vary by college or program. Colleges and programs must adhere to University Senate policy. This requires that in order to earn a degree at the University, a student must complete a minimum of 45 credits at the University and that the student's last 30 credits must be at the University. For semesters, this will be 30 and 20 credits, respectively.

Residency should not solely be in the University. It is reasonable to expect that some minimum number of credits for a degree should be taken while the student is enrolled in the college in which that degree is offered. With residency in the University, it would be possible for a student to graduate with very few courses taken from the University department offering the major.

28. Deadlines/Dates for Graduation: There is variation in how much notice a student must give of her or his intention to graduate.

a) Some colleges and programs set restrictions on the kinds of courses that students can use as electives.

Generally, electives should be just that--courses that students are free to elect or choose. The Committee on Educational Policy, however, believes that certain restrictions are appropriate, and sets them out in the proposed policy. The limit is based on the current practices of the colleges (although the specific credit limits vary slightly from college to college). It is also appropriate for advisers to influence a student's choice of electives, but there should not be rules that actually restrict a student's choice.

b) Special Course Usage

Colleges and programs commonly set maximum credit limits on four kinds of courses: i) applied music courses, ii) physical education courses, iii) ROTC courses, and iv) tutoring/study skills courses. Following discussion with the Senate Consultative Committee, it was agreed that policy could be set for three of the areas, but that language governing ROTC courses needed further consideration, in order to avoid conflict with applicable federal regulations.

c) Bracketing Course Work

Bracketing is the practice of not including a course in the calculation of a student's GPA and not counting the course as satisfying any degree requirements, including electives. Brackets are put around such courses on a student's transcript. Hence the name. This is a manual process.

Bracketing is used for two separate and distinct purposes:

Repeated courses: When a student repeats a course, all prior attempts are usually bracketed and only the most recent attempt counts. Some colleges instead bracket all but the highest grade.

Programmatic: Some colleges bracket course work that they do not want included as part of their degree programs.

The new grading policy stipulates that when a course is repeated, only the most recent attempt counts and all prior attempts and grades are bracketed.

LAURA COFFIN KOCH, Chair
EDUCATIONAL POLICY COMMITTEE

Professor Laura Koch, chair of the Educational Policy Committee (SCEP), recalled for senators the Assembly discussion of this item from the April meeting. SCEP has been reviewing undergraduate policies across the 19 Twin Cities colleges and noticed that there is great variation among colleges. This has created confusion for students and programming changes with the new PeopleSoft system. Professor Koch stressed that even if the policies are approved, deans will still have the authority to grant exemptions.

Following the last Assembly meeting and discussion within SCEP, the policy on prerequisites was modified to reflect concerns previously raised. The policy on types of electives for graduation has also been modified. In the earlier proposal, ROTC courses were included. Since there is some confusion as to whether ROTC is a separate program, however, it has been removed. SCEP will be reconsidering the ROTC issue in the future. A credit limit was also added for physical education, study skills, and applied music courses, except when they are part of a major program.

One senator expressed concern that under the "prerequisites policy" an instructor could ask a student to withdraw from a class midway through the term because the student had not taken the appropriate prerequisite. The senator encouraged SCEP to modify the policy to require that instructors ask for a withdrawal the first day of class so that the student can receive a refund of his/her tuition or have sufficient time to enroll in another course for that term. Professor Koch replied that there is no way for the instructor to know by the end of the first class whether or not a student has a specific prerequisite. Furthermore, there is a policy in place regarding returning registration fees to students.

With no further discussion a vote was taken and the motion was approved by a majority of members present and voting.

That the Twin Cities Campus Assembly approve the following delegation of authority:

The Assembly delegates to the Committee on Educational Policy authority to make changes in these policies, subject to the following provisions. First, all such changes shall be reported to the Assembly at its next meeting. Second, no such changes will be effective until after the changes have been reported to and ratified by the Assembly.

There is concern about how readily these policies can be amended, and that requiring approval by the Assembly is a laborious and time-consuming process. The Council of Undergraduate Deans has recommended proposing this language.

LAURA COFFIN KOCH, Chair
EDUCATIONAL POLICY COMMITTEE

Professor Koch reviewed Motion 2 and opened the floor for discussion. Several senators were uncomfortable with granting a committee the authority to make future changes to the policies without approval by the Assembly. This is a deviation from Senate and Assembly practice. It seems more appropriate, they said, to have the Educational Policy Committee (SCEP) approve changes and then have the Assembly vote on them at its next meeting.

Professor Koch said that could be problematic if SCEP votes to change a policy and the changes are implemented and then the Assembly votes against the changes.

A number of people argued in favor of Assembly ratification of changes before implementation. They said the governance process should be preserved and that it is on the Assembly floor where students and faculty have an opportunity to voice their opinion.

A SCEP member noted that since the rules are so detailed, different conditions might arise that would require swift action. Most changes he thought would be minor procedural ones.

Professor Koch was asked to clarify whether the motion means that when the change is "reported" to the Assembly, it has the authority to overrule the change? "Yes," she replied. " The Assembly always has the right to overrule itself and amend its own policies."

A senator challenged whether this language was necessary since the Assembly always has the authority to overrule.

A senator said that this motion seems to go against the point of the original motion, which is to save time. A vote was taken on the amendment and it failed.

Because the time for discussion of this item had expired, a motion to extend the debate by five minutes was made and seconded, but was not approved.

The vote was then taken on the original motion, as amended by the friendly amendment, and was approved by a majority of those present and voting.

The Assembly Committee on Educational Policy (ACEP) and the Provost for Arts, Sciences, and Engineering appointed a subcommittee last year (Winter 1997) to consider complaints that arose from students taking courses on both the Minneapolis campus and the St. Paul Campus. The complaints related to the students' inability to move between the two campuses and take courses in a timely manner; a number of faculty reported that it was disruptive to have students enter classes late or leave early in order to get to or from a class on the other campus. Prior to fall 1996, the class schedules on the two campuses were staggered; that staggering ended at the request of a number of faculty, staff and administrators on the St. Paul campus, primarily because the St. Paul campus was losing a class hour during the day. The request was granted by ACEP.

The "staggered class" subcommittee considered numerous options regarding the scheduling of classes as well as transportation issues and issues related to semesters, and actually walked the campuses and rode the buses in order to judge the amount of time it takes to get different places.

ACEP has concluded that there are two options the Assembly might consider for the Twin Cities staggered class schedule, but wishes first to confirm that staggered class starting times are desired. As a result, three motions are offered.

Motion 1 affirms that staggered class starting times should be implemented. If Motion 1 is defeated, Motions 2 and 3 are moot.

Motions 2 and 3 are the two different options that ACEP has identified as reasonable alternatives. A majority vote in favor of Motion 2 will render Motion 3 moot. If Motion 2 does not receive a majority, then the Assembly may proceed to vote on Motion 3. If neither Motion 2 or 3 receives a majority, but Motion 1 is adopted, ACEP will need further advice from the Assembly on how to proceed.

To adopt a staggered class schedule for the Twin Cities campus.

Professor Laura Koch, chair of the Educational Policy Committee (SCEP), presented the motion to stagger the class schedule for the Twin Cities campus.

She was asked about the practice at UW-Madison and replied that Madison has a 7:45 start time. She was not sure, however, of the amount of time between their classes.

Has there been any discussion with the transportation office and the unions regarding a 7:45 start time, and what time would support staff be required to start? Professor Koch said the transportation representatives have been active participants in the discussions. They assured SCEP that they had talked to the MTC and adjustments could be made. The committee has not talked with the unions regarding a 7:45 start time.

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

To approve Option I, as follows:

To approve Option II, as follows:

1. These schedules allow 15 minutes passing time within each campus

2. Cross-passing time is 45 minutes from Minneapolis to St. Paul, and 50 minutes from St. Paul to Minneapolis. To manipulate the schedules so the time between classes is less leads to the situation that the period is acceptable for students going one way, but becomes unacceptable the other.

3. The East Bank/West Bank start time is earlier as that is a transit hub for students coming commuting to the University. Many students leave from the East Bank for St. Paul.

4. This allows both campuses the full allotment of class periods during the day, although the St. Paul classes would run until 6:00 p.m. if Option II were adopted. The option of a zero-hour is also provided for St. Paul with Option II.

LAURA COFFIN KOCH, Chair
EDUCATIONAL POLICY COMMITTEE

With the approval of Motion 1, Professor Koch reviewed the scheduling options outlined in Motions 2 and 3. There are two concerns at this time, she said. One is whether extra time in the day is needed for classes as the U changes to semesters. This will be an issue, she said, because classroom space will be lost due to construction projects. A second concern is that students do not favor the 7:45 start time and might not register for classes that start that early.

Several student senators confirmed that they would avoid a 7:45 start time and would prefer having classes into the evening. They felt that Motion 3, with a 7:45 start time for St. Paul, would affect fewer students. Many voiced the opinion that early morning lecture classes were not desirable. One senator said ROTC students and athletes would also be disadvantaged by an early start time.

Given the student opinion on the early start time, other senators inquired about the affect of a later school day on extension classes. In response, Professor Koch said the University is trying to create a seamless curriculum, where day and night classes are equal. Therefore, they would continue as they are now.

At this time, the vote was taken. Motion 2 failed and Motion 3 was approved as the schedule of choice.

Agenda Items IV. and V. are considered to be noncontroversial or "housekeeping" in nature and are offered as a "Consent Agenda" to be taken up as a single item with one vote. Any item will be taken up separately at the request of a senator. As bylaw amendments, 91 votes are required for approval.

To amend the Assembly Bylaws, Article III., Section 7, Steering Committees, as following: (new language is underlined; language to be deleted is struck out)

1. COMMITTEE ON COMMITTEES