The third meeting of the University Senate, Twin Cities Campus Assembly, and Faculty Senate was convened in Coffman Theatre, Minneapolis campus, on Thursday, March 3, 2005, at 2:37 p.m., as a joint meeting of the three bodies. Coordinate campuses were linked by telephone. Checking or signing the roll as present were 141 voting faculty/academic professional members, 29 voting student members, 2 non-members, and 3 ex officio members. President Bruininks presided.

*The administration concurs.

*The administration concurs.

Twin Cities Campus Assembly

2. TRIBUTE TO DECEASED MEMBERS OF THE UNIVERSITY COMMUNITY

FACULTY/ACADEMIC PROFESSIONALS/STAFF

Adolph E. Beich
Associate Professor
Management Division – Crookston
1929 – 2005

Richard C. Broeker
Program Director
Minnesota Extension Service
1942 – 2004

Robert J. Dexter
Associate Professor
Civil Engineering
1956 – 2004

Ellen T. Fahy
Professor
Nursing
1925 – 2004

Margaret P. Grindereng
Professor
Design, Housing, & Apparel
1922 – 2005

Harland B. Hasslen
Professor
Agricultural Production – Waseca
1918 – 2004

Leverett Hoag
Professor
Letters and Science – Duluth
1916 – 2004

Vance Jewson
Assistant Dean of Students
Student Financial Aid
1914 – 2004

Ancel Keys
Professor
Public Health
1904 – 2004

Bart Koeppen
Professor
Law School
1933 – 2004

Warren G. Meyers
Professor
Vocational and Technical Education
1910 – 2004

Allen Nussbaum
Professor
Electrical Engineering
1919 – 2005

Robert R. Owens
Professor
Liberal Arts - Duluth
1920 – 2005

Leon Reisman
Professor
Arts, Communications and Philosophy
1909 – 2004

Bernard E. Rielly
Associate Professor
Oral Sciences
1935 – 2005

John F. Ripkin
Professor
St. Anthony Falls Hydraulic Lab
1914 – 2004

Robert Shoffner
Professor
Animal Sciences
1916 – 2005


STUDENTS

Jason Carbonari
University of Minnesota – Morris

Jessica R. Chapman
College of Liberal Arts

Megan E. Dean
College of Liberal Arts

Tremaine Finley
General College

Amy G. Jacobson
Graduate School

Marcus G. Van Loenen
College of Liberal Arts

Thomas Virnig
Medical School


3. SENATE RESEARCH COMMITTEE
Resolution on IRB Accreditation
Information for the University Senate

FOR INFORMATION:

The Senate Research Committee congratulates the IRB on being accredited.

Approved by the Committee, November 22, 2004.

FOR INFORMATION:

The Senate Research Committee encourages faculty participation in the IRB by serving on panels and that the University make clear that such service is highly valued in order for the University to remain a leading research institution

Approved by the Committee, November 22, 2004.

MOTION:

The Faculty Consultative Committee nominates Judith Martin for the Senate Vice Chair position for the remainder of the 2004-05 academic year and the 2005-06 academic year.

DISCUSSION:

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

MOTION:

To approve the University Senate, Faculty Senate, and Twin Cities Campus Assembly minutes, which are available on the Web at the following URL. A simple majority is required for approval.

http://www1.umn.edu/usenate/usen/040930sen.html
http://www1.umn.edu/usenate/usen/041202sen.html

DISCUSSION:

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

Professor Marvin Marshak, Chair of the Senate Consultative Committee (SCC), introduced Timothy Mulcahy, the new Vice President for Research, and Linda Thrane, the new Vice President for University Relations. Each was given a few moments to speak to the University Senate.

Professor Marvin Marshak, Chair of the Senate Consultative Committee (SCC), informed the senators that Professor Jean Bauer has been elected SCC Chair for 2005-06. The Faculty Consultative Committee (FCC) has also held one meeting at each coordinate campus this year, which provides opportunity to meet with faculty on those campuses.

Strategic planning continues with a deadline of March 21 for the report from the working groups. The Minnesota Legislature is discussing an academic bill of rights, part of a national effort to counteract the alleged liberal bias of faculty. The FCC is looking at this bill in relation to the AAUP statement on academic freedom.

FCC, along with the Educational Policy and Faculty Affairs Committee, has also discussed the teaching evaluation policy. The two committees disagree on one aspect of the policy, who sees the written comments by studentss, and it is likely that the Senate will have the final vote on this issue.

The bonding bill is making progress at the legislature because of hard work from faculty and students.

Reviews of deans and academic administrators have been suspended at this time, by the Senior Vice President, until such time as some process issues can be worked out. Searches are still underway for the Dean of the Graduate School and the Vice Provost for Academic Affairs.

Marvin Marshak noted that the faculty at the Crookston campus have voted in favor of unionization, which therefore makes their faculty ineligible for University Senate service.

Lastly, he noted that the FCC has been involved with the Coalition on Intercollegiate Athletics, a group of faculty from almost 50 Division I institutions. This group has developed a set of recommendations to revise standards within the NCAA. At a meeting earlier today, the FCC voted on behalf of the Faculty Senate to approve these recommendations and the rationale behind them. This vote was based on recommendations from the two athletics committees. He noted that the University has already implemented many of the proposed reforms and is ahead of most other Big Ten institutions.

MOTION:

To approve the following resolution.

Resolution to Encourage Faculty to Release Student Release Sections

WHEREAS Students fill out an evaluation of teaching at the conclusion of each class; and

WHEREAS The evaluation of teaching includes a student release section with questions focused on the instructor’s style and curriculum content; and

WHEREAS Knowing this information will improve sustained enrollment and serve to drastically reduce schedule changes once classes have started; and

WHEREAS Informed understanding of course selection leads to increased course satisfaction; and

WHEREAS The percentage of student release sections released reached an all time high in Spring of 2004 of 22.9%; and

WHEREAS That percentage is unsatisfactory; be it

RESOLVED That the Student Senate strongly encourages the faculty of the University of Minnesota to release student release sections.

RESOLVED That deans, department heads, and department chairs should make the release of student release questions by their faculty a priority.

Approved by SSCC, November 18, 2004 and the Student Senate, December 2, 2004.

DISCUSSION:

Nathan Wanderman noted that the Student Senate has also been working on the student evaluation policy, but focus has been on the one section that most concerns students, the student release questions. There are three prongs to the approach this year: get more released, make releases more accessible to students, and improve the questions used. This resolution deals with the first prong of the approach as students realize that more evaluations will not be released without working with faculty.

If faculty leaders provide the message that it is important for students to see class data before they register, more faculty might release the evaluations, which would lead to fewer students switching classes in the first few weeks and learning better from the classes that they choose.

He asked that a few friendly amendments be made. In the first resolved clause, Student Senate should be changed to University Senate. In the second resolved clause, it should read, ‘that administrators, faculty leaders, department heads, and department chairs.’

Q: How will evaluations respond to changing course content and teaching styles?

A: This is a concern for students, but they should be trusted to consider newer evaluations more than older ones.

Q: How helpful are evaluations to students?

A: Student release questions are not useless, but, as written, they are of marginal use. This is why the Student Senate is working to approve new questions. However, whatever the questions are, more evaluations still need to be released.

A senator commented that this resolution might be premature and suggested, instead, that the Educational Policy Committee and the Student Senate put together and test a valuable set of questions.

Nathan Wanderman responded that any effort to increase the number of evaluations released will take time, and would prefer that this resolution be approved now while new questions are still being worked on. This resolution is to simply support the increased release of evaluations in principle.

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

FOR INFORMATION:

The following interpretation of the Uniform Grading and Transcript Policy, Section II. Permanent Grades for Academic Work (4), is presented for information and will be part of the policy if there is no objection from the University Senate

The current language of the grading and transcript policy reads as follows:

"Every student shall have calculated, both at the end of each grading period (quarter or semester) and cumulatively, a grade point average, which shall be the ratio of grade points earned divided by the number of credits attempted with grades of A-F (including pluses and minuses). Both the periodic and cumulative grade point average will appear on each student's record."

Interpretation by the Senate Committee on Educational Policy: Courses which carry zero credits do not count in either term or cumulative grade point averages.

COMMENT:

The Senate Committee on Educational Policy was recently asked whether courses which carry zero credits count in a student's GPA. This interpretation is intended to clarify that they do not.

FOR INFORMATION:

The following interpretation of the Uniform Grading and Transcript Policy, Section IV. Other Provisions (5), is presented for information and will be part of the policy if there is no objection from the University Senate.

The current language of the grading and transcript policy reads as follows:

"Academic dishonesty in any portion of the academic work for a course shall be grounds for awarding a grade of F or N for the entire course."

Interpretation by the Senate Committee on Educational Policy: This provision allows instructors to award an F or an N to a student when academic dishonesty is discovered; it does not require an instructor to do so."

COMMENT:

The Senate Committee on Educational Policy was recently informed that some instructors and units have interpreted the language in quotes as requiring the award of an F or N when a student is discovered to have cheated in any part of the coursework. The intent of the language, when SCEP proposed it, was to permit instructors to give an F or an N, not require it. SCEP can envision any number of situations where a student may have made a mistake, may not have understood what academic dishonesty means, or where the instructor would be able to use an incident as a "teachable moment" and would not feel obligated to fail a student who learned from the incident.

DISCUSSION:

Q: Is there language in this policy about reporting academic dishonesty? Is reporting required?

A: Language about reporting is in the Academic Integrity Policy, not the Uniform Grading and Transcript Policy. Reporting is strongly requested, but not required.

A senator then noted that it might be helpful to put links between the two policies so that faculty are aware of the request to report.

Q: If a student fails a course due to academic dishonesty, can they retake the course and have the failing grade removed from the transcript?

A: SCEP has discussed this issue and decided that there would be no distinction between ‘F’ grades on a transcript. Students can retake the course, but the first grade is not removed but bracketed on the transcript.

FOR INFORMATION:

The following interpretation of the Policy on Makeup Examinations for Legitimate Absences is presented for information and will be part of the policy if there is no objection from the University Senate.

The current language of the grading and transcript policy reads as follows:

Students shall not be penalized for absence due to unavoidable or legitimate circumstances. Such circumstances include, but are not limited to, verified illness, participation in intercollegiate athletic events or other group activities sponsored by the University, subpoenas, jury duty, military service, and religious observances. Students are responsible for providing documentation to the instructor to verify the reason for the absence.

1. It is the responsibility of the student to notify faculty members of such circumstances as far in advance as possible.

2. It is the responsibility of the faculty member to provide reasonable accommodations or opportunities to make up exams or other course assignments that have an impact on the course grade.

Interpretation by the Senate Committee on Educational Policy: This policy does not extend to voting in local, state, or national elections.

COMMENT:

The Senate Committee on Educational Policy was recently asked if missing class in order to vote in the 2004 elections constituted a legitimate absence. While the Committee strongly believes that students should vote, it does not believe that students need to miss class in order to do so. Polls are generally open for at least 12 hours, so students should be able to arrange their schedules on election days so they can both attend class and vote.

MOTION:

To amend the Policy on Makeup Examinations for Legitimate Absences as follows (new language is underlined, language to be deleted is struck out):

[No change in the text of the policy]

Students shall not be penalized for absence due to unavoidable or legitimate circumstances. Such circumstances include, but are not limited to, verified illness, participation in intercollegiate athletic events or other group activities sponsored by the University, subpoenas, jury duty, military service, and religious observances. Students are responsible for providing documentation to the instructor to verify the reason for the absence.

1. It is the responsibility of the student to notify faculty members of such circumstances as far in advance as possible.

2. It is the responsibility of the faculty member to provide reasonable accommodations or opportunities to make up exams or other course assignments that have an impact on the course grade.

COMMENT:

The Senate Committee on Educational Policy (SCEP) has been made aware that the title of this policy does not coincide with the text of the policy. The title of the policy refers only to examinations. The policy is intentionally broader and speaks to class work students must be allowed to make up if they have legitimate reasons for being absent. SCEP recommends the Senate approve this title change.

DISCUSSION:

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

MOTION:

To amend the Policy on Undergraduate Residency Credit Requirements as follows (new language is underlined, language to be deleted is struck out):

MINIMUM UNIVERSITY CREDITS FOR UNDERGRADUATE DEGREES

(1) To be eligible for a University of Minnesota undergraduate degree, a student must present at least 30 semester credits awarded by the University of Minnesota campus from which he or she is seeking to graduate.

(2) These 30 credits must include at least 24 credits taken after declaration of or admission to the student's major or program, and these 24 credits must be taken from the college (in the case of the Twin Cities Campus) or campus (in the case of Morris and Crookston) offering the major or program. It is up to the college or campus to decide if "declaration of" or "admission to" is the appropriate description of how a student's major is determined.

(2) Students must complete at least half of upper division major work on the campus from which they are seeking to graduate.

(3) Of the last 30 credits earned prior to the award of a University degree, at least 15 credits must be awarded by the University of Minnesota.

(3) At least 15 credits of the last 30 credits earned prior to the awarding of a University degree must be awarded by the University of Minnesota campus from which a student is seeking to graduate.

(4) For students who seek an academic minor, to be eligible for record of a minor on the University of Minnesota transcript, students must take at least three upper division credits in the minor field at the campus from which they will receive their degree.

A student's college or campus may, under extraordinary circumstances, waive the requirements in sections 2, 3, and 4, above, but not section 1.

All credit awarded by the University, regardless of the type of instruction, shall count toward the credit requirements for the degree.

COMMENT:

The Senate Committee on Educational Policy recommends minor revisions to the residency requirements. It adopts a requirement that a certain number of credits must be taken from the major and the college or campus from which the student expects to graduate and it establishes a new and modest requirement for credits for obtaining a minor. The language "under extraordinary circumstances" is intended to convey the understanding that waiving any of the requirements of the policy will be the rare exception, not the norm.

DISCUSSION:

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

MOTION:

To approve the 2008-09 Morris and the 2008-09 and 2009-10 Twin Cities campus calendars.

Morris 2008-09

Fall Semester 2008 (74 class days)

DISCUSSION:

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

MOTION:

To approve the following resolution.

The current 2 year waiting period required for eligibility for the Faculty Retirement Plan:

The Faculty Senate again requests that the central administration immediately eliminate the waiting period for all faculty and P&A staff who would otherwise qualify for the Faculty Retirement Plan.

COMMENT:

The Faculty Senate in May, 2002, approved a resolution requesting the administration to eliminate the waiting period for the Faculty Retirement Plan. (The resolution is below.) Since then, the administration has permitted colleges to decide whether to waive the waiting period for faculty (who have been in a retirement plan at another organization before coming to the University) and has made no changes in the waiting period for new P&A staff (a number of whom are contract faculty).

The Faculty Senate again requests the administration to eliminate entirely the waiting period.

[Here is the resolution from May, 2002:]

New tenure track assistant professors must be employed for two years before they can join the Faculty Retirement Plan.  The funds that would be contributed to the retirement plan have been given to their colleges by Central Administration.  Currently, however, the funds in the colleges are used for "other" purposes.  In contrast, P&A staff whose salary exceeds $55,000 join the Faculty Retirement Plan at time of hire. It also should be noted that no other Big Ten University has a waiting period for new faculty.

If new tenure track faculty received their retirement benefits for the first two years of their employment at the University, an analysis indicates their retirement income could be as much as 17% higher than under the present plan.

Because of compounding, the first two years of retirement contributions play a very significant role in the retirement benefits of a faculty member.  A simple analysis, using reasonably conservative and historical values for salary increases and growth of retirement funds from investment gains, shows the importance of these contributions. Thus, providing the first two years retirement benefits would result in an increase of 13-17% in a faculty member’s retirement plan after a thirty-year career.  Our retirement program, which many of us boast about as being among the very best in the nation, is drastically reduced by this loss.  

If there is a need for taking money from individuals’ retirement accounts, then the colleges would be better served taking money from the last years of a faculty member's service, rather than the first two years.  Thus, because of "the power of compounding," the first two years of retirement investment provides more in the final retirement balance to an individual than the last eight to ten years of retirement contributions in a thirty-year career and the last twelve to thirteen years over a 40-year career.

Not being able to provide retirement benefits for starting tenure track faculty has resulted in some programs placing new hires in P&A status, where they can start their retirement program immediately, and then moving them over to faculty status after a few years. This procedure, in our view, is not the way to handle the issue.  Rather, since the retirement funds are already available in the colleges and in many cases in departments, we believe the University should immediately grant retirement benefits to all starting tenure-track faculty.

The Senate Committee on Faculty Affairs had asked the administration to drop this two-year waiting period for new faculty.  Unfortunately this has not, as yet, been approved. SCFA believes the waiting period puts the University at a disadvantage in recruiting.  It also believes the difference between faculty and P&A appointments in terms of initiation of retirement plans is unfair and ill-advised.

SCFA recommends to the Faculty Senate that it ask the administration and the deans to reconsider their position on this issue. In view of the importance of the first two years of contributions to the retirement plan, the Committee once again urges that the waiting period for Faculty Retirement Plan be eliminated for new tenure-track faculty. 

Adopted unanimously May 14, 2002.

DISCUSSION:

Q: From where do the funds come to support this initiative, tuition or salary increases?

A: This resolution does not include an economic impact, but each unit receives money to include benefits when hiring faculty. This is simply reaffirming an earlier resolution that was approved.

A senator commented that the budgetary impact will be different between units. Funding for benefits still resides with the faculty funding line for the first two years, but it has been at the dean’s discretion to choose what to do with those funds the past two years. The question is not where will funds be found for benefits but where will deans find funds to replace the money they have been using from faculty salary lines.

Q: What will be the timing of the inclusion? Should implementation be retroactive to the current fiscal year?

A: The Faculty Senate can propose a time to start benefits for new faculty, but it is up to the administration to approve the final start date.

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

MOTION:

To approve the following six names to stand for election to the Senate Consultative Committee/Twin Cities Assembly Steering Committee, from which one of each pair are to be elected by the Twin Cities and non-represented UMD faculty for a term of 2005-08. First pair: Professors Gary Balas and Joseph Konstan; Second Pair: Professors Mark Davison and Megan Gunnar; Third Pair: Professors Joel Weinsheimer and 1 to be named. A simple majority is required for approval.

FIRST PAIR (INSTITUTE OF TECHNOLOGY):
GARY BALAS: 1990*, Professor of Aerospace Engineering and Mechanics, Institute of Technology. University Senate member: 2004-07. Committee participation (past and present): Consultative Committee, 2002-05 (ex officio); Faculty Affairs, 1996-99; Research, 2001-07 (Chair, 2002-05).

JOSEPH KONSTAN: 1992*, Professor of Computer Science and Engineering, Institute of Technology. University Senate member: 2001-04. Committee participation (past and present): Finance and Planning, 2002-06.

SECOND PAIR (PROFESSIONAL SCHOOLS):
MARK DAVISON: 1974*, Professor of Educational Psychology, College of Education and human Development. University Senate member: 1989-92, 2003-06. Committee participation (past and present): Facilities Management Subcommittee, 1991-97 (Chair, 1993-95).

MEGAN GUNNAR: 1979*, Professor of Child Development, College of Education and Human Development. University Senate member: None. Committee participation (past and present): Committee on Committees, 2003-06; Educational Policy, 1992-96.

THIRD PAIR (COLLEGE OF LIBERAL ARTS):
TO BE NAMED: 1985*, Professor of, College of Liberal Arts. University Senate member: None. Committee participation (past and present): None.

JOEL WEINSHEIMER: 1985*, Professor of English, College of Liberal Arts. University Senate member: 2002-04. Committee participation (past and present): Classroom Advisory, 2002-05 (Chair, 2004-05); Committee on Committees, 2002-04; Council on Liberal Education, 1996-99 (Chair, 1997-99).

--------------------------------------
*Date of initial appointment at the University.

FOR INFORMATION:

The Assembly Steering Committee serves as the executive committee of the Twin Cities Campus Assembly and forms the Twin Cities membership of the Senate Consultative Committee. Senate and Assembly legislation has merged the Twin Cities faculty and non-represented UMD faculty for purposes of Senate Consultative/Assembly Steering Committee elections. Should a non-represented UMD faculty member be elected, that individual will be a member of the Senate and Faculty Senate Consultative Committees, but shall not be a member of the Assembly Steering Committee.

Additional nominations, certified as willing to stand for election, may be made by (1) petition of 12 voting members of the faculties, provided that the petition is in the hands of the Clerk of the Twin Cities Campus Assembly the day before the Twin Cities Campus Assembly meeting, and (2) nominations on the floor of the Assembly. The faculty representatives of the Twin Cities Campus Assembly shall reduce by vote the slate to twice the number to be elected.

Currently serving with terms continuing at least through next year are:

Jean Bauer, College of Human Ecology
Carol Chomsky, Law School
Dan Feeney, College of Veterinary Medicine
Scott Lanyon, College of Biological Sciences
John L. Sullivan, College of Liberal Arts

The terms of Tom Clayton (College of Liberal Arts), Mary Jo Kane (College of Education and Human Development), and Marvin Marshak (Institute of Technology) expire at the end of the academic year.

This item was withdrawn from the agenda.

President Bruininks congratulated the University Senate on approval of its reorganization plan to include academic professionals and civil service staff. This move was important and will strengthen the University community and governance.

He then turned to the legislature, noting the University is trying to mobilize citizens on its behalf. The Legislative Network is approaching 16,000 members and is an active group. A group has also been established, of Minnesota civic leaders, to help reach people of considerable influence in the legislature. He does not want to minimize the challenge this year, but there appears to be more bipartisanship. However, some stray bills do arise that require extra vigilance from the University.

On the bonding bill, the University was told that it would be hard to pass one a few months ago. The University worked hard to mobilize support and increase the Governor’s recommendation for the University. At this time the Governor’s recommendation is $104 million, the Senate recommendation is $118 million, and the House recommendation is $89 million; the University requested $158 million. These bills will go to conference committee, with a response due by late March.

He said that many times it is hard to compare the University and MnSCU figures because the University request does not include the one-third debt cost, while the MnSCU amount does. Therefore their allocation always appears greater than it actually is.

The state budget forecast was released this week and showed $235 million in additional revenue for the state. This means much to the University because the Governor’s request for the University was 85 percent of the total request. There were people in the House who wanted to allocate these dollars elsewhere, but the revenue forecast relieves some pressure. He asked that people continue to lobby for the University to continue the tradition of a strong research institution.

In closing, he said that the strategic planning process is continuing. Many people at the University are anxious to see the final document since in the University’s budget request, it proposed reallocating $45 million to cover costs and make new investments. The University committed itself to making changes, lowering operating costs, using resources more effectively, and finding new ways to align academic programs. This is not a one-time effort but rather a journey.

The report will likely ask the University community to make some changes that are in the University’slong-term academic interest and will improve academic programs. The University will continue to explore ways to leverage human and fiscal capital to improve the long-term impact. If the University hopes to continue to be what it is, and more, it must make bold and creative changes, but these will not be easy times.

Q: Since the last University Senate meeting, student governance has come together to approve a resolution on program closures, asking for more transparency and a student voice in the process. What has been the rationale to deny the student’s voice in the process and when might students be included?

A: There has been considerable transparency in the strategic planning process. Working committees were appointed to look at challenges, however, and provide him with advice on some possible actions. These reports are not finished yet; when they are completed, they will be made public. The student voice will be heard as these recommendations are discussed. The administration will, however, be making changes. Higher education is facing economic and demographic challenges that need to be met. Allowing the student voice in the process will not necessarily lead to the outcome that students want. The University cannot continue to resist change if it wants to continue to deliver quality education at a reasonable cost. All affected parties will be involved in discussions and any implementation will be done with due regard made to the needs of students. The University does not always have things right, so it is healthy to step back and assess what is being done.

Q: The University has put emphasis on interdisciplinary work, as well as undergraduate education and its ties to research. However, when teaching and research are combined with interdisciplinary work, the University encounters a fundamental problem. These academic ideals are undermined by IMG. When colleges are responsible for generating greater portions of their revenue from tuition, it becomes very difficult to have cross-collegiate collaboration. Given this problem, is this issue being discussed as part of the strategic positioning?

A: The budget model needs to be examined, and is, but this does not appear to be a fatal flaw. There will not be any changes by July. There appears to be much interdisciplinary work going on, but if there are disincentives, they will be discussed. This is not a new issue but it continues to be revisited. The University needs to encourage interdisciplinary work as part of the culture. Money is only one part, but structures are another. There are many new initiatives that cut across academic fields, but there is always room for more.

Professor Martin Sampson, Faculty Legislative Liaison, said that the legislature started the session eager to get something accomplished. The message from the last election is that the state is unhappy with what was done and not done last session. There is also a broad sense that higher education is under-funded, but so are many other things. Last year the House Capital Investment Committee was hostile and came out with a low recommendation. The committee is new this year, but the recommendation is the same. The University needs to continue to make its voice heard, which is a challenge since it does not have the breadth of districts that MnSCU has. Lastly, an email memo has started called Faculty Legislative Link, which provides background information. If a memo says alert, it is a serious time when faculty assistance is needed.

Q: How can the University reach legislators in other districts?

A: Many legislators with other political aspirations will be interested in listening to someone who might be voting for them one day. It is also important to stay in contact with conference committee members. It is always helpful to continue to remind all legislators. Students are also great to reach legislators in other districts, since they come from all areas of the state.

The meeting was adjourned at 4:12 p.m.