1

Minutes, System Governance Council meeting, April 4, 1994

SUBJECT: Minutes, System Governance Council, April 4, 1994

University of Alaska

System Governance Council

Videoconference meeting

Monday, April 4, 1994, beginning at 9:00am

MINUTES

1. Call to order and roll call

Voting members present:

Donna Chantry, Chair, System Governance Council; President, General

Assembly; President, UAS Assembly; Member, Staff Alliance

John Dede, President, UAA Assembly; President, UAA APT Council;

Member, Staff Alliance

Karen Enochs, representative and past president, UAF Staff Council;

Member, Staff Alliance

Colin Read, President-elect, for David Spell, President, UAF Faculty Senate;

Member, Alliance of Faculty Senates

Brian Brubaker for Sharon Nagy, representative, Associated Students of the

University of Alaska Fairbanks; coordinator, Coalition of Student

Leaders

John d'Armand, President, UAS Faculty Senate; Member, Alliance of

Faculty Senates

Chris Delez, President, United Students of the University of Alaska

Southeast-Juneau; member, Coalition of Student Leaders

Bonnie Williams, President, Statewide Administration Assembly; Chair,

Staff Alliance

Voting members absent:

Toni Croft, President, UAA Faculty Senate; Vice President, UAA Assembly;

Member, Alliance of Faculty Senates

Kevin Gallagher, President, Union of Students of the University of Alaska

Anchorage; Member, Coalition of Student Leaders

Others present:

Pat Ivey, Executive Officer, System Governance

Jeannine Phillips, Admin Ass't, System Governance

Wendy Redman, Vice President, University Relations

Tracy Cohen, Vice President, Union of Students of Kenai Peninsula College

Paige Adams, Vice President, United Students of UAS-Sitka

Thomas Goldston, President, Kodiak College Student Association

Rita Bowen, UAS staff representative, Resource Alternatives Task Force

2. Adopt agenda

MOTION PASSED: Moved by Dede, seconded by Karen Enochs,

passed without objection

"The System Governance Council moves to adopt the agenda for the

April 4, 1994 meeting as amended.

1. Call to order and roll call

2. Adopt agenda

3. Approve February 28, 1994 minutes

4. Council constitution

a. Panel discussion with the Coalition of Student Leaders

b. Approve Council constitution

c. Changes to proposed regulation 03.01.01 to reflect

Council constitution changes

5. WENDY REDMAN

6. Revised FY95 Council budget

8. Legislative survey questionnaire

9. Report from the governance appointees on the

Resource Alternatives Task Force

10. Report on the Open Learning Cooperative

11. Other items of concern

a. Date, time and agenda items for next meeting

12. Comments

13. Adjourn

This action is effective April 4, 1994."

3. Approve February 28, 1994 minutes

MOTION PASSED: Moved by Dede, seconded by Enochs, passed

without objection

"The System Governance Council moves to approve the minutes for

the February 28, 1994 meeting. This action is effective April 4,

1994."

4. Council constitution

a. Panel discussion with the Coalition of Student Leaders on

membership

President Chantry invited the Coalition of Student Leaders to

participate in a panel discussion on the Council Constitution;

specifically to further discuss students' need for a rural student seat on

the Coalition.

Chris Delez opened the discussions. Delez reported reading in some

faculty and staff newsletters that the fourth seat is for student rural

representation on the System Governance Council and that was not

entirely accurate. It is more accurate to say that the student leaders

are seeking that fourth seat so that all of the University of Alaska

Students can have adequate representation, not relative to faculty and

staff but rather, more adequate representation among themselves. The

Coalition does not care how many seats faculty and staff have, but the

Coalition members can feel among themselves that they are

adequately represented on the Council. If the Coalition was seeking

equal representation based on the numbers of students to faculty and

staff, there are about 35,000 students.

MOTION FAILED IN FIRST CONSIDERATION

Moved by Chris Delez, seconded by Dede for purposes of discussion,

question called by Dede after student testimony, d'Armand , Williams

objected. Read objected with the caveat that he would reintroduce

the motion after approval of the Council constitution. Lacking

consensus, the motion failed in first consideration.

"The System Governance Council approves the Coalition of Student

Leaders' proposal for four student seats on the Council to be divided

according to density as originally written, with 2 seats for schools

with more than 5,000 students, one seat for schools with 1,000-5,000

students and one seat for schools with under 1,000 students."

Tracy Cohen, Vice President of the Union of Students of Kenai

Peninsula College traveled at her own expense from Kenai to

Anchorage to testify via videoconference. Cohen testified that she

had been involved in student government for three years and

appreciated the existence of the Coalition of Student Leaders. Cohen's

testimony follows verbatim.

"Kenai has much benefitted from the information that now

flows into the USKPC office. Students across the state now

enjoy a unity that hasn't existed in my years of affiliation with

the university. I would not jeopardize the involvement in this

Coalition for any reason. I'm here today to emphasize what my

colleagues Chris Delez and Brian Brubaker have been reporting

to the Council; that is the need for a rural representative for

students on the System Governance Council. In December, the

Coalition of Student Leaders faced this issue and after much

discussion, agreed that representation by density of student

population was the fair way the problem of inadequate

representation could be handled.

Because every college and school couldn't have a position of

representation on the Council, we believe that someone from an

equal density school could represent us more adequately than

someone who has never dealt with the intricacies of a smaller

school. The missions of the small and medium density schools

are quite different. Our student populations as well are

different. The ages, life styles, educational goals, and financial

situations of those who attend small density schools are unique.

A person from a large academic unit deals with equally

important issues, yet still very different. For these reasons, I

and the rest of the Coalition believe that two representatives

from the large density schools, one representative from the

medium density schools and one from the small density schools

was an adequate way to address this problem of inadequate

representation. Many students from the large schools have

never been to rural sites. How could such an individual have

knowlege of the needs and goals at these small schools?

The Coalition of Student Leaders has gained the strength it has

because we feel that there is finally just representation for our

student population. No longer are we in the dark regarding

major decisions that stand to affect our education.

One more student seat on this Council is a small price to insure

that the student voice is well represented here. Students are the

customers, the reason for being for our university. Please listen

to us and adopt Article V of our charter. We are, as a group of

11-plus schools in majority agreement that this is a good

solution for us.

Thomas Goldston, President, Kodiak College Student Association,

thanked the Council for the opportunity to participate in the

videoconference by audio link. He reiterated Cohen's remarks

specific to adequate representation of rural campuses on the System

Governance Council. This issue has been discussed extensively

among the Coalition of Student Leaders and came out of the student

legislative conference in February in consensus for requesting the

additional student seat on the Council for rural campuses, recognizing

that it does require some additional looking at representation and the

issues the Council plans to deal with, and in recognition of the efforts

the Council has made to date to go ahead and get the Council

constitution in place and ratified. The Coalition feels that the addition

of the rural seat would not take away from, but add to, the

effectiveness of the Council with respect to addressing the wide

variety of needs and issues for the university. The large schools have

specific agendas that they are dealing with relative to their student

bodies. Coalition members are not stating that they do not feel that

large school representatives could not, in a very general way, talk

about some of the concerns and issues of the rural campuses, yet at the

same time the Coalition collectively feels that that responsibility

would be more appropriately placed on someone that is actively

involved in rural campus education and development issues.

Paige Adams, Vice President, United Students of the University of

Alaska Southeast-Sitka, said that Cohen and Thomas said it very well.

Adams reported she was participating even though it was her spring

break. Adams said she was experiencing that the Fairbanks and

Anchorage campuses handle their affairs differently, specifically how

students are registered is handled differently than at Sitka. When

talking about important issues, Adams could see how the rural

representation comes into play because rural schools treat their

students so differently from the larger campuses, and wished that the

Council would provide representation for the rural schools statewide.

Colin Read suggested moving to approve the Council constitution first

so that the role of the Council as that of coordinating and

communicating was made official. Once that is done, Read suspected

that faculty would have no problem accepting the Coalition proposal.

Read said the faculty's largest concern had been when the Council had

been perceived as a powerful body and had the ability to make

egislation over and above the Alliances and the Coalition.

MOTION TO RESCONSIDER PREVIOUS MOTION PASSED

Moved by Read, seconded by Dede, objection by Williams, the

motion passed.

"The System Governance Council moves to reconsider the previous

motion. This action is effective April 4, 1994."

Dede asked the opposing members to restate their positions so they

can be understood.

John d'Armand said he was sorry his point of view wasn't understood

because he had made it as strongly as he possibly could. He feels the

rural students should be represented on the Coalition, to the Council

through the current number of student representatives. He said he

wished that he had put this on the agenda for his last faculty senate

meeting so he could really come to the Council representing the UAS

Faculty Senate.

Delez said students testifiying today don't feel this is the case. He

asked if d'Armand was telling the students he had a better

understanding of what it takes to have adequate representation than

they do. d'Armand responded that if they are not represented

adequately to the Council, it is the fault of the representatives they

have chosen to the Council, or they have not made their points clear to

their representatives. He didn't feel that everyone would feel totally

represented no matter how many representatives they had.

Brubaker said the Coalition feels that to be representational on the

Council, the density schematic was needed and not the age-old form

of using MAU's as the designator because it doesn't work.

Williams agreed with d'Armand's position and added she was opposed

it because the Council constitution was designed on certain

philosophical and political premises, one of which was three

representatives from each MAU and one from Statewide. Of the three

from each academic MAU, one was to be faculty, one staff and one

student. If the door is open to a rural student, then a rural staff will be

needed and a rural faculty, and a host of other needs and the whole

design will be changed. Williams said if the design is to be changed,

the entire constitution needs to be reconsidered.

Brubaker reiterated that MAU's don't matter to students and that the

students representing large urban campuses are the best qualified to to

communicate rural issues.

MOTION TO TABLE-FAILED Moved by Brubaker, seconded by

Read

YES NO ABSTAIN

Read Chantry No abstentions

Brubaker Dede

Delez Enochs

Williams d'Armand

MOTION FAILED ON RECONSIDERATION Moved by Read,

seconded by Dede, motion failed because consensus is required

for amendments involving membership rights.

YES NO ABSTAIN

Chantry d'Armand No abstentions

Dede Williams

Enochs

Read

Brubaker

Delez

"The System Governance Council approves the Coalition of Student

Leaders' proposal for four student seats on the Council to be divided

according to density as originally written, with 2 seats for schools

with more than 5,000 students, one seat for schools with 1,000-5,000

students and one seat for schools with under 1,000 students."

The Council also moved that closure had been reached on the issue.

Dede asked what the next steps were. Brubaker explained that the

Coalition had already decided, that failing success within the

Coalition, Regent Otterbacher would be sent to speak to the President

regarding this issue.

b. Approve Council constitution

Williams opposed the constitution as amended, because the role of the

Council as amended so that all the Council does is get together and

talk defeats the purpose of the Council. Given the fact that budgets are

going to decline and keep on declining, she asked how the Council

could justify continuing just for the purposes of just getting together

and talking. She thought that the first action should be the disbanding

of the Council because it serves no purpose. She said the Council had

to have some authority; that the authority to talk is no authority.

Read responded that the Council had more authority than that.

Brubaker asked what the Council do and how did the administration

view the Council if not as a very important lobbying group. Beyond

that, he didn't think the Council was viewed as an effective

organization to set academic policy or to change the budget in any

way.

Donna Chantry reiterated what she was told when she talked with the

president and with Regent Sharon Gagnon about the role of the

Council, that they both stressed to her that the Council has an

important function which is to coordinate between the groups and that

the Council will in turn be speaking with the president on a number of

occasions and with members of administration and with the regents on

matters that affect the university , and perhaps in the future, taking on

a stronger role.

John d'Armand said he understood Williams' concerns, that to talk

sounds weak but at his last UAS Faculty Senate meeting he had on the

agenda System Governance where he had a review. He thinks it is

important for him, as faculty senate president at UAS, to know what is

happening with the students and with the staff and with the university

as a whole, and the Council is the best medium for doing that. Even

though the Council doesn't pass legislation for the university,

d'Armand felt it was an effective body of communication.

Brubaker felt that if the Council was going to be important, it would

have to take on important issues, not because it enables itself to do

things importantly.

Dede felt the quandary was that each one of the Alliances and the

Coalition don't wish to be cut out of any substantive discussion or

actions on important issues. Therefore, the perception is that there

isn't anything left over for the Council to do that doesn't fall under the

purview of any of the other groups. That may be the case, Dede said,

but he wasn't totally convinced of that because if it was possible to

forge a consensus position among all of the groups, the Council

would be the only way to make it happen. Dede asked if there was a

unique area of purview for the Council, other than communication

between the other groups. He felt the Council as a coordinating body

was very important and didn't think coordination was just limited to

talking about things. He thought it was possible to pass motions

through the Council and speak with a voice that could be heard by the

regents, in some ways, to supplement the other voices. Dede said he

couldn't detail exactly what that was yet, and agreed that the Council

is going to evolve depending on the kinds of issues the Council

chooses to talk about.

Read said that perhaps for the purposes of keeping the Council

functioning, why not agree to something everyone can accept, namely

the constitution as amended at the last meeting, and the proposed

regulation changes today, and then if the mission of the Council

needed to be modified later, it could be done at that time.

MOTION PASSED: Moved by Dede, seconded by Read, passed with

4 yes, 3 no, and 1 abstention.

YES NO ABSTAIN

Chantry Brubaker d'Armand

Dede Delez

Enochs Williams

Read

"The System Governance Council moves to approve the Council

constitution as amended February 28. This action is effective

April 4, 1994."

c. Changes to proposed regulation 03.01.01 to reflect Council

constitution changes

Mike Mayberry asked if the role could be changed to read "make

recommendations on" instead of "discuss". Read thought that would

take a change to the Council constitution which was just ratified. Ivey

concurred.

Delez thought the vote to amend the constitution should have been by

a two thirds majority per Robert's Rules. Read said that was for

amendments not for approval of the whole document. Delez said it

should be by consensus with no negative vote because the whole

constitution affects membership rights. Williams thought that Delez

was right. Read reiterated that applied for amendments but not for

approval of the whole document. Williams thought that was incorrect,

that approval of the whole constitution affected membership rights

and therefore required consensus.

Chris Delez indicated that, according to Robert's Rules, Section 53,

the adoption of the constitution and/or bylaws through which a society

is brought into being requires only a majority vote. However,

amending the constitution or bylaws typically requires a two-thirds

vote.

Brubaker said that the motion on the table referred to university

regulation, not the constitution, therefore only a majority vote applied.

MOTION PASSED: (Moved by Dede, seconded by Read, objected to

by Williams, motion passed)

"The System Governance Council moves to approve changes to draft

regulation 03.01.01, section 2 as follows.

CAPS = additions

(( )) = deletions

2. Purposes

GOVERNANCE GROUPS MAY ADOPT ANY OR ALL OF

THESE PURPOSES, INCLUDING:

a. providing an effective opportunity for university employees to

play a meaningful role in matters affecting their welfare;

b. representing the viewpoints of university faculty, staff, and

students on Regents Policy, university regulations and other

matters affecting the interests of the University;

c. addressing through legislative action other matters as described

in their approved constitutions;

d. advise the president and chancellors of the University in a

timely fashion and in a manner set forth in individual

organizational constitutions; and

e. communicate to faculty, staff and students information which is

of interest and concern to the University.

This action is effective April 4, 1994."

MOTION PASSED: Moved by Read, seconded by Dede, objected to

by Williams and Brubaker, motion passed.

CAPS = additions

(( )) = deletions

"The System Governance Council moves to approve changes to draft

regulation 03.01.01, section 3 as follows.

3. Responsibilities and Roles

a. The System Governance Council

((The primary responsibility of the System Governance Council

is to represent the viewpoints of faculty, staff and students of

the University to the President and the Board of Regents in

matters including, but not limited to the following: policies and

procedures for the university budget process; the framing of

long range plans; university development; enhancing the

university's public image and educating the public; and other

matters affecting the general welfare of the university and its

educational purposes and effectiveness. The Council may seek

input from other governance groups on issues within its

responsibilities, but is not bound by them.)) THE COUNCIL

SHALL PROVIDE AN OPPORTUNITY FOR FACULTY,

STAFF AND STUDENTS TO INTERACT WITH THE

UNIVERSITY PRESIDENT, REGENTS AND OTHERS

REGULARLY TO DISCUSS MATTERS INCLUDING, BUT

NOT LIMITED TO, THE FOLLOWING: POLICIES AND

PROCEDURES FOR, AND PARTICIPATING IN, THE

UNIVERSITY BUDGET PROCESS; THE FRAMING OF

LONG RANGE PLANS; UNIVERSITY DEVELOPMENT;

ENHANCING THE UNIVERSITY'S PUBLIC IMAGE AND

EDUCATING THE PUBLIC. THE COUNCIL SHALL

COMMUNICATE THE RESULTS OF THOSE

DISCUSSIONS TO THE UNIVERSITY COMMUNITY. THE

COUNCIL MAY ALSO COORDINATE MATTERS OF

MUTUAL CONCERN TO THE ALLIANCE OF FACULTY

SENATES, THE STAFF ALLIANCE AND THE COALITION

OF STUDENT LEADERS.

This action is effective April 4, 1994."

5. Wendy Redman

Wendy Redman reported that the House Finance Committee was

supposed to have completed their budget work on Thursday, but did

not. The House Finance Committee accepted the subcommittee

proposal which includes the intent notes and a $700,000 unallocated

reduction. The intent notes for the past three years have been vetoed

by the governor, but the university tends to pay close attention to the

intent notes because they are valid representations of issues and

concerns of the legislature and most are consistent with the direction

n which the university is already headed.

The House Finance Committee wants the WAMI program at UAA

eliminated. It is expected that the WAMI program will, however, be

restored, either by the House Finance Committee or in the Senate.

However, the future of the WAMI program in terms of what will

happen next year and thereafter is still somewhat in question. It is

hoped that there will be an interim legislative committee this summer

to study the policy and academic questions involved. It's an expensive

program with the state contributing about $2.5 million total for that

program between the university and the Department of Education.

The university did much better than expected in the House and about

as well positioned as could be at this point. The subcommittee was

extraordinarily good, especially Terry Martin and John Davies.

Martin did a very good job of highlighting the issues in the

subcommittee report that can be used to defend the university budget.

The Senate Finance Committee will probably develop budget caps late

his week and is looking at a $2.5 million reduction for the university.

The Senate caucus is looking at a $5.0 million reduction; the same

reductions that Representative Larson proposed.

All of the university's reductions have been unallocated reductions,

meaning that it is up to the Board of Regents to determine how those

will be distributed.

The legislature has not yet begun to talk about a capitol budget, either

in the House or the Senate. Discussions may start in the House by the

end of this week.

The deferred maintenance bond bill is sitting in House Finance

waiting until the operating budget is completed. The final disposition

on the bond bill will depend on what the overall budget package is.

There is a lot of support for the deferred maintenance bond bill, but it

is a matter of where the money is going to come from. It does depend

on annual appropriations for debt service (which is close to $7 million

this year) over the next 30 years to pay off the debt service on it. It's a

long term committment and people are very nervous about it right

now.

The lands bill, SB217 should be up in the Senate tomorrow or

Wednesday. SB217 would add 1 million acres to the university's land

grant. That bill has become the center of a controversy over who

should manage state lands. Read added that environmental groups

want responsible logging practices and SB217 is being confused with

SB310 which has generated the greatest controversy. The university

is actually looking for lands with gravel, other minerals and

recreational kinds of properties, and not timber lands.

Regarding the Open Meetings bill, , the university, Alaska Press Club,

League of Women Voters and the Alaska Municipal League worked

all last summer trying to develop a compromise that everyone would

feel comfortable with. Some senators have a problem with extending

the law to subcommittees of subcommittees. All university

committees are covered by Regents' policy and university regulations

that go beyond the Open Meetings Law. The university supports the

idea that all subcommittees of the governance bodies should be

subject to the Open Meetings law.

Read said he would like all meetings of the university to be open to

the public with notice posted. Redman said the current Open

Meetings law excludes staff meetings. The proposed new law also

excludes staff meetings and evaluation-type committees such as those

for promotion and tenure.

Redman responded that the purpose of the Open Meetings law is to

get at the governance bodies. At the university, this has been

extended to governance groups and public advisory committees that

include members of the public. It does not include wholly advisory

committees like the President's staff, but should apply to other kinds

of groups. For instance if the president sets up a group such as the

Resource Alternatives Task Force, that group should definitely be

subject to the policies and regulations which, for bodies which include

only university employees, notice provisions are amended to include

notice within the university but not to the public. Redman said that if

there are meetings that are not being properly noticed, she would be

interested in knowing that.

Redman said the student loan reform bill had been introduced in both

the House and the Senate, is in the finance committees and is expected

to pass. The subcommittee and the HESS Committee of the House

was very impressed with the testimony of the students on this bill,

especially Paige Adams from Sitka, and the thoughtful work by the

Student Coalition and the fact that, rather than lobbying for a

reduction in the interest rate, testified that they had spent four or five

hours talking about the issue and their conclusion was that they really

wanted to protect the student loan fund for the future, and in order to

do that, they were advocating a floating interest rate that would float

with the prime.

It's important over the next two to three weeks to garner support

outside the university. The legislators are very attentive right now to

what the public thinks the priorities for funding should be. Legislators

have received three letters from disgruntled university employees who

are advocating cutting the university budget, and these have been

circulated widely.

5. Revised FY95 Council budget

At the last meeting, the Council reduced its budget request to $11,000

and directed the executive officer to prepare alternative budget

scenarios for discussion at this meeting. Dede said one scenario

would allow for four videoconferences and four audioconferences

fitting into the total of $3,000 which is consistent with the

constitutionally required number of meetings and would also would

enable the Council to do its business effectively. Chantry said it was

her assumption that if there was to be an on-site meeting with the

president, the Council would look to him to support that.

6. Legislative survey questionnaire

The General Assembly has conducted a survey of legislative and

when appropriate gubernatorial candidates every election year since

1986. Results are published and shared with the university

community and with the respondents to facilitate further dialogue. As

a result, numbers of respondents have increased over the years as well

as the number of candidates who have attended the university, and

who have had or have currently family members attending the

university. Knowledge of the university has increased among

candidates and the dialogue between all levels of the university and

the state's governor and legislature has increased. On February 28,

1994, the Council took over the survey. The survey is generally

conducted immediately after the primary elections and results

published in late September or early October.

The executive officer was directed to draft the survey questionaire for

consideration at the next meeting.

7. Report from the governance appointees on the Resource

Alternatives Task Force

Colin Read, Mike Mayberry and Rita Bowen attended the March 31

and April 1 meetings of the task force. Read reported that the sessions

he attended were extremely productive with lots of brainstorming and

developed about 15-20 points on revenue enhancement and an equal

number of points. Participants then fleshed out these points in some

detail and came out with a strategy to pursue which the task force is

now trying to quantify and get exact numbers on how feasible they are

to implement and the expected savings. The recommendations were

broad-reaching. The task forces expects, at a cursory glance, to save

the university system many millions of dollars. The theme was to

decentralize and stimulate local entrepreneurial spirit. Read also

shared some of the results with Regent Gagnon, who was very

pleased. Mayberry thought Read's report covered everything. Bowen

said the next step was to carry the recommendations to constituents

and get comments.

8. Report on the Open Learning Cooperative

The Open Learning Cooperative (OLC) project is lead by UAS

chancellor Marshall Lind and staffed by April Crosby, Assistant to the

President. The Open Learning Cooperative Board is preparing a

catalog of distance delivered courses that will hopefully be ready for

use fall semester, 1994 and has several subcommittees working on

various aspects of the project.

No one was present to report on the Open Learning Cooperative.

Chantry will invite Marshall Lind to participate in the next Council

meeting.

9. Other items of concern

a. Date, time and agenda items for next meeting

April 25, 1994, 9:00-11:00am via audioconference [changed to

April 29 to accommodate the president's schedule]

Agenda items include:

* Call to order and roll call

* Adopt agenda

* Approve minutes

* President Komisar

* Chancellor Lind

* Action items

* Discussion items

* Summer operations and FY95 meeting calendar

10. Comments -There were no additional comments.

11. Adjourn - The meeting adjourned at 11:00am.