Student Life Committee Minutes
September 14, 2000
Present: Kris Bartanen, Ana-Megan Babin, Brett Broek, Jim Jasinski, Tonya Jones,
Diane Kelley, Geoff Proehl, Carrie Washburn
Assistant Academic Dean Carrie Washburn convened the meeting at 8am. The two students who
were unable to come to the first meeting were welcomed and introduced. Washburn informed the
committee that Prof. Heather Douglas will not be on the committee this semester due to health
problems. Washburn is working on finding a faculty replacement for her. In Douglas’ absence,
Prof. Jim Jasinski graciously agreed to serve as chair for the fall semester, and Prof. Geoff Proehl
agreed to chair the committee in the spring if need be.
Jasinski proceeded to the first order of business. The committee reviewed the exemplary
minutes of the last meeting prepared by Dean of Students Kris Bartanen. Three spelling/typing
errors were found and Bartanen will correct them and send out the final minutes to the committee
and to <facultycoms>.
As the Faculty Senate is now examining the Faculty Code and not the charges put before it by
this committee, the committee assumes the charges will indeed remain the same: the Integrity
Code and student access to information regarding campus life.
ASUPS Senator Brett Broek informed the committee that ASUPS is forming an ad hoc committee
on the Integrity Code revisions, and Jasinski suggested this committee coordinate with the
ASUPS ad hoc committee. Bartanen’s draft materials from the DOS staff regarding possible
revisions to the conduct process will be discussed during the next meeting.
Regarding the second order of business, to examine student access to information regarding
campus life, Jasinski suggested we list some of the possible vehicles of communication.
The Logger – Bartanen pointed out some of the improvements made in this year’s Logger.
Washburn suggested identifying some of the resources on p. 140. Broek pointed out that ASUPS
is making efforts to better inform off-campus students of campus resources and activities through
magnets, calendars, publicity.
Other vehicles of information thought of by the committee include the Trail, KUPS, What’s UPS
(x3316), the campus website, kiosks, the Info Desk. Bartanen also added Pipeline, a new
monthly newsletter to off-campus students that will be mailed with the ASUPS calendar. Prof.
Diane Kelley added that her students would like to see one central place where all information
regarding current campus events and meetings is posted.
When asked by Washburn if it was easy to find out about information, the students present
agreed that yes, it was, but consensus was that the new website is difficult to navigate and it
seems more geared to prospective rather than current students. Kelley suggested a link to the
Tattler from the main UPS page.
Jasinski put forth a way to classify the types of communication the committee was examining. 1)
Information regarding activities (student groups, lectures, music events, etc) and 2) Information
regarding services offered to students. In addition to the dissemination of information regarding
activities and services, he also asked about feedback mechanisms.
Washburn asked what the ASUPS vehicle for disseminating information is. Broek said there are
ASUPS senator reports. General consensus is that the Trail is not a good vehicle for
dissemination of information since the editors can decide what to publish and what not to publish.
Regarding feedback, Ana-Megan Babin said that students often go straight to the ASUPS people
in charge and therefore those same few people become inundated. The committee agreed that
we could ask what feedback mechanisms students know of in focus groups or in surveys.
Prof. Geoff Proehl thought that an informational sheet telling students where to go with feedback
would be helpful, comparing this sheet to the one given out by Jack Roundy to advisors.
Washburn added that this same information in a page in the Logger would be helpful too.
Jasinski stated that the committee should examine two items: 1) Feedback mechanisms
themselves and 2) How do students know where to go to give feedback? Proehl added a third
that Jasinski would include in his #2: the structural problems of communication or how decisions
get made.
Broek brought up a problem with focus groups as a means of getting student feedback: the same
active students would be involved in the focus groups, and therefore results would not be
representative of the whole student body. Jasinski asked how we should identify and create
these groups. Bartanen suggested using the residence halls and RAs. Babin, Broek and Tonya
Jones agreed that this would be a good idea.
Babin is an RA, and when asked by Jasinski what kinds of questions RA get asked, she replied
that although she does get questions regarding ResNet, phones, tranportation, etc., she has
gotten far fewer questions than she thought she would. When Jasinski asked if students often
use the Logger, all three students said very rarely, but they often use the UPS website. The
committee agreed that the Logger is very good for legal information.
Proehl suggested using Faculty Advising groups that will meet in a few weeks to do an informal
survey.
While the Freshman Packet gives students a lot of information, Bartanen suggested that perhaps
some of the information should be delivered at midterm with, as Babin added, more specific
information. Washburn added that perhaps there should be a webpage with all of the information
in the Freshman Packet on it.
Jasinski concluded the meeting by asking each committee member to come up with a question to
be included on the survey that the committee would give 4 or 5 advisors to administer to their
advisees. Babin added that specific questions are better than more general ones.
In the next meeting, the committee plans to discuss these questions as well as the Integrity Code
revisions after reading the document provided by Bartanen and DOS.
The committee adjourned at 8:50.
Prepared by Diane Kelley