Council of Illinois University Senates

Minutes of March 29, 2004 Meeting

At Illinois State University

Normal, Illinois

(Includes Appendices)

Approved 11/15/04

Present: Phil Beverly, Chicago State University, Barb Lawrence, Eastern Illinois University, Lane Crothers, Illinois State University, Suzanne Willis, Northern Illinois University, Joel Hardman, Southern Illinois University-Edwardsville, Nancy O’Brien, University of Illinois-Urbana/Champaign, Matt Blankenship, Western Illinois University, Stephen Bragg, Vice President of Finance and Planning at Illinois State University

Morning Session

I. Call to Order and Opening Remarks: Illinois State University Senate Chairperson Lane Crothers called the Council of Illinois University Senates (CIUS) meeting to order at 9:30 a.m. Introductions were made and Stephen Bragg, ISU Vice President of Finance and Planning, made opening remarks. Dr. Bragg spoke about the financial implications for public higher education in regard to the state budget dilemma. He informed the Council that approximately 30 years ago, ISU hovered around $140 million in what are considered “discretionary funds”, which is the general revenue tax and the income fund from tuition. ISU is now receiving about $74 million from the state and will be taking in about $66 million from the students. ISU has had to replace the loss in state funding with tuition increases.

Dr. Bragg further stated that, politically, public higher education is losing power, influence and authority and is superceded by community colleges and other coalitions. A role that university Senates can play is to help restore some of the coordination and cohesiveness. If this Council decides that it wants to spend the time and energy on these issues, it must begin to learn the system of politics. The best people to invite to meetings such as this are government liaisons, who are affiliated with the university and interact at the state level on our behalf. They can translate the language of the university to the state legislature. You should also carve out some of your Senate times to discuss the future of state funding, recognizing that, inevitability, some things are going to change and to try and salvage essential university priorities.

Professor O’Brien asked about the difference between the MAP awards to public institutions versus private institutions. Dr. Bragg responded that public universities should not waste their time on state support to private institutions. There is a longstanding leadership and tradition in the General Assembly in support of funding private higher education. More important issues are tenure, curriculum control and faculty productivity and workload. All of those things are seriously threatened.

Professor Beverly asked how public higher education could put its case forward. Professor Bragg responded that, first, it is understanding what is possible by doing the political analysis and understanding what the competition is. The focus now is K-12. Every legislator has multiple K-12 schools within their districts, but the public universities are in the minority because there are only nine legislators that have a public university within their districts. We have key individuals with whom we need to establish relationships. We need to get a small group of members of the General Assembly to understand and become advocates for public higher education. It doesn’t take much. For example, last year a bill was introduced to appropriate the income fund (tuition money) to the state and then re-appropriate those funds back to the institutions. However, we retained control of those funds through our legislative relationships and lobbying efforts.

Professor Beverly stated that the intrinsic value of higher ed—education for education’s sake—does not seem evident to legislators. Professor Bragg responded that this should not be discouraging. The main focus may be jobs, but there is good evidence that those who attain higher education invest more and use less health services. So, there is an economic argument to be made.

Professor Hardman suggested trying to capture as many legislative districts as possible by having extension university programs in each district. Professor Crothers noted that some community colleges are beginning to do that by offering four-year degrees. Professor Bragg concluded that we should not dissipate our energies on internal governance disputes—that is not to minimize those issues—but should concentrate on building coalitions and presenting a united front to the legislature on public policy for higher education.

II. Approval of Minutes of Council of Illinois University Senates of September 19, 2003
Motion: By Professor Crothers, seconded by Professor Willis, to approve the Council of Illinois University Senates Minutes of September 19, 2003. The minutes were unanimously approved.

III. Issues Pending from Prior CIUS Meetings:

A. Status of Ratification of CIUS Resolutions/Motions at Illinois Public Universities

1. Employee Health Insurance Benefits Resolution/Motion

a. CIUS Drafted CMS Health Insurance Benefits Resolution October 2002; CIUS Approved CMS Health Insurance Benefits Motion on 3/21/03
The Council discussed the CMS resolution regarding the state decrease in funding for state employee health insurance benefits drafted by CIUS in October 2002. Professor Crothers reported that ISU’s Senate had tabled the issue pending further analysis. He asked if the Council wanted to continue to work on this within its individual Senates. The resolution requested CMS to reallocate funds deducted from public university budgets for employee health insurance benefits back to the universities. Professor O’Brien stated that it was not worth discussing any further because the money is not coming back to the universities. Professor Blakenship suggested that the Council at least stay vocal on the issue in the event that CMS requests more funding from university budgets for health insurance benefits. Professor Crothers stated that the benefits packages are negotiated through CMS, so it might be appropriate to remove the resolution from the agenda and develop an alternative statement that focuses on participation in negotiations. Professor Crothers agreed to draft an alternate resolution to forward to the various Senates for consideration. Professor Willis recommended that universities first consult with ASFME before developing a resolution concerning negotiation. Professor Crothers suggested inviting an ASFME representative to discuss such negotiations at Senate meetings in the fall.

b. Domestic Partner Benefits - CIUS Previously Discussed on 9/19/03
Professor Crothers reported that ISU had endorsed the Domestic Partner Benefits Resolution; Professor Hardman stated that this resolution would go before the SIU-E Board of Trustees. Professor Blankenship stated that WIU’s Senate supported the resolution and that it was now in the hands of the chancellor. He added that he was unsure if the chancellor would support it because of the costs. Professor O’Brien noted that the cost for these benefits is minimal; however, what is offered is also minimal. Professor Willis reported that the gay and lesbian community was not in support of the U of I model because the benefits were too minimal; those individuals wanted to wait for full benefits.

The majority of university Senates has approved resolutions for domestic partner benefits. Most Senates were in favor of heterosexual domestic partner benefits, but some Senate members were unconvinced that same-sex domestic partner benefits should be offered.

2. Voting Representation on IBHE by Faculty Advisory Council Representative

CIUS Previously Approved an IBHE-FAC Voting Representative Motion on 3/21/03
Professor Crothers updated the Council on establishing voting representation on the IBHE by an FAC Representative. State Representative Dan Brady addressed the Academic Senate at ISU and briefly discussed a bill pending that would bar a state or federal employee from serving on any state board. Therefore, no public university or community college representative could serve on the IBHE or the Board of Trustees. Professor Crothers asked if the Council should pursue this issue. Professor Beverly concluded that it would not be productive to do so, as the IBHE has lost an enormous amount of influence. Professor Willis recommended the removal of this item from the Council’s agenda but that the Council monitor the pending bill. The Council agreed to request each of its Faculty Advisory Council Representatives to also monitor the issue closely.

3. State Control of Tuition Monies
CIUS Previously Approved a Motion Concerning Retention of University Control of Tuition Monies on 3/21/03
In 2003, a bill was introduced to appropriate the income fund (tuition dollars) to the state and then re-appropriate those funds back to the institutions. However, universities retained control of the income fund. Professor Crothers said that the retention of control was almost a case study in effective lobbying. Apparently, most universities sent student representatives, as well as off-campus representatives, to the state legislature to lobby for the university control of tuition dollars. The student representatives, particularly, proved to very be effective in lobbying this issue. Though control of tuition monies was retained by the universities, universities should continue to monitor the issue very closely.

4. “Comprehensive Statement on the Impact of State Monies to Private Institutions and the Impact of Budget Cuts” Resolution
CIUS Resolution Drafted Spring 2002
The Council discussed its comprehensive statement on the impact of state monies to private institutions, drafted by the Council in the spring of 2002. Eastern, Western and Illinois State University Senates have endorsed this resolution. Professor O’Brien reported that the UIUC Senate had discussed the issue with its FAC Representative and the administration and had concluded that it is not worth pursuing. It was the opinion at UIUC that if funding to private universities was eliminated, public universities could not accommodate the number of students coming to them from private institutions. Professor Crothers stated that he gave no credence to that argument; instead, he was in favor of a suggestion to cap the maximum award for private institutions at the same level as the maximum award for public universities. The Council agreed to remove the item from its agenda.

B. Interpretation of Truth in Tuition Law for Upper Division/Lower Division Students

(SIU-C Representative Requested Interpretation at CIUS Meeting of 9/19/03)
(See Appendix A for “Truth in Tuition Law”)

The Truth in Tuition Law compels public universities to maintain the same rate of tuition for incoming students for four years. However, the law does not apply to graduate students. Professor Willis added that this law also does not apply to fees. Professor Crothers noted that though ISU does not charge differential tuition for programs, other institutions do. At those universities, if a student transferred to a different major, that student would be charged the freshman rate for that program. Professor Blakenship reported that WIU had guaranteed a rate for fees and tuition, but it also had imposed a 16% increase in tuition. Professor Hardman indicated that students who drop out of a university and reenter would be negatively impacted, as they would be charged the new, higher entry-level tuition. Professor Crothers suggested that as long as inflation is low, universities could achieve approximately the same amount of income as they do now. Professor Beverly reported that there is some animosity about the law because some students, especially non-traditional students, may not be able to complete their education within the four-year period during which the rate of tuition would remain the same. Professor Willis recommended monitoring the effects of the law over the next several years. Professor Crothers asked for volunteers to develop a statement on the issue during the summer and suggested addressing the topic again at the next CIUS meeting.

C. CIUS Organizational Concerns

1. Drafting of CIUS Bylaws - CIUS Previously Discussed Bylaws on 4/5/01, 9/23/02 and 3/21/03

2. CIUS Bylaws Steering Committee Formed on 3/21/03

As yet, no bylaws have been drafted for CIUS. This is particularly important in light of the question of whether the Council will raise money for advertising costs. At this point, only SIU-C has raised any money. No details were available for the proposed bank account to be established for the Council, as proposed by former SIU-C Senate Chairperson Donna Post. Professor Crothers asked if raising money for advertisements and lobbying was appropriate. He noted that the Council has written resolutions and papers and recommended that the Council should get this information published in the local and area newspapers, such as the Chicago Tribune, through the on-campus media liaisons. This might be an easier way to get public university concerns to the public instead of through fundraising for advertising costs. The Council concluded that fundraising was not appropriate for this body and access to news organizations would be done through on-campus media relations. Professor Crothers also noted that, as there is a great deal of turnover as Senate chairs change, bylaws would be useful to establish some sense of what the Council does. Professors Crothers, Willis and O’Brien agreed to investigate the existence of other bodies such as CIUS and perhaps use those bylaws as models for creating bylaws for the Council.

D. Status of Faculty Attendance at “IBHE Big Picture Meetings”

CIUS Previously Discussed on 9/19/03
The IBHE staff visits each university once a year for what is called its “Big Picture Meeting”, a meeting in which the IBHE presents the state budgetary situation and state education policies; university priorities are discussed and feedback is solicited by the IBHE for consideration in its appropriation recommendations. Apparently, many Senate Chairpersons/Presidents are not invited to these meetings. The Council agreed that the Senate Chairpersons/Presidents should be included in the meetings. Those who have not been included will ask their administrations to formerly invite a Senate faculty representative to the Big Picture Meetings. Professor Crothers suggested that each Council member request his/her IBHE Faculty Advisory Council Representative to bring this issue to the forefront of the IBHE’s attention, especially if the idea is rejected by university administrations. If these routes are unsuccessful, the Council will consider other options. Council members who attend these meetings would be obligated to discuss the issues raised with their respective Senates. Members will provide updates on the status of invitations to the Big Picture Meetings at the next CIUS meeting.

IV. University Exclusive Agreements with Commercial Vendors
Professor Willis reported that NIU receives approximately $500,000 from commercial vendor contracts; most of the money from these contracts is used for scholarships. Recently, a state law was passed prohibiting exclusive contracts with commercial vendors on campus. Universities would be prohibited from forming new exclusive agreements after the current contracts expire. Professor Blakenship inquired about how to find out more about this bill. Professor Willis replied that it is currently state policy and that she would forward information to CIUS members about where to find the policy on the web. Professor Crothers noted that, apparently, there has been some language added to a recent bill, which excludes the right to add environmental language to the vending contracts. He reported that ISU is trying to get vendors to voluntarily include environmental policies within their contracts. Professor Crothers recommended that the Senates monitor the effects of the new law.

V. State Board Governing Tenure – Proposed Legislation
Professor Crothers made the Council aware that the proposed legislation regarding the creation of a state board governing tenure had been indefinitely tabled. The legislation was brought forth by Representative Monique Davis based on allegations that a faculty member was unjustly denied tenure. The proposed bill would establish a board to set tenure requirements and each tenure appointment or denial would have to be approved by that board. However, as the bill has been tabled, Professor Davis’ proposed alternative is an appeal process at the state level if tenure is denied at the university level.

Professor Willis stated that it was imperative to establish a tenure appeal board at the university level rather than having a state board setting the rules. Professor Beverly also affirmed that public universities should get ahead of the curve in addressing problems with tenure rather than leaving it to the state to make these decisions. Professor Crothers reported that ISU’s Senate is working a post-tenure review process that would tie in with annual evaluations and ensure resources for remediation. Several Council members confirmed that their respective universities already have or in the midst of establishing tenure review processes. Professor Blankenship stated that he could see the wisdom of being proactive and demonstrating accountability, but with quite a number of newer faculty at WIU who are naïve about these post-tenure problems, faculty members would probably be upset about establishing a post-tenure review process. Professor O’Brien countered that the administration had informed the EIU faculty that if they did not establish a post-tenure review process, one would be established for them, perhaps at the state level. Other Council members acknowledged that annual reviews continued after tenure was granted, but the reviews were not referred to as post-tenure reviews and perhaps should be renamed. The Council will provide updates on the status of the post-tenure review processes at each university at the next Council meeting and monitor any future related proposed legislation.

VI. USA Patriot Act – Resolution Drafted/Approved by Cal State University-Monterey Bay Senate
(See Appendix B for USA Patriot Act Resolution from Cal State University)
The ISU Academic Senate Office received a resolution by e-mail, drafted and endorsed by Cal State University at Monterey Bay (CSUMB), which requested the Cal State administration to clarify its compliance with the USA Patriot Act. Professor Crothers stated that ISU’s Senate Executive Committee had discussed the resolution and decided that it would work with administration to first get a sense of what is actually being done on campus. The Executive Committee would like to know if any issues have arisen on campus concerning the Act, and, if so, how they were dealt with. Professor Crothers stated that the question had arisen about what kind of training student workers would be provided if they were placed in a scenario in which a warrant was presented for records. He reported that at ISU, student workers would be given a list of administrative/legal on-campus contacts to call should such an event occur. ISU’s President has agreed to talk to the Senate once the administration and legal counsel have sorted out the policy shifts. Professor Crothers inquired as to what kind of policies existed on other campuses for federal requests for university records. Professor O’Brien informed the Council that UIUC’s Academic Freedom and Tenure Committee is exploring the Patriot Act and its implications on campus in consultation with the relevant administrative bodies. She stated that she doubted this examination would lead to the development of any resolution similar to that from Cal State, which states that Cal State would not abide by the Act because of the legal ramifications. Professor Beverly said that Chicago State is considering an on-campus audit that would include, for example, whether or not on-campus librarians would even be able to say whether or not they had received any requests from federal authorities concerning student/faculty/staff book requests. Professor Hardman reported that SIU-E had held an informational colloquium to discuss the Act. Council members agreed to discuss policy shifts with their respective executive councils/committees and administrations and report their findings at the next CIUS meeting.

VII. College Voter Registration Act – Bill 4141
(See Appendix C for College Voter Registration Act)
Professor Crothers reported that ISU’s Senate, on March 3, 2004, had endorsed the College Voter Registration Act, which requires that, at registration, voter registrars be provided for students. There is no cost to any campus, but it may be difficult to get enough volunteer voter registrars to register the students. Professor Blankenship stated that WIU’s Student Government Association would begin conducting student voter registration in the fall of 2004. Professor Crothers reported that Senates could enforce the Act; however, the law does not compel student voter registration until the law goes into effect in July 2006.

VIII. Western Illinois University’s Reserve Officer Training Corp (ROTC) Resolution Concerning Title 10, Section 654 of the United States Code (“Don’t Ask-Don’t Tell” Policy”)
(See Appendix D for Western Illinois University ROTC Resolution)
Professor Blankenship provided the Council with information concerning the resolution from the Western Illinois University Senate, which addressed the sexual orientation policy for the military as it related to the on-campus Reserve Officer Training Corps (ROTC). The resolution, in essence, calls for the immediate repeal of Title 10, Section 654 of the United States Code in order that ‘gay and lesbian students in the ROTC not be discriminated against and be allowed equal advantages and awards provided by the Reserve Officer Training Corps program’. Title 10 conflicts with the university’s antidiscrimination policy. The group that brought this issue to the WIU Senate has maintained an open dialog with the ROTC.

The WIU Senate endorsed the resolution and will forward it to state legislators. Professor Blankenship noted that the WIU resolution contains a slight revision. He said that the word “condemns” was stricken from the resolution and that an alternative word would be inserted; he will forward a revised document to CIUS members by e-mail. Professor Hardman asked if the ROTC felt threatened that a change in policy would mean the removal of the ROTC from campuses or cause it to lose federal funding. Professor Blankenship was unsure if this issue had arisen. Professor O’Brien noted that federal grants to the university might be threatened with the removal of the ROTC. Professor Crothers suggested sharing the WIU resolution with each Senate’s executive committee/council for further discussion. Professor Hardman recommended sharing the resolution with the gay and lesbian organizations on each campus. Council members will provide updates as to the outcome of their discussions at the next Council meeting.

12:00 p.m. Lunch, 1857 Private Dining Room, Bone Student Center

Afternoon Session

IX. Faculty Productivity Report Drafted by the IBHE Faculty Advisory Council in December 2003: “Illinois Board of Higher Education Faculty Advisory Council’s Response to The Board’s Request for Input Regarding Faculty Productivity Issues”
The Council discussed the faculty productivity report developed by the Illinois Board of Higher Education Faculty Advisory Council (FAC). At one time, the FAC met with individuals in the state legislature who did not think that faculty productivity was an issue at all. Professor Willis, however, reported that the faculty of NIU were still quite apprehensive about the request for the examination of faculty productivity. She noted that the next significant date regarding this issue was April 13, 2004, which is when a legislative committee would be formed. She stated that faculty were concerned that this committee would reach conclusions over the summer with no opportunity for oversight.

Professor Hardman asked about the April 13^th date, as it was his understanding, per the SIU-E FAC representative, that the faculty productivity issue had “dropped off the radar”. He surmised that this had occurred because IBHE Chairperson Kaplan had been apprised of what it is that faculty actually do and how higher ed actually functions. He stated that the issue was quite relevant in November and December, but no longer seems to be within the mainstream of legislative discussion. Professor O’Brien stated that the UIUC FAC representative had also had reached this conclusion. Professor Willis countered that the issue was back in full force. Professor Crothers offered to confirm the status of the faculty productivity issue with Chairperson Kaplan.

Professor Crothers asked if there were ways that faculty could respond to this issue using educative language to which legislators could relate. He stated that legislators do not form the connection between providing resources for research for faculty and the ability of faculty to stay current in their fields. Professor Blankenship observed that that seemed to be a contradiction, as the state is consistently interested in faculty demonstrating constant improvement in education. The Council agreed that if the IBHE wanted faculty to be more productive, then the state needed to provide additional resources. Professor Beverly recommended that faculty cultivate better relationships with the media, specifically educating reporters about faculty roles and concerns and defining faculty productivity, so that even if faculty were not cast in a better light, there would at least be balanced reporting. Professor Crothers recommended additional avenues to take, noting that any movement in favor of faculty would have to begin on individual campuses. His suggestions included having good relationships with administration, which would involve choosing administrators who support faculty issues, educating state leadership by convening special sessions that included state legislators, and asking the Senates for permission to create an ad hoc committee on each campus to monitor the issue during the summer.

X. State University Retirement System – Changes in Funding Requirements
Professor Crothers reported that one of the attempts by the governor to manage the budget crisis is to change the funding formula for SURS (State University Retirement System). Based on legislation passed in the 1990’s, SURS is to be fully funded by, Professor Crothers believed, 2045. Based on that formula, the state has to contribute a certain about of money for SURS every year. Professor Crothers inquired what the risks were of funding SURS fully by 2045 versus 2060. If SURS were not funded at the current rate, would there be problems for retirees? Professor Crothers noted that funding SURS now was a valid assertion, but so were the millions of dollars of deferred maintenance at many universities. Professor Willis asked if there was any assurance that if state monies did not go to SURS, that money would be allocated elsewhere in higher education. Professor Crothers stated that the funds would most likely go to deferred maintenance because it would create jobs and other positive outcomes. Professor O’Brien observed that the monies might go to other institutions, prisons, K-12, etc., and that there was no guarantee that the money would go to higher education. She added that the possibility of the lack of money for retirees if SURS is not fully funded is an issue that should definitely be explored.

Professor Blankenship asked how each campus could get its opinions heard concerning the funding of SURS. Professor Beverly responded that there were SURS representatives for every campus. Professor Lawrence stated that it was perhaps the annuitants on her campus who were actively following this issue, but that no one else was paying much attention to it. Professor Willis stated that anyone could join the Annuitants Association, even prior to retirement. The Council agreed that funding SURS was a legitimate concern and one to be monitored. Professor O’Brien suggested inviting someone familiar with SURS to discuss the implications of different funding scenarios to the next Council meeting.

XI. CIUS Meeting Dates
The Council discussed the regularity of its meetings. All were in agreement that the Council should meet at least once a year in Springfield for lobbying purposes. Professor Crothers stated that the Professor Langley should be contacted to find out if she would want to host a meeting in Springfield in the spring or in the fall. Professor Lawrence suggested that the lobbying should be conducted in the fall. The Council agreed to continue its meetings once per semester, with the addition of a phone conference each semester. Members will also communicate on issues during the summer. The next meeting of the Council will be held in November.

Adjournment

Motion to Adjourn: By Professor Beverly, seconded by Professor Blankenship. The motion was unanimously approved.

APPENDIX A

Illinois General Assembly – Full Text of Public Act 093-0228

http://www.legis.state.il.us/legislation/publicacts/fulltext.asp?Name=093-0228&print=true
 
Public Act 93-0228 – Truth in Tuition
 
HB1118 Enrolled LRB093 05093 NHT 07836 b
 
 AN ACT concerning higher education.
 
 Be it enacted by the People of the State of Illinois, represented in the General Assembly:
 
 Section 5. The University of Illinois Act is amended by adding Section 25 as follows:
 
 (110 ILCS 305/25 new)
 Sec. 25. Limitation on tuition increase. This Section applies only to those students who first enroll after the 2003-2004 academic year. For 4 continuous academic years following initial enrollment (or for undergraduate programs that require more than 4 years to complete, for the normal time to complete the program, as determined by the University), the tuition charged an undergraduate student who is an Illinois resident shall not exceed the amount that the student was charged at the time he or she first enrolled in the University. However, if the student changes majors during this time period, the tuition charged the student shall equal the amount the student would have been charged had he or she been admitted to the changed major when he or she first enrolled.
 
 Section 10. The Southern Illinois University Management Act is amended by adding Section 15 as follows:
 
 (110 ILCS 520/15 new)
 Sec. 15. Limitation on tuition increase. This Section applies only to those students who first enroll after the 2003-2004 academic year. For 4 continuous academic years following initial enrollment (or for undergraduate programs that require more than 4 years to complete, for the normal time to complete the program, as determined by the University), the tuition charged an undergraduate student who is an Illinois resident shall not exceed the amount that the student was charged at the time he or she first enrolled in the University. However, if the student changes majors during this time period, the tuition charged the student shall equal the amount the student would have been charged had he or she been admitted to the changed major when he or she first enrolled.
 
 Section 15. The Chicago State University Law is amended by adding Section 5-120 as follows:
 
 (110 ILCS 660/5-120 new)
 Sec. 5-120. Limitation on tuition increase. This Section applies only to those students who first enroll after the 2003-2004 academic year. For  4 continuous academic years following initial enrollment (or for undergraduate programs that require more than 4 years to complete, for the normal time to complete the program, as determined by the University), the tuition charged an undergraduate student who is an Illinois resident shall not exceed the amount that the student was charged at the time he or she first enrolled in the University. However, if the student changes majors during this time period, the tuition charged the student shall equal the amount the student would have been charged had he or she been admitted to the changed major when he or she first enrolled.
 
 Section 20. The Eastern Illinois University Law is amended by adding Section 10-120 as follows:
 
 (110 ILCS 665/10-120 new)
 Sec. 10-120. Limitation on tuition increase. This Section applies only to those students who first enroll after the 2003-2004 academic year. For 4 continuous academic years following initial enrollment (or for undergraduate programs that require more than 4 years to complete, for the normal time to complete the program, as determined by the University), the tuition charged an undergraduate student who is an Illinois resident shall not exceed the amount that the student was charged at the time he or she first enrolled in the University. However, if the student changes majors during this time period, the tuition charged the student shall equal the amount the student would have been charged had he or she been admitted to the changed major when he or she first enrolled.
 
 Section 25. The Governors State University Law is amended by adding Section 15-120 as follows:
 
 (110 ILCS 670/15-120 new)
 Sec. 15-120. Limitation on tuition increase. This Section applies only to those students who first enroll after the 2003-2004 academic year. For 4 continuous academic years following initial enrollment (or for undergraduate programs that require more than 4 years to complete, for the normal time to complete the program, as determined by the University), the tuition charged an undergraduate student who is an Illinois resident shall not exceed the amount that the student was charged at the time he or she first enrolled in the University. However, if the student changes majors during this time period, the tuition charged the student shall equal the amount the student would have been charged had he or she been admitted to the changed major when he or she first enrolled.
 
 Section 30. The Illinois State University Law is amended by adding Section 20-125 as follows:
 (110 ILCS 675/20-125 new)
 Sec. 20-125. Limitation on tuition increase. This Section applies only to those students who first enroll after the 2003-2004 academic year. For 4 continuous academic years following initial enrollment (or for undergraduate programs that require more than 4 years to complete, for the normal time to complete the program, as determined by the University), the tuition charged an undergraduate student who is an Illinois resident shall not exceed the amount that the student was charged at the time he or she first enrolled in the University. However, if the student changes majors during this time period, the tuition charged the student shall equal the amount the student would have been charged had he or she been admitted to the changed major when he or she first enrolled.
 
 Section 35. The Northeastern Illinois University Law is amended by adding Section 25-120 as follows:
 
 (110 ILCS 680/25-120 new)
 Sec. 25-120. Limitation on tuition increase. This Section applies only to those students who first enroll after the 2003-2004 academic year. For 4 continuous academic years following initial enrollment (or for undergraduate programs that require more than 4 years to complete, for the normal time to complete the program, as determined by the University), the tuition charged an undergraduate student who is an Illinois resident shall not exceed the amount that the student was charged at the time he or she first enrolled in the University. However, if the student changes majors during this time period, the tuition charged the student shall equal
the amount the student would have been charged had he or she been admitted to the changed major when he or she first enrolled.
 
 Section 40. The Northern Illinois University Law is amended by adding Section 30-130 as follows:
 
 (110 ILCS 685/30-130 new)
 Sec. 30-130. Limitation on tuition increase. This Section applies only to those students who first enroll after the 2003-2004 academic year. For 4 continuous academic years following initial enrollment (or for undergraduate programs that require more than 4 years to complete, for the normal time to complete the program, as determined by the University), the tuition charged an undergraduate student who is an Illinois resident shall not exceed the amount that the student was charged at the time he or she first enrolled in the University. However, if the student changes majors during this time period, the tuition charged the student shall equal the amount the student would have been charged had he or she been admitted to the changed major when he or she first enrolled.
 
 Section 45. The Western Illinois University Law is amended by adding Section 35-125 as follows:
 
 (110 ILCS 690/35-125 new)
 Sec. 35-125. Limitation on tuition increase. This Section applies only to those students who first enroll after the 2003-2004 academic year. For 4 continuous academic years following initial enrollment (or for undergraduate programs that require more than 4 years to complete, for the normal time to complete the program, as determined by the University), the tuition charged an undergraduate student who is an Illinois resident shall not exceed the amount that the student was charged at the time he or she first enrolled in the University. However, if the student changes majors during this time period, the tuition charged the student shall equal the amount the student would have been charged had he or she been admitted to the changed major when he or she first enrolled.

Effective Date: 01/01/04

Floor Actions

Date	Action
7/22/2003	Public Act . . . . . . . . .093-0228

APPENDIX B

Resolution passed by Cal State University-Monterey Bay Senate (CSUMB)

Received by Illinois State University Academic Senate 2/23/04

Distributed to Council of Illinois University Senates 3/29/04

Resolution Requesting Clarification of the CSUMB Compliance with the USA

PATRIOT Act

By ASEC

WHEREAS the USA PATRIOT Act weakens several right-to-privacy acts and

extends the use of FISA (Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act) against

students, faculty and staff to conduct secret searches;

WHEREAS searches carried out under the Patriot Act or similar

Congressional or Executive orders include student records formerly

protected under FERPA (Family Educational Rights and Privacy Act)

WHEREAS these searches include physical searches of property and

wiretaps, retrieval of voice mail, email and internet searches, library

records, academic records and University personnel files, threatening

academic freedom

WHEREAS the USA PATRIOT Act can order librarians and booksellers

to disclose the records of their patrons under gag order threatening

academic freedom

WHEREAS the visa restrictions and restrictions on who can do

laboratory research and on what biological materials threaten the

international exchange of ideas;

WHEREAS compliance to CAPPS (Computer Assisted Passenger

Pre-Screening) threatens the ability of scholars to travel both within the

U.S. and abroad, and threatens to punish members of the university

community on the basis of political activity unrelated to criminal or

terrorist intent;

BE IT RESOLVED THAT the CSU Monterey Bay Academic Senate calls upon

President Peter Smith, or designee, and the university administration to

protect the first amendment rights, privacy rights, and the diversity and

civil, intellectual, academic and political liberties of the University

community.

Specifically the CSUMB Academic Senate calls on President Peter Smith, or

designee, to:

1) provide a full report (electronically or in hard copy) to all members

of the University community regarding any and all steps that the

University has already taken or is planning to take that involve

cooperation with FBI, police or other public agencies engaged in

surveillance or investigation of CSUMB students, staff or faculty, if such

activities are not related to suspicion of a specific crime and authorized

by judicial warrant;

2) make full disclosure of any current or proposed University policies

concerning cooperation with the FBI, police or other investigatory

agencies prior to the adoption of such policies or practices, so that

these can be discussed, debated and decided in the CSUMB Academic Senate;

and treat the CSUMB Senate as the final decision-making authority on any

such proposed policies or practices.

3) make full disclosure of any current or proposed University policies

about the acceptance of grants for scientific research that restrict

materials or personnel prior to the adoption of such policies, so that the

university community may debate and decide on the wisdom of such policies;

4) protect the individual privacy of library, book-buying, internet

searches and other like records from outside authorities by guaranteeing

that no such records will be shared with any outside authority or used for

anything but the normal academic research purposes of university students,

faculty and employees;

5) Guarantee that student or personnel files of CSUMB students, faculty or

employees, including non-US citizens, will not be released or shared with

any outside person or authority without the subject's permission and will

not be used for any purpose other than academic and employment evaluation;

6) Contact the Transportation Security Administration to determine whether

any CSUMB faculty, students or employees are listed as "yellow"

(interrogation required) or "red" (banned from travel) under CAPPS II for

any reason other than suspicion of specific criminal activity that would

result in arrest, and notify those under non-court-ordered surveillance of

their status;

7) Provide legal services for any members of the CSUMB community subject

to interrogation, banned from flying, or in any other way penalized as a

result of her or his political beliefs or statements, or for any reasons

unrelated to suspicion of specific criminal activity that would result in

arrest;

9) Assure that investigation of any faculty member, student, or employee

under the USA Patriot Act not in any way reflect on their job merit or

academic standing unless that investigation results in specific criminal

charges and conviction;

8) Communicate this stance to the university community, the Trustees and

the CSU Chancellor, Chancellor MRC Greenwood of UCSC who has also taken a

strong stand regarding compliance with the USA PATRIOT Act, and

disseminate it to the wider community through the Public Information

Office.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------


APPENDIX C
 
COLLEGE VOTER REGISTRATION ACT
 
93RD GENERAL ASSEMBLY
State of Illinois
2003 and 2004




HB4141

Introduced 1/16/2004, by Linda Chapa LaVia

SYNOPSIS AS INTRODUCED:

New Act

    Creates the College Student Voter Registration Act. Beginning July 1, 2006, requires public universities, colleges, and community colleges in Illinois to (i) provide voter registration to students as part of the school registration process, (ii) specifically ask eligible students if they wish to register to vote, and (iii) request appointment of a sufficient number of deputy voter registrars.

LRB093 14700 JAM 40243 b

FISCAL NOTE ACT MAY APPLY

A BILL FOR

HB4141 LRB093 14700 JAM 40243 b

AN ACT concerning voter registration of college students.

Be it enacted by the People of the State of Illinois, represented in the General Assembly:

Section 1. Short title. This Act may be cited as the College Student Voter Registration Act.

Section 5. Voter registration of students.

    (a) Beginning July 1, 2006, each public university, college, and community college in this State shall request the appointment in accordance with the Election Code of a sufficient number of deputy registrars for the purpose of registering eligible students to vote.

(b) Beginning July 1, 2006, each person who is eligible to vote in this State shall be asked when he or she registers as a student at a public university, college, or community college in this State whether the person wishes to register to vote at his or her current address.

    (c) Beginning July 1, 2006, as part of its student registration process, and at the time and place of that student registration process, each public university, college, and community college in this State shall provide voter registration for all students who are eligible to vote in Illinois and wish to register at their current addresses.

Section 10. Cooperation in use of voter registration databases. The State Board of Elections, county clerks, boards of election commissioners, and public universities, colleges, and community colleges in this State shall cooperate in the use of electronic voter registration databases for the purposes of this Act.

Section 15. Time of voter registration. Nothing in this Act shall be construed to permit the voter registration of students during any period in which voter registration is not permitted under the Election Code.

APPENDIX D

WESTERN ILLINOIS UNIVERSTIY ROTC RESOLUTION

WIU SENATE AGENDA ITEM IV.E.

23 March 2004

RESOLUTION REGARDING TITLE 10, SECTION 654 OF THE UNITED STATES CODE

Whereas the Western Illinois University Reserve Officers Training Corps is a credit-granting unit within the university; and,

Whereas the Western Illinois University Reserve Officers Training Corps also provides scholarships, stipends, and significant career advantages to its members; and,

Whereas Title 10, Section 654 of the United States Code (Policy Concerning

Homosexuality in the Armed Forces) prevents the Reserve Officer Training Corps from conferring these advantages and awards upon self admitted and/or openly gay individuals; and,

Whereas Western Illinois University does not discriminate on the basis of sexual orientation; and,

Whereas concealment of sexual orientation is not required to enjoy the benefits of Western Illinois University's non discrimination policy;

Be it resolved, that the Faculty Senate of Western Illinois University condemns Title 10, Section 654 of the United States Code and calls for its immediate repeal in order that gay and lesbian students not be compelled to live a lie to get the advantages and awards provided by the Reserve Officer Training Corps program.