Committee approves measure to codify postsecondary grievance procedures; debate centers on hearing standards and due process

The Senate Judiciary Committee on April 4 adopted an amendment and recommended Senate File 1035 to the committee on higher education after extended discussion over how Minnesota should set grievance procedures for postsecondary institutions.

Sen. Lindsey Port introduced the bill, which supporters said is intended to provide stability to campus procedures given shifting federal Title IX regulations. "Students and institutions are asking for stability," Port told the committee, noting recent federal rule changes and court rulings that required institutions to change grievance processes repeatedly.

The committee adopted an A6 author’s amendment with technical and substantive adjustments: it clarified that the grievance procedure applies when an institution employee is the responding party; it requires a hearing if requested by either reporting or responding party; and, following committee debate, the panel restored a minimum evidentiary standard by amending the A6 to retain the preponderance-of-evidence baseline rather than removing it entirely.

Witnesses included Melissa Wachke, Title IX training administrator at the Minnesota Office of Higher Education. Wachke said the bill "creates consistent road map for institutions" and empowers reporting parties with procedural choice. She told the committee small institutions face particular burdens in conducting live hearings, citing costs and staffing challenges. "Hearings can last from two to six hours on average," she said, and smaller colleges sometimes lack the personnel to run contested hearings without outside contractors.

Committee members expressed concern about due process and how best to preserve it while protecting reporting parties. Questions focused on: whether institutions must allow advisers who may be attorneys; how cross‑examination can be structured without forcing parties into the same room; whether adjudicators should be permitted to ask questions and how to phrase that so it is not framed as an adversarial "cross‑examination" performed by the decision‑maker; and how delays requested by law enforcement should be resolved.

Council drafted and the committee adopted a clarifying amendment to change language that previously described an adjudicator conducting cross‑examination; after the change the advisor may conduct cross‑examination and the adjudicator may ask questions. Committee counsel said the amended language keeps an adjudicator’s ability to ask follow‑up questions while removing language that could imply bias.

Supporters and several members said they viewed the statute as offering a state floor that preserves institutional flexibility rather than imposing a single procedural model. The committee voted to recommend the bill, as amended, be passed and referred to the Higher Education Committee.

Formal action included adoption of the A6 amendment as amended and a committee recommendation to pass and refer Senate File 1035 to the committee on higher education.