Senate panel advances bill requiring campus grievance procedures for postsecondary misconduct

A Minnesota Senate committee on higher education on a voice vote recommended that Senate File 10-35, as amended, be recommended to pass and be re-referred to the Senate Committee on Judiciary and Public Safety.

The bill, authored by Senator Port, would require postsecondary institutions to adopt a statutory grievance process for reports of misconduct under Minnesota statute 135A.15, whether or not the alleged perpetrator is a student at the institution. The measure sets specific procedural protections and remedies, including defined notice requirements, an opportunity to present and review evidence, a preponderance-of-the-evidence standard for student cases and a list of possible remedial actions an institution may impose.

The bill’s author, Senator Port, told the committee the subject is personal and longstanding. “This is an issue that I’ve been working on, and has been personal for me since 02/2001 when I was attending the University of Minnesota and was ******** assaulted,” Port said. She described difficulties navigating campus processes and said the bill would give reporting parties a stable process regardless of shifting federal regulations.

Nonpartisan staff summarized the as-amended bill and its fiscal note. The Office of Higher Education, Minnesota State Colleges and Universities and the University of Minnesota prepared the fiscal estimate on the bill as introduced (not the amended version). The staff summary said the Office of Higher Education will administer Title IX outreach and training within existing appropriations; Minnesota State reported it already complies and expects no new costs; and the University of Minnesota estimated about 30 hours of work from its Title IX director with an estimated general fund cost of $2,250 that could be absorbed within existing budgets.

Several witnesses who work with campus survivors and Title IX coordination testified in support. Melissa Wachke, Title IX training administrator at the Office of Higher Education, said the bill “creates a roadmap for institutions that provides certain protections and rights for parties and witnesses involved in the ****** misconduct grievance procedure” and that placing procedures in state statute would provide stability across federal administrations.

Chloe Rainey, associate director at the University of Minnesota’s Aurora Center for Advocacy and Education, said many of the bill’s provisions already exist at her campus but not uniformly statewide. “Establishing clear Minnesota state law will provide consistent guidance for educational institutions and campus Title IX coordinators,” Rainey testified, describing benefits she has observed in victim support and retention.

Kelly Durek, a staff member at the College of St. Scholastica, described the administrative disruption institutions faced after shifting federal regulations in 2024 were vacated by a federal court, and urged the committee to approve a state-level standard to avoid repeated policy reversals.

The committee first adopted an A3 author’s amendment intended to address concerns from public and private higher education institutions about workable language; Senator Kupak moved the amendment and it was adopted by voice vote. After testimony and questions, Senator Port moved that the bill as amended be recommended to pass and re-refer to Judiciary and Public Safety; the motion was approved by voice vote.

What the bill would require

- A grievance process that allows both reporting and responding parties to present and review evidence, retain advisors (including attorneys), and access academic and residential supports on a case-by-case basis. - A requirement that institutions deliver sufficiently detailed written notice of allegations (when possible including date, time, and location) and provide access to the campus code of conduct. - A prohibition on direct cross‑examination by parties (any cross‑examination must be conducted by an advisor or adjudicator) and limits on character evidence, subject to limited exceptions. - Use of a preponderance of the evidence standard in student cases and a requirement that institutions maintain an anti‑retaliation policy.

Authorities and federal context

Testimony referenced Title IX and recent federal regulatory changes. The record notes the 2020 Department of Education regulations required live hearings with cross‑examination; a 2024 DOE rule intended to give institutions more flexibility was later enjoined and, according to testimony, vacated in part by a federal court decision on Jan. 9, 2025, creating uncertainty that proponents said the state statute would address.

Next steps

Committee staff and testifiers said higher education institutions already do much of the work required by the bill; the fiscal summary indicated limited new state cost exposure for existing administrators but flagged minor University of Minnesota compliance costs. The committee recommended the bill, as amended, be passed and re-referred to the Judiciary and Public Safety Committee.

Ending note

The committee record shows broad institutional support in testimony for a consistent state standard, while staff and members asked questions about implementation details and institutional costs. The measure now moves to the Judiciary and Public Safety Committee for further consideration.