Agenda
Tuesday January 25,
2011
6:30 p.m. Campbell
Dining Room
Student Life and
Technology Center
I. Call to Order
II. Special Business
REPORT:
Smoking Committee- Andrew Chesser and Lydia Nash
·
Students, faculty and staff have made a final
report. Which is attached on the bottom. This in route to be recommended to the
Board of Trustees. Student Life committee approved it and now we will be
discussing what the senate thinks. The Board of Trustees are the ultimate
decision on this policy. This may be the best option because there are a couple
of trustees who are intense about going smoke free. However some of the
statistics show that students don’t agree with such a harsh policy. IN our current policy we have no
consequences to violating it, and it is enforced from peer to peer.
·
A preliminary vote;
o YES
FOR THE policy – 19
o NO
– 4
·
There will be a Pericles forum next Thursday
about this! Come and voice your opinion.
III. Announcements and Constituent Concerns
·
Gas-Land was nominated an Academy Award.
·
Outlook isn’t the best. ACTUALLY – Sam Nichols
came to our exec meeting yesterday and we would like to start a student
advisory committee to see if we could improve our Technology systems and
software adaptations.
·
IV. Departmental Liaison Reports
V. Committee Reports
o Financial
Committee with Alexander Jones
-SBC Soul Food
·
Requesting $400 for food and gas re-imbursement
for some FINNNNNNNE food.
·
ECC doesn’t want to fund water bottles because
ECC has cups and the school has water.
·
Amended the request - $380
§
All student organizations got their allocations
today, and if you didn’t – talk to Alexander!
o Committee on Everything Awesome:
o
Dean Jim Wiltgen and
§ Thefts
of backpacks last semester. The Faculty and Student Life Committee brought two
recommendations. The installation of a “locked backpack rack” was a suggestion
and will be in place soon. Also, the committee approved the use of camera’s in
an effort to solve the theft of a backpack.
·
This footage will only be viewed if a backpack
is reported stolen. “To protect student property as it [goes along with] the
collegiate center.” This will be very open and transparent. At the end of the
spring semester, there will be a full review of the camera policy. This will
help determine how and when the cameras should be used or removed.
o
This policy has passed through the student life
committee and will go to the faculty at the monthly faculty meeting.
o
The camera will only record 7 days of footage,
then will begin to record over the previous footage.
o
Karla Carney-Hall
o Environmental
Concerns Committee with Emily and Katherine
o
GASLAND FEBRUARY 28th!!!!! TBA!
o
And then the director : JOSH FOX will be here on
march 1st.
o
First meeting this Thursday!
o Media
Committee with Hannah Sintek
o
Everything is WELL !
o
Next profile coming out soon!
o
BIG BOI IS COMMMING!!!!!! YEAH!
§ $5
for students $10 for non-students.(MAYBE – this is not for sure yet)
§ Capacity
for worsham
o Multicultural
Development Committee with Molly Miller
o
Meeting for MDC – Thursday at 6.
o Campus
Kitty with Sabrina
o
Everything is scheduled! Charities are being
chosen tonight.
o
Campus KITTY has a website and you can buy
PASSES ONLINE!
o Social
Committee with Will Phillips
o
LIVE BAND KARAOKE WAS AWESOME
o
FORMAL!!!!!! February 12th at
Michealanglos in downtown Conway
o
CASHBAR!!!!! – they will have to have ID and
wristbanded. ENTIRE BUILDING for US!
o Volunteer
Action Committee with Michaela Fraser
o
1st meeting over the weekend.
o
1st service event was last Saturday.
o
Putting together an event for Feruary.
o
Spring Event will be coming in April. YAY!
o Academic
Policy with Ruanda McFerren
o
Asian Language Minor??? In the works.
o
Double-sided papers?? Check with your
professors.
o
NEW LOWERED MAYMESTER COSTS!!!!
o Student
and Academic Concerns Committee with Taylor and Ruanda
o
We don’t do anything, no report.
o Communications
Committee with Emily Jones
o
Trey made us a BOX!
o Committee
on Committees with Torey Hayward
o
Filing for shirttails and welcome week chairs
opened – look at your email.
o
Spring Election dates : March 1st
campaigning starts. Announcement will be made march 8th.
o Executive
Committee with Lydia Nash
o
Smoking, cameras, IT, and $20,000!
VII. New Business
VIII. Adjournment
SMOKING
POLICY
Smoking Policy Report
Executive Summary
In Fall, 2010, President Cloyd asked the Vice President for
Student Affairs, Dr. Karla Carney-Hall, to create a committee to review the
College’s current policy regarding smoking and recommend potential
changes. In response to recent
initiatives by the Arkansas legislature regarding public higher education and
smoking as well as concern by community members including members of the Board
of Trustees, a committee of students, faculty, and staff was assembled to
review our current policy.
The committee
recommends the following:
1. A
smoking-designated area policy be implemented (see recommendation below) in
Fall, 2011.
2. A
general health education campaign will be conducted throughout 2011-2012 to
continue to heighten awareness about health and the effect of smoking. This will include a more deliberate
attempt to educate and remind the Hendrix campus community about the health
dangers of smoking. This will
address concerns about students who start smoking at Hendrix and attempt to
reach out to low-level smokers.
3. Smoking
cessation classes and programs implemented throughout the 2011-2012 academic
year to encourage and support the students and faculty/staff who want to
quit. On-going classes will be
offered as interest exists.
4. Minor
facilities-related adjustments needed for smoking-designated areas would be
implemented in 2010-2011. These
minor adjustments might include the addition of a few benches and some
signage. No major cost would be
incurred.
5. Periodic
review: We recommend that this
policy be reviewed periodically to see if we are accomplishing our primary
goals: limiting exposure to
second-hand smoke, reducing the number of students, faculty and staff who
smoke, and especially reducing the number of students who start smoking while
at Hendrix, and reduction of/mitigation of trash. We recognize that this proposal may be a necessary first
step toward a future goal of a smoke-free campus.
Rationale: Although the committee strongly
considered a smoke-free recommendation, we ultimately believe that three
prevailing factors exist to support a smoking designated approach:
1. The
Hendrix campus culture is one that strongly values individual freedom. In our survey of students, faculty and
staff, even non-smokers preferred a smoking designated policy to a smoke-free
policy.
2. As
a residential college, restricting smoking is different from other public
institutions in the state where living on-campus is optional or for a short
period of time (one year). Hendrix
students are required to live on-campus for four years which means a smoke-free
policy would restrict individual freedom greatly.
3. We
strongly believe that our policy needs to have enforcement integrity. We believe that smoke-free policies
that are peer-enforced would essentially not be enforced.
In addition to significantly restricting smoking on campus,
our hope is that we can provide leadership in providing long-term education and
prevention regarding smoking. In
designating smoking areas, students, faculty and staff must make an intentional
choice to join a group of smokers.
Furthermore, designating spaces gives us a way to target educational
outreach efforts.
Finally, our committee fully recognizes that this policy
recommendation may be a necessary first step to a smoke-free campus. Our hope is that this policy would
deter students from starting smoking and encourage others to quit smoking. We have always felt that these social
policies are best embraced as a grass-roots effort which we believe we’ve
accomplished through our work. A full copy of the report and proposed policy
language is attached.
Smoking Policy Report
In Fall, 2010, President Cloyd asked the Vice President for
Student Affairs, Dr. Karla Carney-Hall, to create a committee to review the
College’s current policy regarding smoking and recommend potential changes due
to the health effects of second-hand smoke. In keeping with the Hendrix motto “Unto the whole person”,
the committee was asked to consider healthy choices as part of a commitment to
the whole. Furthermore, in
response to recent initiatives by the Arkansas legislature regarding public
higher education and smoking as well as to concern by community members
including members of the Board of Trustees, a committee of students, faculty,
and staff was assembled to review our current policy. The charge of the committee was as follows:
1. Review
the current policy and it’s effectiveness;
2. Investigate
options for change and campus readiness for change;
3. Make
recommendations regarding the current policy.
Committee members:
Students
(6): Leah Groat (student athlete),
Andrew Chesser (Senate), Lydia Nash (Student body President), Hunter Owen
(Student Senate), John Schallhorn (student athlete), Hannah Flatau
Faculty
(5): Tom Goodwin, Mary Richardson,
Lilian Contreras-Silva, Todd Berryman
Staff (8): Karla Carney-Hall (Chair), Vicki Lynn
(Human Resources), Apryl Jackson (Residence Life), Necie Reed (Health Center),
Rick Sublett (Public Safety), John Crews (Residence Life), John Omolo
(Residence Life), Sarah Tamo (Residence Life)
Process:
The committee met approximately eight times during the Fall
term to discuss issues regarding the College’s smoking policy. The group developed, reviewed and
conducted a survey of the campus community. The Student Affairs office provided peer institution data
regarding other campus policies regarding smoking. The Board of Trustees requested a report by the February
Board meeting. We discussed
whether to include all forms of tobacco use, not just smoking. Because the reason most accepted by the
Hendrix community for restricting smoking is primarily a public health through
second-hand smoke concern, that rationale does not extend to other forms of
tobacco. Again, while the
committee believed that the aesthetics and cleanliness issues still apply, the
main issue regarding the health of non-users is not present with other forms of
tobacco.
Issues Considered:
Health concerns: Obviously smoking and the effects of second-hand smoke are
well documented as serious health concerns, leading to major illness and often
death. The most concerning
second-hand smoke effects have already been addressed by banning indoor
smoking. Smoke-free policies have
been designed to do the following:
o Deter smoking: The Committee as well as the survey data seemed to indicate
that the Hendrix community uncomfortable in forcing a policy to ban smoking and
thereby infringing on individual choice.
While many voiced concern for smokers and wished they wouldn’t make that
choice, they stopped short of believing that a total ban on smoking is the
proper action at this time.
Essentially, the community did not want to marginalize and unduly judge
smokers, and believed that it was more in line with the Hendrix ethos to
designate smoking spaces. However,
there was support for increasing smoking cessation options for students;
programs are already available for faculty/staff through the Engagement Health
program.
o Reduce exposure to second-hand smoke: We do believe, however, that
non-smokers have the right not to encounter smoke.
Aesthetics & time/resource cleaning: Both the committee and the campus
survey cited campus cleanliness as one of their primary irritants regarding
campus smoking. Concern regarding
cigarette butts that are not placed in ash cans and the amount of Facilities
Management resources used for campus beautification was a concern.
Individualism and Campus Culture: The Hendrix campus culture is one that
strongly values individual freedom.
While the committee recognized the public health concerns, they felt
strongly that the campus value of individualism should be preserved as much as
possible, as long as the health of non-smokers is not adversely affected.
Residential College: As a largely residential college, a complete ban on campus
smoking can have different effects and issues compared to those at public
institutions in the state. For all
of those institutions, living on-campus is limited to one year (UCA and
UA-Fayetteville, for example) or is entirely “optional”; whereas, Hendrix
students are required to live on-campus all four years. As such, making our campus entirely
smoke-free would entirely restrict individual freedom (unlike hospitals and
other schools where smokers can “go home” to smoke). Faculty and staff have options not available to most
students.
Enforcement:
o
The current campus policy and any future policy
would rely heavily on peer-to-peer enforcement. Unfortunately, peers are unlikely to ask a smoker not to
smoke. We do not adjudicate or
fine violators of the current policy.
All concerns are handled informally. A stricter “no smoking” policy would require stricter
enforcement or it would be categorically ignored by many students.
o
Public Safety could not enforce consistent
accountability due to lack of resources.
For example, currently, we have only two officers on-campus at a
time. It is unlikely that they
could adequately address smoking policy issues in addition to more significant
campus issues.
o
The state law in Arkansas requires that
offenders pay no less than $100 and no more than $500 fines (policy statement
from UA-Fayetteville). We believe
that a fine-based or judicially-based enforcement creates an unnecessary
adversarial relationship.
o
Integrity:
We believe strongly that our policy needs to have enforcement
integrity. Someone suggested that
we have a policy but not enforce it.
Members of the committee agreed that this was bad practice, would create
tension, and would lack necessary consistency.
Reputation:
We discussed the impact of being “the only or last campus in Arkansas”
to go smoke-free. While we pride
ourselves on being progressive, we believe that our commitment to individualism
and fairness is greater than the public perception issue that this might create
for a short period of time.
Solutions
Explored:
We identified four potential solutions and evaluated their effectiveness
based on the above issues as charted below.
- Maintain
the current policy as is, no change.
- Maintain
the current policy and make adjustments to the campus environment that
would make it easier to follow the policy (i.e., evaluate the most effective
location and number of ash cans, provide covered seating in designated
smoking areas, etc.).
- Designate
smoking areas.
- Designate
the entire campus as a smoke-free area.
We also ranked the effectiveness of these solutions on a
scale of 1-5 with 5 being the most effective.
Solution
|
Deterrent
|
Second-hand
smoke
|
Trash
|
Individual-ism
|
Residential
nature
|
Enforce-ment
|
Institutional
reputation/ progressiveness by restricting smoking
|
No
change
|
No
|
No
|
No
|
Yes
(5)
|
Yes
|
Yes
(1)
|
No
|
Slight
change
|
No
|
No
|
Yes
(2)
|
Yes
(5)
|
Yes
|
Yes
(1)
|
No
|
Smoking
designated
|
Yes
(3)
|
Yes
(4)
|
Yes
(4)
|
Yes
(4)
|
Yes
(4)
|
Yes
(3)
|
Yes
|
Smoke
free
|
Yes
(5)
|
Yes
(5)
|
Yes
(5)
|
No
|
No
|
No
|
Yes
|
Smoke
free at social events
|
No
|
Yes
(1)
|
Yes
(1)
|
Yes
(4)
|
Yes
(4)
|
No
entry?
|
No
|
Campus Survey
Results
An on-line survey was administered in November, 2010 to
students, faculty and staff.
Incentives for participation were provided (iPad for students, Target
gift card for faculty/staff). All
students were surveyed and 773 students responded with class distribution representative
of the current student body. This
represents 53% of the student body.
All faculty and staff were surveyed and 325 faculty/staff responded,
representing 72% response from current faculty/staff. Although there are methodological weaknesses in a non-random
survey, we are confident that with over 50% of the campus community
participating, we have a reasonably representative survey.
While there are many interesting findings from the survey,
the results that most informed our discussion are summarized as follows:
- Smokers: 236 students reported smoking (32%
of student respondents or 16% of the student body, if you assume that
all/most student smokers responded); 48 faculty/staff reported smoking
(14% of respondents or 10% of all faculty/staff). We are surprised at how high the
student smoking numbers are.
- 45%
of student smokers smoked daily; whereas, 77% of faculty/staff smokers,
smoke daily. That 55% of our
students are less than daily smokers (social smokers) somewhat mitigates
the concern about the high student numbers, but is still problematic.
- 24%
of student smokers (68 students or approximately 5% of the student body)
started smoking at Hendrix --- this is a big problem and informs the
deterrent issue. Our proposed
solution should address ways to minimize the choice to begin smoking.
- Interest
in quitting: 20% of students,
45% of faculty/staff ---this also informs the deterrent issue. Our proposed solution should
support students, faculty and staff who wish to quit smoking.
- Most
respondents were concerned about aesthetics/trash (60% of faculty/staff;
51% of students), and second-hand smoke (50% of faculty/staff, 41% of
students)
- Regarding
campus opinion about the policy options:
ALL MEMBERS
|
Students
|
Faculty/staff
|
No change
|
26%
|
16%
|
No change; adjust physical environment
|
36%
|
18%
|
Smoking in designated areas
|
28%
|
37%
|
Smoke-free
|
10%
|
29%
|
Social events prohibited
|
43%
|
69%
|
- These
results reflect a faculty/staff interest in smoking designated areas as
their top choice for comprehensive policy. Students prefer to maintain the current policy, but
make adjustments to the physical environment like moving the ash cans
away from entrances.
- When
considering this question by smoking status, the following results occur:
SMOKERS
|
Students
|
Faculty/staff
|
No change
|
39%
|
33%
|
Shift in environment
|
48%
|
31%
|
Smoking designated
|
7%
|
27%
|
Smoke-free
|
1%
|
2%
|
Social events prohibited
|
17%
|
56%
|
- These
data indicate that faculty/staff smokers are open to a smoking
designated option (although would prefer no change). This is important from a
role-modeling perspective.
NON-SMOKERS
|
Students
|
Faculty/staff
|
No change
|
20%
|
13%
|
Shift in environment
|
30%
|
15%
|
Smoking designated
|
37%
|
38%
|
Smoke-free
|
13%
|
34%
|
Social events prohibited
|
54%
|
|
- These
data indicate that even among Hendrix non-smokers, the preference is for
a smoking designated solution.
Also, non-smoking students would support a smoking ban at social
events, but not by a large margin (only 54%).
- Regarding
peer enforcement: It is clear
that peer enforcement is not a strong enforcement strategy, given that 62%
of students and 35% of faculty/staff are “not likely” to personally
enforce the policy. Only 5%
of students and 20% of faculty/staff are “very likely” to enforce the
policy, peer-to-peer. These
data indicate that a campus enforcement strategy involving Public Safety
or some other method would be required; however, our hope is that people
would be more likely to speak up if smoking areas exist instead of a
completely smoke-free campus.
- In
evaluating our concern about campus culture and values regarding
individualism, the community was asked whether they value individual
freedom, community health, or some compromise of the two. Students (67%) and faculty/staff
(64%) both felt that a compromise between the two was important. Faculty/staff results reflected a
clearer value of community health (29%) over individual freedom (6%);
whereas, student data reflect equal values, not controlling for smoking
status.
Benchmark
Institution Survey Response
In a listserv question among ACS institutions, none of the
ACS peers who responded are smoke-free.
Several are considering the question, but do not have an existing
policy. In surveying Arkansas
peers, we contacted Harding, Lyon, and Ouachita Baptist. Harding and Ouachita Baptist are both
smoke-free; whereas Lyon is not.
Birmingham
Southern - no
Centenary – no
Davidson
– no
Millsaps
– no
Rhodes
– no
Rollins
– no
Sewanee
– no
Trinity
– no
Washington
and Lee – no
In considering enforcement benchmarks within Arkansas, we
learned the following:
- University
of Arkansas – fines of minimum of $100, max $500 (by state statute);
enforced by Public Safety; visitors are required to leave
- UCA –
fines of a minimum of $100, max $500 (by state statute); enforced by
Public Safety; verbal warnings are typically given first
Iowa recently also enacted a state law regarding college
campus smoking. In talking with
Dr. Carney-Hall’s previous institution (Cornell College), we learned that
Cornell staff wished they could have considered a “smoking-designated”
option. The issues that arose from
smoke-free were forcing smokers to the campus periphery where they actually
became the first-impression as visitors came to campus, and greater trash
presence because no ash cans/seating existed.
Recommendations
The committee recommends the following:
- A
smoking-designated area policy be implemented (see recommendation below)
in Fall, 2011.
- A
general health education campaign will be conducted throughout 2011-2012
to continue to heighten awareness about health and the effect of
smoking. This will include a
more deliberate attempt to educate and remind the Hendrix campus community
about the health dangers of smoking.
This will address concerns about students who start smoking at
Hendrix and attempt to reach out to low-level smokers.
- Smoking
cessation classes and programs implemented throughout the 2011-2012
academic year to encourage and support the 20% of students and 45% of
faculty/staff who want to quit.
On-going classes will be offered as interest exists.
- Minor
facilities-related adjustments needed for smoking designated areas would
be implemented in 2010-2011.
These minor adjustments might include the addition of a few benches
and some signage. No major
cost would be incurred.
- Periodic
review: We recommend that
this policy be reviewed periodically to see if we are accomplishing our
primary goals: limiting
exposure to second-hand smoke, reducing the number of students, faculty
and staff who smoke, and especially reducing the number of students who
start smoking while at Hendrix, and reduction of/mitigation of
trash,. We recognize that
this proposal may be a necessary first step toward a future goal of a
smoke-free campus.
Hendrix College
Smoking Policy
Proposed: Spring, 2011
Adopted: XXXXX
The purpose of this policy is to limit smoking use on campus
at Hendrix College to designated areas.
The College actively seeks to create a healthy campus environment that
limits the effects of secondhand smoke; however, we recognize that as a
residential college, members of the community may choose to smoke.
Smoking on campus is restricted to designated areas listed
below. Smokers may not smoke
inside any building, while walking to/from these designated destinations, or at
any undesignated areas (ie athletic fields, parking lots, etc). Designated areas include the following:
The College prohibits campus-controlled advertising, as well
as the sale or free sampling of, tobacco or smoking-related products on campus. Littering campus with remains of
tobacco or smoking-related products is prohibited. No ashtrays or smoking
shelters will be permitted outside the designated areas. Smoking is prohibited at all
public, outdoor events (including athletic events), except in designated areas
described above. Organizers shall
communicate this policy to all attendees and shall enforce the policy.
The Director of Human Resources, Director of Facilities
Management and the Dean of Students will review this policy periodically and
make recommendations to the President regarding any policy adjustments. Any exceptions to this policy must be
approved by the President.
This policy will be communicated to the campus community via
the College website. In addition,
reference to this policy will be added to the College’s faculty handbook,
employee handbook, and student handbook.
Information regarding this policy shall be communicated to guests upon
request. Each building will
display a decal that states “Smoke-free Area.”
All Hendrix College students, faculty, staff, contractors
and visitors are expected to comply with this policy. Members of the campus community are empowered to
respectfully inform others about the policy and designated areas and may also
report violations to Hendrix College Public Safety. Violators approached by Hendrix Public Safety may receive a
warning, a citation for $50 or referral to the appropriate authority outlined
below. Surrounding public streets and sidewalks are not under the purview of
College policy.