���ϲ�����

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 28^th!!!!! TBA!

o���� And then the director : JOSH FOX will be here on march 1^st.

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 12^th 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���� 1^st meeting over the weekend.

o���� 1^st 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 1^st campaigning starts. Announcement will be made march 8^th.

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 ���ϲ����� campus community about the health dangers of smoking.�� This will address concerns about students who start smoking at ���ϲ����� 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 ���ϲ�����, 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 ���ϲ����� 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).�� ���ϲ����� 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 ���ϲ����� 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 ���ϲ����� 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 ���ϲ����� 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 ���ϲ����� 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 ���ϲ����� 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, ���ϲ����� 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.

1. Maintain the current policy as is, no change.
2. 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.).
3. Designate smoking areas.
4. 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 ���ϲ����� --- 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 ���ϲ����� 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 ���ϲ����� campus community about the health dangers of smoking.�� This will address concerns about students who start smoking at ���ϲ����� 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 ���ϲ�����, 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.

��

���ϲ�����

Smoking Policy

Proposed:�� Spring, 2011

Adopted:�� XXXXX

��

The purpose of this policy is to limit smoking use on campus at ���ϲ����� 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:

• Raney building gazebo area
• North quad gazebo area
• South Library porch end
• Mills/Cabe alcove
• Huntington apartment – one gazebo
• Front Street back patio area
• North Couch patio
• President’s home back porch
• East end of Facilities Management bldg
• Murphy House – designated area North