Saint Anselm College Faculty Senate Minutes
Tuesday, November 13, 2007
Dana Center Conference Room
6 p.m.

Present: Holder, McKeon, Tobin, Weinreb, Wierda, Perrone, O’Reilly, Michael Smith, Mahoney, Meoghan Cronin, Dubrulle, Latona, McKenna, Schnick

Absent: David George

I. President’s remarks

Faculty received an email regarding the general faculty meeting to discuss the draft Faculty Handbook.  The meeting will be the first Friday of the spring semester.  Father Augustine hopes that faculty will receive their copy of the draft of the Handbook in their mailboxes before the end of the semester.

Faculty should also have received an email regarding the use of their ID cards and food purchases on campus.  Apparently dining services is maintaining a running balance, in spite of the technical problem.  President Weinreb has been assured that when the system is restored faculty and staff will be allowed a grace period to pay off any negative balance on their account, so that if it is online tomorrow and you are at the coffee shop without cash, you can still eat.

President Weinreb received a question today regarding summer research grants.  A faculty member has applied for a travel grant to do research in Europe.  The grant explicitly states that it cannot be used for summer salary.  Our current summer research guidelines state, “During the grant period, the grant-holder cannot be otherwise employed or hold other grants.”  The $500 supplement is not enough to cover the travel expenses.  It would seem that the spirit of the eligibility statement is clearly to prevent double-dipping.  The question arises should we penalize a faculty member for acquiring money to get to their research?  Within the same Appendix, Section 1d, “The award is dispersed in four monthly payments beginning mid-May.”  Is this current, as overloads are now dispersed equally over the semester rather than in 2 paychecks.

A question was raised about carrying out the work during non-contiguous time periods?  The guidelines state continuous periods are required.

President Weinreb referred this to the Academic Procedures committee

The draft Copyright and Intellectual property policies have been reviewed by outside counsel and modified.  The drafts will be resubmitted to the Senate for consideration.

The draft pet policy has been sent to outside counsel for review.

II. Approval of minutes of October 16, 2007
Senator Holder (seconded by Senator O’Reilly) moved that the minutes of the meeting of 16 October be approved.

The motion passed 13 in favor, 0 against and 1 abstention.

III. Committee reports

a. Tenure (M. Cronin, Chair)
Proceeding apace

b. Promotion (Hugh Dubrulle, Chair)
Proceeding apace

c. Information Technology (Jeff Schnick, Chair)
The committee is working to implement a number of smart classrooms – projector, table/podium, computer – for January, based on an action item submitted by Adam Albina.  In order to increase the number of classrooms created, the committee is investigating the use of physical plant to carry out the installation.  The savings would add another two rooms to this year’s total (up to five).

There is currently a discussion about the type of sound system that will be included; it would be less expensive to install a sound system that comes with a computer rather than a better stand-alone system.  The concern on the part of IT is that the less expensive version would not be adequate.

d. Benefits (Maria McKenna, Chair)
The chair of the committee has heard from Alice Cordella reminding faculty of the deadlines for open enrollment.  The new health insurance plan comes with a 17% cost increase with increases in co-pays for medicines.  Alice indicated that given the prices offered to the college from other insurance vendor, this was the best option for the College.

A Senator reminded the members of the Senate that children up to 26 years of age could now be covered by health insurance as long as they live in New Hampshire– a special election form is required, see the Human Resources Department.  The law allows children up to 26 to be carried regardless of enrollment in college or job.

A Senator asked if the prescription drug benefit had changed over the course of the past year.  They had noted an increase in cost associated with the quantity of drug per refill.

e. Grievance (James Mahoney, Chair)
No report.

f. Social (Val McKeon, Chair)
The potential date for Christmas party is the 12th of December from 3:30-5:30.
At the Halloween party, a different assortment of food was used than in the past.  Please let Senator Mahoney know of any preferences between the two options.

g. Elections (David George, Chair)
No Report

h. Academic Procedures (Maureen O’Reilly, Chair)
No Report

i. Academic Freedom and Faculty Welfare (Ward Holder, Chair)
Decisions for the tuition exchange program have been made – all applicants were granted four semesters within the program.  People receiving these awards are asked to self-report where their child is going and if the benefit was used.  This year the committee received 20 applicants, 18 of which were new.  A reminder to participants in that program – applications need to be filled out every year.  Also, after 2 years it is possible to be awarded additional tuition exchanges.

j. Planning and Budget (Derk Wierda, Senate Representative)
Approved the health insurance plan for next year.  The committee is considering budget parameters with which to build next year’s budget.

k. Faculty Handbook (Derk Wierda, Chair)
The draft of the Faculty Handbook has been given to the Public Relations department for formatting and proofreading.  The Dean hopes to have the work done by early December, at which time a hard copy will be distributed to the faculty for review.

IV.  Old business

a. Harassment policy
Given that the Senate has previously reviewed and voted to approve the initial sections of the policy, President Weinreb requested that the Senate consider the last two sections of the document – which the senate had not looked at before.

A Senator raised two concerns about the new aspects of the draft policy:

1)  The term prohibit is too strong. 

• If the policy is expressed in terms of an absolute prohibition, it will not recognize variations in the circumstances of relationships.  Sometimes we have students older than the typical age.  The traditional language (as in the current handbook) of a respect and understanding of the special relationship between faculty and students would be more appropriate.  Faculty can be strongly cautioned about the danger posed by the inequality of power in such relationships without expressing this as an absolute prohibition.

2) Given the list of penalties in the document, if the policy is expressed in terms of an absolute prohibition it would give administrators a justification for acting summarily in cases which may be deserving of fuller inquiry.

Discussion followed:

• There needs to be a wording that is strong and protective of students.
• What are other colleges doing? – They are all over the spectrum -from very stringent to more flexible.
• The committee that came up with this draft was a group of mixed administration, students and faculty.
• Consider the inclusion of religion in the harassment section of the document. Is that consistent? A Senator argued that harassment and discrimination are not the same.
• Which raised the question: are they different from a legal perspective?
• You need strong language to protect students – if there is a romantic relationship, are people thinking clearly? 
• Two senators recalled an op. ed. in the Boston Globe that raised the issue:
  • The Globe article discussed the complexities of the issue and that some schools have been challenged.
• This draft does pretty much describe the norm here at the College, but not all circumstances.
• Some countered, that if we leave some wiggle room, people will take it.
• In order to protect students, we must avoid even the appearance of a relationship.
• Enforcement could become arbitrary. 
• Will the policy drive relationships underground?
• Is there ever a case where there is no supervisory/power relationship?  Faculty will still have colleagues who might be considered to apply pressure.
• Some see students as being more vulnerable.  Students are being trusted to our care.  They are also young adults.  Fraternization is the issue. 
• Could you have a policy where you prohibit relationships with students in your course, but another policy for other students?

The discussion turned to the question of reporting of harassment issues and who can report? 

• A witness can report – can it go forward?   
• Do you need to have a complainant?
• From a seminar on sexual harassment, a Senator observed that the college has an obligation to pursue things it knows about.

President Weinreb asked for a sense of the Senate regarding the draft – no Senator supported approving the draft as submitted.  Some language to address the issues discussed needs to be included.  She will report back to committee.

b. Draft Academic Plan
Senator Wierda distributed a revised draft of the Academic plan, with the request that Senators send any comments to him one week prior to the December Senate meeting, where the draft will be discussed and potentially considered for approval.  The faculty-at-large will receive a copy in the next few days, so that they too can provide feedback and comment on the draft.

V.  New business
None

VI. Adjournment
Senator Mahoney moved (seconded by Senator Dubrulle) that the meeting adjourn. 

The motion passed unanimously. 

The meeting adjourned at 7:20 PM.

Respectfully submitted,
Derk Andrew Wierda
Temporary Provisional Acting Faculty Senate Secretary