Leadership Board Meeting Minutes
May 17th, 2011
- Location: Sayles Hill Lounge
- Secretary: Laura Michel
CEDI Leadership Board Minutes
May 17, 2011
Campus Concerns Action Team Final Report
In the absence of chair Bill North, members of the Campus Concerns Action Team Professor of Art Kelly Connole and Director of Student Activities Lee Clark joined the Leadership Board meeting to present the group’s final report. Kelly Connole explained that there were not too many significant changes to the document since the group saw it two weeks ago. The newest version of the document clarifies which of the proposed changes are completely new and which are just clarifications of preexisting procedures. Similarly, there is an added emphasis on the fact that most of the recommendations are meant to make already existing processes more transparent, particularly through the identification of one starting point for the community concern forms.
Kaaren Williamsen recommended that the box “informal complaint” on the flow chart be changed to “informal report.” ‘Complaint,’ she explained, had a very formal connotation to it and the nuance of using the work ‘report’ would both emphasize the more informal nature of such a pathway, thus empowering the reporters to make decisions about the process.
The group realized that it was not within the purview of the Action Team or the current discussion to decide who/where this actual starting point should be, they recommended changing the language on the flow chart from ‘point person’ to ‘one point’ so that, in the case of the absence or conflict of interest of an individual on something that should be acted on right away, there would be no question of how to proceed.
Carolyn Fure-Slocum as noted that, based upon previous conversations, the process would be strengthened even further with a specific category for Northfield and Off-Campus Studies incidents.
Finally, Kelly Connole brought to the Leadership Board’s attention that the language in the document does not reflect the newest Statement on Discrimination, which was approved by the College Council on January 12, 2010, though seems to have been lost somewhere since then.
Returning to the specific document at hand, Andrea Nixon explained that the next steps for the Community Concerns Action Team would be for the CEDI Leadership Board to guide it through the governance structure. The CEDI Leadership Board, by unanimous voice vote, approved, with the suggested change, the Campus Concern Action Team’s recommendations. Kaaren Williamsen and Julie Thornton volunteered to draft a cover-letter to be presented with the document at the next meeting of the College Council on May 24.
Task Force/Action Team Updates
Both Kaaren Williamsen, for the Sexual Misconduct Committee, and Julie Thornton, on behalf of the Campus Community Expectations Action Team reported that their groups will be meeting in the next week.
Carolyn Fure-Slocum reported that the Outside the Classroom Task Force is continuing to discuss the newly-revitalized mentoring program. Additionally, the group added Northfield to the list of issues they would like to address, though are holding off on any significant action until they receive more concrete guidance from President Poskanzer and the results of the strategic planning process.
Ann Iijima reported on behalf of the Workplace Environment Task Force that a proposal is being drafter regarding tuition benefits for staff.
Kelsey Han reported that many in the CSA have been focused recently on the new S/NC/CR policy that changes the deadline to “scrunch” a class from the last day of classes to seventh week. Approximately 560 students have signed a petition in opposition to the proposed change, and several student representatives will present at the faculty meeting in November to express their concerns before the faculty votes on the recommendation.
Stefanie Tran noted that the SAC Benefits Committee has returned from hiatus, and encouraged CEDI to be aware of the group and make an effort to facilitate good communication.
Memorial Day Observance
Ann Iijima introduced the background to the proposal from the Workplace Task Force. She explained that, for many alumni who have served in the armed forces as well as staff members who wish to officially honor the holiday, Memorial Day has become a major climate issue. The document, she explained, recognizes the difficulty of working observance of the holiday into Carleton’s rigid academic calendar, but presents the issue nevertheless because it has been such a dominant climate issue in the workplace. If the memoranda were to be approved, the Task Force would then take the proposal to the faculty to discuss whether or not the observance of Memorial Day would be possible academically, as well as to the staff to determine if the observance of Memorial Day, and loss of a floating holiday, is something that would significantly improve the climate surrounding this issue.
A major issue many saw with the proposal was the response it would receive, in particular hesitations about why only Memorial Day observance was being discussed, when Carleton also holds classes on Martin Luther King, Jr. Day, Columbus Day, Presidents Day, etc. Michael McNally observed that there is a lot of programming around MLK Day that is not present for Memorial Day. Overall, there was a general sentiment that, while it is unclear what the proper outcome regarding Memorial Day observance should be, the issue clearly deserves continued conversation.