Minutes from Student Caucus 2/25/07
Attendance: 9
Stack: Shannon
Facilitating:Mariel
Minutes:Lindsy
Mariel: campus.
Bob (Swoap) showed up and he's going to talk to us about smoking and smoke free on
Bob: What I have is a rough draft of a proposal to change the tobacco policy at WWC. Not too long ago, a flurry of emails concerned about smoking and second hand smoke came. This is not anything from the administration, rather, it's a proposal for everyone to talk about (smoking). I don't know what venue it should go to ... staff forum? This proposal is much more modest (so not going directly to administration or affairs). What the proposal is asking for: 1) Create a larger smoke-free zone on central campus-- basically academic buildings, vining and sunderland. (the reason behind it is second hand smoke) It's hard to manage-- where is 25 feet away from buildings? Can you light up while walking from a building? 2) This is strongly recommended to the administration, co-sponsored by me and Charlie in wellness: prevention and help (for a person to quit) policy. We have research from psych department surveys, showing 33% students and 7% faculty smoke. 80% of people who regularly smoke have tried to quit but unsuccessful. We want more ways on campus to help quit
(beyond free nicorette, herbal supplements, etc.) I want to find out what's the best solution for our campus. Having a smoke free campus is extreme and would violate the rights of smokers, etc.
Keeping the 25 feet rule would wipe out Jensen patio, cowpie patio, grassy areas on lawn, in front of
Gladfelter, etc. (where smoking is occuring). Note: this is not a ban on smoking! There are smoking areas provided near vining (shelter area) and village apartments (near fire). This proposal would make it more inconvient for smoking. The process for these changes is unclear to me, and we're still putting finishing touches on the proposal..
Cathy: (the proposal would go) through Student Caucus and Staff Forum, and we would adapt change and recommend it to the administration. Maybe we could talk about this at a community meeting.
Clay: So you're trying to wipe out smoking on central campus. Who would enforce that?
Bob: All of us. It shouldn't just be public safety and administration-- it should be a team effort, all of us agree to do this. We haven't gotten citations ready yet (and such, for when rules break).
Most of this smoke-free is studied and seen at community colleges, not residential. Each year gets better results (smoking decreases from year to year).
Clay:
Mariel:
Clay:
How many voting members are in Student Caucus?
10
So, 10 students represent (all students)
Cathy: It's a vote of Student Caucus and Staff Forum before recommendation, but it's something that needs more discussion.
Bob: There are a lot of people upset (over this issue)-- it takes out post-lunch socializing in

the Gladfelter area
Bess: If caucus wanted to open the vote up to students, we could do it. I think the community supports you (Bob). The issue definitely needs more enforcement. Now, the extremeness of the next big step: no central campus area available for smoking makes a five minute break turn into a 15 min. break (from all the walking to and from a designated smoking area).
Sasha: Regarding Jensen patio, all enter through there, both smokers and non-smokers. I'm awre of sensitivities, but lots of smokers smoke between classes and find it inconvenient to walk over to vining. I'd suggest something (designated smoking area) closer to where they'd be.
Clay: I like the idea, but I'd vote against it because it'd be another policy not enforced (on campus). That's the only thing I'd put against it, though I agree. I would like another smoking area on core campus.
Bob: The inconvenience (for smokers) is intentional. Like lots of hospitals are doing now, it shows the community takes a stance of pro-health. A place like this (WWC) with its mission statement and sustainability needs to “walk the talk.” A policy would start that-- we need a policy. Smoking is not sustainable, and is the number one cause of death (in America). We at WWC address alcohol more than smoking, even though smoking will kill more. Smoking creates a habit that lasts (years) after college. I respect y our right to vote against it.
Clay: It's not because of inconvenience, but because it'd be another unenforced policy.
Mandi: As a non-smoker, I agree with you (bob). People are resistant to enforcement, like they don't move when asked. If the proposal passes, a lot of people will not acknowledge it. Even some staff smoke on Jensen patio.
Bob: I'm hearing to include (in the proposal/policy) how enforcement will be different than how it's currently handled.
Nick: We should find the least traveled footpaths to make into smoking places. (because)
Vining is not only inconvenient but impractical (time wise- regarding walking to and from and still making it to class on time)
Kevin: (this topic) would be wonderful for a community meeting. It'd also be a good exercise for consensus building. I'd recommend going to the GIS group and have them look everywhere on campus and put a 25 foot radius around buildings and create a map of it. We can go from that map and make big blocks of campus smoke free but have spots (for smoking).
Bob: Are you saying to make more smoking than smoke free zones?
Kevin: More smoke free zones, and make them known.
Nick:
Kevin:
We could put benches there (in non-building zones) for smoking [again, makes it more obvious it's a smoking zone].
For example, the back lawn of Sunderland or places you could facilitate it.

Bob: You know, we get feedback from visitors with children and they comment about how shocked they are there's so much smoking on this green campus. I think it's a misconception because our smoking is highly visible. We could build a smoking structure with a roof as a compromise.
Bess: It works (the roofed structures). There's not so much dorm or doorway smoking now (as there had been previous years before these structures, like Pavilion near Sage were built).
Andrew: Jensen and Sunderland are social areas and gatherings-- that's why so many are smoking there. They like to stand around and smoke while waiting (til they go to their next class, work, etc.). I think we need to remove the chairs and walls around Jensen patio to make it inhospitable to hang around and smoke there.
Bob: Jensen's being redesigned; questions about structure being built.
Andrew: Smokers want to talk to their non-smoking friends. We need to make the are less nice.
Clay: There was a work day discussion in the past about creating smoking stations, but it was not continued because they found it promotes/encourages smoking.
Kevin: We should establish social areas/gatherings ot just for smoking, but could, away from buildings. That could help.
Mariel:
Bob:
Thanks for coming Bob.
(offers to get proposal draft out to others who want it and leaves)
Are there any committee reports? Mariel:
Kevin: Business Affairs: which may be changing its name to “Buildings and Grounds” committee. We talked about the pet policy again-- we were so close to it closing last staff forum.
Nick:
Kevin:
Can we get the gist of the proposal?
-core campus, pets on leashes (around buildings)
-others places (forest, etc.) dogs must be “in sight and under control”
-can be okay for pets unleashed at work buildings (supersedes core campus)
-clean up after pets
-pets of buildings must have 1 person responsible if needed
-if anyone has problems with it (legit ones): 3 nuisance or 1 aggressive attack reports; the pet will be removed from campus.
The policy is fairly reasonable. We're playing with the idea about a tethering station near Gladfelter, so people can check mail, etc. for 15-20min. But we're still talking bout it.
Clay: This proposal is filled with bad policy. 1) it violates Buncombe County laws
2) tethering multiple dogs-- they tend to fight 3) there are so many different zones where dogs can be; seems overly complicated. Why don't you just say ___ these positions are exempt from the policy, ex. Head of farm--? 4) leaves questions about guests and trails. And instead of animals being removed: why not have them no longer allowed to have pets (not like they can bring another, different one). 5) you need more clearly defined “aggressive behavior”

Kevin: (addressing issues) 1) except WWC is private property; but not having any laws/policy leaves liability, in case someone gets bit, etc. 5) we addressed aggressive behavior in proposal 2) it'd be a heavy design consideration-- with enough distance between dogs
Clay:
Kevin:
Why don't you just make it open and honest and say who's exempt?
(re-explains) We don't want to exempt people; want a policy that'll work for everyone. [ work area: shed, parking lot-- not garden, not recycling, etc.]
Cathy: I have a question: has anyone toyed with the idea of having an area/spot for dogs to play, etc.? Even just at certain points of the day?
Kevin: I'll bring it up at our next meeting.
Bess: Vice President for Advancement Committee: Carla (college relations, funding, etc.) is leaving and we're finishing the job description and putting it out there (like classifieds, etc.). If you have anything to pass along or say about VP Advancement, let me know.
Cathy: They're thinking about making a student on that committee-- it'd be good for student voice to be there.
Bess:
Andrew:
There's student at the interviews (so that shows how WWC likes to incorporate them)
I'm on Big Marketing Committee, but I finally got a hold of Richard and found out I'm not able to be on that committee anymore (scheduling conflict).
Shannon: Conduct Board: we met, trained, and might have a trial sometime.
Cathy: Campus Culture and Substance Committee Meeting: we'll present data from the
Zoomerang survey (from last thursday), people will break into small groups and discuss 3 questions,
(we have an incredible range of ideas from the survey with polar opposite opinions they're all passionate about-- so the question is: where do we go from here? The goal is to start a dialog around the issue. There's also faculty and staff opinions besides students-- hopefully the small groups can help us get at these issues; it's a complicated one. We will then bring the groups together (write comments down). Encourage everyone to come.
Andrew:
(to cathy)?
Was there going to be a Bubba update? And a rough explanation of your all-l you sent
Cathy: Bubba: they met and still are working on it, nothing's final yet. Some of their ideas were to make a day event with music and activities, if they don't continue the Bubba. The main issue is we have to make sure under 21 yr. Olds can't gain access to alcohol. So maybe we'll have something just
21 and older only or those who are drinking and those who aren't (separated) and good lighting!
They're still sorting it through. We're not going to have a March event, but we will have a May one. If we want to replace the Bubbas, we'll want to replace these events with something else: homecoming, and the 2 graduation events. However, if they want to keep the Bubbas, we want to encourage them to.
As for the all-l: I don't know if it's just a trend of just right now, etc. and I've gotten all different feedback from across the board from students. I know underage drinking and pot happens, basic policy

violation-- we know it's going to happen. But, there's been events where people's behaviors are meanspirited and disrespectful (usually student to student). First semester, I've heard about it-- people being cruel to each other, et. And officers and EMTs only see or have this – we don't want them to get the idea our students are bad and (always) drugs/alcohol involved....they have these stereotypes of WWC, and we don't want them to get this. This is not always community feeling-- it's an issue of civility. It's an issue of how to resolve differences.
Shannon: Yeah, I have a friend who's writing her thesis on that. Maybe it can be a community meeting topic-- do we have community, etc. We wanted to maybe get Peace and Justice to do a workshop with resolving conflicts, etc.
Andrew: It's interesting how we used to be a a farm school and religious, now we're so different. It's a cultural change, and I don't know if that's why it's changed, etc.
Any praises and concerns? Mariel:
Cathy:
Service Learning would like any feedback for their “visioning process.”
Various: We did a survey last year, we should send her the notes on that. Also, we should do more local/Swannanoa hours of service, and not Asheville.
Okay, email her if there's more input (etc.) Cathy:
Mariel: Are there any questions for Carla (she's coming next Sunday)?
Cathy: Sandy sent capital campaign priorities-- maybe have her (Carla) talk about it.