Committee on Community Interactions Mandate

This mandate was written by College Council members (in consultation with all interested parties willing to take part in the process). It was approved by a vote of College Council on 3/5/2008.

The Mandate

Committee Structure:

Students:

• 1 chair
• 8 others

Staff (advisory non-voting)

• VP diversity
• Deans’ office rep
• Chaplain

Faculty (advisory non-voting)

• 2 appointed by steering committee (or if that doesn’t work dean of faculty)

The Scope of the Committee

• The committee shall examine all interactions that involve students
  1. Student to student interactions
  2. Student to staff interactions
  3. Student to faculty interactions
• The committee shall not cover interactions that do not involve students
  1. Faculty to faculty interactions
  2. Faculty to staff interactions
  3. Staff to staff interactions

The Committee’s Mandate and Required Actions:

Stage 1:

• Establish if there is a problem with the way people in this community interact with each other and the way Williams handles social infractions.
  1. Problems to consider and look for (in no specific order) – A non-exhaustive list
     • Vandalism
     • Theft
     • Discrimination
     • Rape and sexual assault
     • Violence
     • Malicious behavior
     • Systematic marginalization inside and outside of the classroom
  2. Examine:
     • Recent incidents
     • Campus perceptions
     • Behavioral trends
  3. Review the structures we have
     • De jure
     • De facto
     • Precedent established in the way past issues have been handled
  4. Analyze the structures in place at other institutions (suggested schools):
     • Haverford
     • Wesleyan
     • Washington and Lee
     • Amherst
     • Middlebury
     • Dickinson
  5. Obtain the perspectives of the entire campus community and major constituent groups
     • Campus community
       • Hold open forums
       • Create a mechanism for getting anonymous opinions
       • Other methods as deemed appropriate by the committee
     • Suggestions for constituent groups to engage outside of the campus community solicitations (i.e. special meetings)
       • JAs
       • Varsity team captains
       • Neighborhood Governance Boards
       • Baxter Fellows
       • Minority Coalition
       • Non-Minco religious groups
       • Deans Office
       • Office of Campus Life
       • Campus Security
       • MCC
       • Faculty
       • Chaplains office
       • Admissions office
• Present findings and evidence to CC, administration and general campus community
  1. Identify and describe the problem
  2. Draft a report
     • Including details of the process
       • Who the committee spoke with
       • A report summarizing the structures we have and the way they are implemented (including precedents established by past decisions)
       • A report summarizing the structures at the other institutions analyzed by the committee
     • Meeting Minutes
     • Analysis and statement of the problem or proof that there is no problem
     • An open letter to the community summarizing the contents of the report

Stage 2 (If necessary and approved by CC):

• Formulate a proposal to address the problem
  1. Consider drafting explicit community standards that reflect the sentiments of the campus community
  2. Consider whether or not an enforcement mechanism is appropriate
     • If yes – generate proposals for an enforcement mechanism
• Draft a comprehensive report
  1. Including details of the process [in both stages]
     • Who the committee spoke with [in both stages]
     • A report summarizing the structures we have and the way they are implemented (including precedents established by past decisions) [to be taken from stage 1 report]
     • A report summarizing the structures at the other institutions analyzed by the committee [to be taken from stage 1 report]
  2. Meeting Minutes [from both stages]
  3. Analysis and statement of the problem or proof that there is no problem [to be taken from stage 1 report]
  4. Details of and justification for any structures or mechanisms proposed by the committee
  5. A open letter to the campus community summarizing the contents of the report and the committee’s proposals

Minimum Requirements throughout the process (the committee can and should do more):

• Be open and transparent
  1. Publish minutes after every meeting
  2. Publish the agenda of the upcoming meeting with sufficient time for the community to give input through the anonymous opinions structure and other feedback mechanisms established by the committee
  3. Hold at least two open forums a semester (including winter study)
     • The committee must hold one open forum between the completion of its written work and the formal submission of the work to CC and the administration
     • If the process proceeds to stage 2: After CC vets the proposal, the committee (in conjunction with CC) must hold one open forum at least one week before the all campus vote
  4. Create mechanisms for input
     • A mechanism for anonymous input
     • Smaller public comment sessions (a time for smaller groups of students—not a large open forum—to meet with the committee members and ask questions)

Process for approving and implementing the work of the committee:

• During the process
  1. The committee chair (or a suitable proxy drawn from the student members of the committee) must present the work of the committee to CC each month at the final CC meeting of the month—with the presentation focusing on the work done since the chair’s last presentation
     • During the monthly presentations CC will:
       • Discuss the work done by the committee in the last month
       • Issue non-binding recommendations and CC’s opinion on the work presented (if it has any)
• Stage 1 approval process
  1. The committee shall submit the stage 1 report to CC no later than October 15th 2008
     • If the committee wants more time to complete the stage 1 analysis, the committee may petition CC to extend the stage 1 deadline
     • A simple majority vote of CC may extend the stage 1 deadline to a new date
  2. CC shall devote the next CC meeting to discussing the report and, if necessary, voting on whether or not the committee shall progress to stage 2
  3. If the committee does not identify a problem
     • If the committee does not think proposals for change are necessary, the process is over
     • If the committee would like to formulate proposals to improve campus interactions, a simple majority vote of CC shall determine whether or not the committee will proceed to the stage 2 proposal process
  4. If the committee does identify a problem
     • A simple majority vote of CC shall determine whether or not the committee shall proceed to the stage 2 proposal process
• Stage 2 approval process
  1. The Committee shall submit its report and proposals to CC and the Dean of the College no later than the second Wednesday of Winter Study 2009, and present its findings at the next CC meeting
     • If the committee wants more time to complete the stage 2 analysis, the committee may petition CC to extend the stage 2 deadline
     • A simple majority vote of CC may extend the stage 2 deadline to a new date
     • Once the report and proposals have been submitted, CC shall analyze the work of the committee and devote its next meeting to discussing aspects of the proposal and proposing its non-binding recommendations for amendments or further study (if it has any)
  2. After hearing CC’s recommendations
     • The committee shall determine an amount of time (if any) appropriate to address the concerns raised by CC
     • If the committee deems it appropriate, the committee shall revise its report and proposal and submit a final version to CC and the Dean of the College
• Final Approval Process
  1. Once the final version has been submitted
     • At least three days after the report has been distributed to the student body and one week before the voting opens, CC shall organize and host an all campus debate on the committee’s recommendations
       • The committee must designate one of its student members or a student appointed by the committee to argue in favor of the proposal
       • The CC appointments committee shall solicit and appoint a student to argue against the proposal
       • The debate shall be moderated and the format shall be set by the CC co-Presidents
       • The debate must occur before the final all campus forum
       • The entire student body must be invited to both the final open forum and the debate
     • CC shall organize a vote of the student body
       • The vote shall not take place less than two weeks after the final version of the report is distributed to the student body and one week after the all campus open forum
       • In order pass, the following conditions must be satisfied
         • A simple majority of the student body must vote yes
         • Of those voting, 2/3 must vote yes
       • The committee shall select the manner in which the committee’s proposals appear on the ballot
         • A slate
         • Broken down into specific proposals requiring individual votes

Process for Amending the Committee’s mandate

• At any time, the committee may propose changes to its own goals, process or structure to college council
• Such proposals must be approved by a majority vote of the committee before being brought to CC
• Once the proposal is before CC, CC may ratify or reject the committee’s proposal with a simple majority vote of CC