ROLL CALL: Present: Altmann, Susan C. Anderson, Anderson-Inman, Belitz, Bennett, Berk, Blandy, Chadwell, Davis, DeGidio, Ellis, Engelking, Farwell, Gerdes, Halpern, Hawkins, Hurwit, Kimball, Kintz, Leavitt, Lees, Luks, Maxwell, Morse, Ostler, Owen, Page, Paris, D. Pope, Ravits, Ryan, Soper, Stavitsky, Tedards, Westling, J. Young, P. Young.

Excused: Acres, Gilkey, O'Keefe, Wolfe

Absent: All Senators were either present or excused

CALL TO ORDER

Senate President Carl Bybee called the meeting to order at 3:07 p.m., in Condon 204, on Wednesday, October 9, 1996.

President Bybee began the meeting with a brief opening address. He first congratulated President Dave Frohnmayer on his investiture of Friday, October 4, 1996, and on the remarks the President made on that occasion. In addition to being a day of celebration, the event brought about a real building of collegiality among the members of the University community.

Senate President Bybee then went on to welcome the new Senate to its first full term, and to relate some of the good news that has come to the University during the past few months. President Bybee mentioned the Knight gift, with a comment that at the next Senate meeting plans for the distribution of the Knight chairs would be discussed, along with how Senate members and other faculty would be involved in the process.

Also in the realm of good news, President Bybee mentioned Governor Kitzhaber's University address from last Spring (May 30, 1996), and reminded everyone of the Governor's expressed commitment to reinvesting in higher education.

Next President Bybee formally thanked Paul Simonds for his two years' work as Senate President, a time during which the new senate took shape. President Bybee complimented former President Simonds for the insight, grace and patience with which he carried out his tasks as Senate President. He noted that a major portion of former President Simond's legacy was contained in the packet that all Senators had received prior to the meeting: a compact written version of the enabling legislation, and the bylaws of the new Senate. President Bybee also noted that Paul Simonds would continue to serve the Senate as one of two UO representatives to the Interinstitutional Faculty Senate. At the request of President Bybee, Paul Simonds stood, and was acknowledged by those assembled.

President Bybee also extended a special thanks to Keith Richard, who will retire on November 1, 1996. Keith served as Faculty Secretary from 1980/81 through 1995/96, as Secretary to the Senate from 1985/86 through 1995/96 (with a one-year hiatus from both of these positions), and as University Archivist for 24 years. Keith was an indispensable storehouse of knowledge regarding both the University and the Senate, functioning as both formal and informal historian. Keith was also a strong and active voice in support of the UO faculty, and helped to make faculty governance more effective at the University. In recognition of his outstanding service, President Frohnmayer and Provost Moseley have moved to immediately confer upon Professor Keith Richard the rank and title of Professor Emeritus.

President Bybee then introduced Julia Heydon. Ms. Heydon will be serving as temporary Faculty Secretary and Secretary to the Senate until the position is permanently filled. President Bybee informed the Senate members that a search is underway, and that since the position is not yet filled, nominations are welcome. President Bybee also noted that while Keith Richard served as both Faculty Secretary and Secretary to the Senate, the two positions do not necessarily have to be occupied by the same individual. Because the duties of the Faculty Secretary frequently extend into the summer months, the search is currently focused upon 12-month employees. However, 9-month employees may also receive consideration. Nominations should be sent to Lorraine Davis in Academic Affairs.

Next President Bybee extended a particular welcome to new Senators, and congratulated them on their election and their willingness to help invigorate faculty governance on campus. We have a full slate of Senators as represented in the bylaws. The new members representing the Social Sciences and the Lundquist College of Business were asked to see the Secretary after the meeting to draw straws for the length of their terms.

All senators were encouraged to attend the reception at the Museum of Art immediately following the Senate meeting. President Bybee pointed out that in addition to providing a chance to relax and socialize, such functions also allow senators an opportunity to begin to develop informal communication networks among themselves. He mentioned that there has already been a great deal of e-mail exchange on the Senator's list, particularly on the sexual conduct issue. He also invited people to visit the Senate Web Page (the Web address for the Senate is printed on the bottom of the agenda for the October 9, 1996 Senate meeting) and the UO Home Page The UO Home Page contains a transcript of President Frohnmayer's remarks from his investiture in the News and Calendar area under "Latest News Releases." On the Academic Affairs Home Page one can find the Provost's report to the Senate on the update on the Productivity Plan, as well as other information about long-range planning and other current issues.

Senate meetings will generally continue to be held on the second Wednesday of every month at 3:00 p.m., with the December 1996 meeting being an exception. The two remaining Fall term meetings are scheduled for November 13, 1996 and December 4, 1996.

ANNOUNCEMENTS/COMMUNICATIONS FROM THE SENATE FLOOR

Professor David Schuman, School of Law, was asked to speak on some of the 23 state-wide ballot measures that would be appearing on the ballot this November. Mr. Schuman spoke only about those measures that would directly or indirectly affect higher education, including measures 27, 35, 39, 40, 41, 45, 47 and 57. He urged Senators to read the Voter's Pamphlet and suggested that interested persons contact the League of Women Voters for their summaries and recommendations concerning the ballot measures.

President Bybee then asked for comments from the floor. In response, Senator Soper (Physics) noted that the UO Alumni Association has taken a public position against Measures 46 and 47. Senator Kintz (English) added that she had information on Measures 45, 46 and 47 that she would be happy to share after the meeting. Senator Kintz also mentioned that the ASUO was once again actively working to register students to vote.

Ms. Elaine Green, Associate Dean of Student Life and Student Conduct Coordinator, was the next speaker. She announced that there would be a public hearing on November 1, 1996 at 2:00 p.m. in the Walnut Room of the Erb Memorial Union concerning changes in the Student Conduct Code. Ms. Green briefly discussed three rule changes scheduled to be discussed at the November 1st public hearing: one concerning emergency suspensions, a second concerning the Sexual Misconduct rule and how rape is handled on campus, and a third regarding changing the process for holding formal hearings on campus.

The final two announcements came from Senator Anne Tedards (Music), who first reminded senators that the official public hearing on Sexual Relationships and Abuses of Power would be held on Wednesday, October 23, 1996 in the Walnut Room of the Erb Memorial Union. Senator Tedards also brought up the current situation at the University of Minnesota regarding tenure, and stated that there was a general request from the faculty at the University of Minnesota for resolutions of support from other faculties. The request by University of Minnesota faculty was noted, and may be taken up in a future Senate meeting.

APPROVAL OF MINUTES OF THE MAY 22, 1996 SENATE MEETING

President Bybee asked for any changes or corrections to the Minutes of the University Senate from May 22, 1996 . The only correction indicated was from Senator Page (Chemistry) who said she was noted as having been present when in fact she was not. There being no other corrections or changes, Senator Soper moved that the minutes be accepted. The motion was seconded, and passed unanimously.

COMMITTEE REPORTS

Report of the Committee on Committees

Ms. Judith Eisen, Chair of the Committee on Committees during 1995/96, gave the first committee report. The Committee on Committees is currently charged with selecting all people for service on all campus committees, including the slates of nominees for all elective committees. During the Winter of 1996, Ms. Eisen asked that the charge of the Committee on Committees be changed slightly, so that the group could review the structure of committees and then make recommendations to the Senate that would make the process more efficient. The Senate agreed to this request, and the members of the Committee on Committees then talked among themselves and with others on campus to identify some of the problems and potential solutions. A copy of the final proposal to the Senate from the Committee on Committees is included in these minutes on pages 11-14.

Ms. Eisen noted that it has been difficult to recruit faculty to work on committees for a number of reasons. She cited several significant disincentives for committee service, especially among junior faculty, including: 1) Faculty are overburdened with other duties related to teaching, research and departmental responsibilities; 2) Committee service is generally unrecognized and unrewarded, i.e., committee service is not a "profitable" use of one's time. The hours put into committee service are more profitably spent on teaching and research, especially for junior faculty.

Furthermore, the Committee on Committees feels that the current recruitment process (paper in mailboxes) is not an effective one for either elected or appointed committees.

After completing their review of the structure of campus committees, the Committee on Committees concluded that:
1) We cannot expect participation unless there is some form of recognition for committee service, for example a letter in the faculty member's personnel file. Ms. Eisen suggested that this is something the Senate should think about.
2) We must change the recruitment process. Paper in mailboxes that it being ignored is not effective. We must take advantage of 1990's technology.
3) The recruitment process needs constant and regular re-evaluation. Members of the Committee on Committees actually did a lot of recruiting by phone and e-mail, trying to get people to serve, but this should not be the final word on this process.
4) Both the structure and the recruiting of members of campus committees needs regular periodic review.

At the conclusion of Ms. Eisen's report, President Bybee opened the floor to questions. There were none. President Bybee thanked Ms. Eisen and her committee for her report, and for the committee's work of last year. President Bybee then stated that the University administration is also interested in the problem of committee service, and that there may be some proposals coming from the administration in this regard. The administration needs to make it clear that committee service will be rewarded, and the Senate needs to make it clear that it supports tangible rewards for service to the University community. Finally, the Senate needs to make clear recommendations both about the recruitment process, and about how service is handled.

Report of the Interinstitutional Faculty Senate

Paul Simonds presented a report from the Interinstitutional Faculty Senate, which last met at Southern Oregon State College in June 1996, and was next scheduled to meet at the University of Oregon on Friday and Saturday, October 10 and 11, 1996.

Mr. Simonds reported that one of the main functions of the IFS over the past few months has been to serve on task forces developed by the State Board. Members of the IFS attended State Board hearings on higher education during the past year, and have agreed be involved with "solution teams" that are being formed to look at various issues in higher education in Oregon, such as engineering programs in Portland. In addition, IFS President Martha Sargent has been asked by Chancellor Cox to submit names of faculty to sit on a "solution team" for faculty salaries. Paul Simonds has submitted two names from the UO faculty to Ms. Sargent, for her submission to Chancellor Cox.

Mr. Simonds finished his report by inviting UO Senators to contact him if there are issues that this Senate should send to the IFS for consideration. He stated that the IFS wants to continue to be involved in the planning process, and in educating legislators about what faculty do.

At the conclusion of Mr. Simond's report, President Bybee noted that communication between the UO and other campuses in the state system is becoming increasingly important, and that the UO Senate should make use of the Interinstitutional Faculty Senate to make sure the needs and concerns of the UO are being considered.

Report of the University Committee on the Curriculum

The final committee report of the day was presented by Mr. Steven Chatfield (Dance). He began by explaining that the correct title is the "University Committee on the Curriculum," not the "Undergraduate Curriculum Committee." Mr. Chatfield noted that while the bulk of the work done by this committee concerns undergraduate curricular issues, the committee also reviews graduate proposals as requested. Mr. Chatfield reviewed the previous procedures for making curricular changes, and then outlined how these processes have changed as of Spring of 1996.

Previously, the Senate would receive an annual report from the curriculum committee, usually at the January Senate meeting, and would be asked to act upon it. However, the implementation of any curriculum changes would be postponed until the following Fall, so that the changes could be put in the University Bulletin. This resulted in a process that took three academic years to complete: in Year 1, the academic departments would forward their materials to the School and Colleges; during Year 2, the material went to the curriculum committee for action by the Senate; and finally, in Year 3 the changes would be implemented.

Under the new system, the process leading to a curricular change can begin in the Fall and, in the best case scenario, be completed by Spring. Where the curricular decision is of a nature that it can be made at the UO level, it will be implemented within one week of its approval by the Senate. This year the Senate will receive the report from the University Committee on the Curriculum in December, for action at the January meeting.

Mr. Chatfield observed that in the past there has been some confusion about the role of Senate members with regard to proposals for changes in the curriculum. He suggested that rather than focusing on typographical errors and the small details of individual proposals, Senators should take the larger view on curricular issues and trends. Departments and faculties should report any difficulties and/or details needing attention or correction to their Senators, and the Senators can then relay that information as required.

At this point in the meeting, President Bybee asked for the Senators' approval to discuss an item from the New Business section of the agenda, "Building a Senate Agenda," before opening the discussion of the Revised Policy on Sexual Relations and Abuses of Power, which appears on the agenda under Unfinished Business. Unanimous consent was granted by the Senators for a change in the order of business.

NEW BUSINESS

Building a Senate Agenda

Prior to the October 9, 1996 Senate meeting, a two-page "homework sheet" which introduced a process for building a senate agenda was distributed to all Senators. Additional copies were distributed during the October 9th meeting. A copy of this document can be found on pages 15-16 of these minutes. The purpose of this effort is for the Senate to develop a working faculty agenda, to help guide and prioritize Senate activities during the 1996-97 academic year. The Senate Executive Committee felt that it was important for the Senate to establish its own agenda, in order to give Senators a chance to discuss items in the Senate and identify issues and establish goals that our faculty colleagues feel are critical to their work on campus. Furthermore, the hope is that aspects of this agenda which relate to future years might be passed on to future Senates. The intention is to create some continuity, and a unified position regarding what the faculty thinks needs to be done on campus.

Senators were asked to contact their constituents before October 30, 1996, and ask them the three questions listed on the handout. The questions ask what actions the University Senate or the University as a whole could take during the next nine months, the next three years, and the next ten years that would substantially improve the day-to-day working lives of University staff and students, and/or the quality of academic life in general at the university.

Senators were asked to compile a list of five to seven items for each of the three questions, and forward a one-page summary of their findings to dmc@oregon. The responses will be tabulated, and the results will be discussed at the November 13, 1996 Senate meeting. At that time Senators will be asked to prioritize the items, and think about how to deal with them in the short term and the long term.

At this point, Senator Engelking proposed a resolution, which was seconded by Senator Soper, that the Senate proceed with "Building a Senate Agenda."

Discussion on the resolution followed. Senator Halpern asked how the outcome of the survey would be used. President Bybee responded that it depended upon the nature of the item. Senator Halpern also raised the point that changes often involve resources, and asked if resources would be made available to implement the suggested changes. President Bybee again responded, saying that the Senate will need to examine the issues and goals that arise as a result of the survey, and determine which are good ideas that can be implemented fairly easily with little cost, and which will be resource-heavy. Senator Tedards added her support for the process of building a senate agenda, saying that the Administration wants a faculty voice to be heard on campus, and is asking the faculty to participate. The faculty must set its own agenda if it wants an agenda to be set. Senator Anderson-Inman also offered support for the idea, but questioned the short time frame. She felt that such an important planning item might require more time to develop. Senator Phil Young concurred, and suggested that Senators might respond to the first question--the question dealing with the current academic year--by October 30th, and save the longer-range second and third questions for the December 4, 1996 Senate meeting. Both Senator Soper and President Bybee responded to these requests for a longer time frame by saying that the task needs to be completed quickly, and that it is important to make some kind of a start, with the recognition that some adjustments may be needed later in the year. President Bybee added that in lieu of a departmental meeting, Senators might employ more informal means of polling their constituents.

As the ten minute time limit for this agenda item had been exceeded, the resolution on the floor was put to a vote. The resolution passed unanimously.

UNFINISHED BUSINESS

Discussion of Revised Policy of Sexual Relations and Abuses of Power

The final item on the October 9, 1996 Senate agenda to be discussed was the proposed new rule regarding Conflicts of Interest: Sexual Relationships and Abuses of Power. (OAR 571-04-007) The Senate was asked to discuss the September 27, 1996 revision of this rule, with proposed changes from the President's Office, in preparation for a public hearing to be held on October 23, 1996.

President Bybee began the discussion by providing some background. This policy originally came before the Senate in the Spring of 1996, after several years of work. At that time, there was fairly wide-spread support for the general idea of the policy, but there were concerns about certain details. Consequently, during the Spring of 1996 the Senate took no action on the matter, except to ask that after the public hearing was held, the policy be returned to the Senate for one final review.

In the intervening time, the President's office revised the statement that had been discussed by the Senate in the Spring, and redistributed it to all faculty in early September 1996, in preparation for the public hearing scheduled for October 23, 1996. There was substantial interest and a good bit of communication and commentary about the revised version of the policy, and some serious questions were raised. This led the President' s Office to make additional revisions, which were included in yet another draft of the proposal, dated September 27, 1996 (printed on yellow paper). The President asked that the September 27, 1996 draft of the proposal come before the Senate once more to allow for additional Senate input to be included at the October public hearing.

At this point, Dave Hubin, Executive Assistant President, interjected that President Frohnmayer's intent in bringing this issue back to the Senate was to underscore the consultative nature of this process. Mr. Hubin added that after the May 22, 1996 meeting of the Senate, it was determined that from a technical and legal standpoint, this proposed policy would actually need to be an Oregon Administrative Rule (OAR) rather than a UO policy statement. OAR's require a higher level of consultation, including written and verbal public testimony.

The most significant revision in the September 27, 1996 draft of the policy concerns section (6)(a) of the statement, regarding burden of proof. In 9/27/96 draft this section reads:

(6) Burdens of Proof: In assessing the evidence in a complaint initiated by;
(a) the less powerful party in the alleged sexual relationship, the individual filing the complaint shall have the burden of producing a preponderance of evidence that a sexual relationship occurred. Consent shall not be considered a defense to a complaint filed under this policy.

(A copy of the entire 9/27/96 version of the Proposed New Rule may be found on pages 17-20 of these minutes.)

At this point, President Bybee opened the floor to discussion. Senator Hawkins (Business) began by stating that it was not clear to him or to some of his constituents whether the policy referred to both spousal and non-spousal relationships throughout, or whether there was a differentiation. He noted that the first eight points appear to relate to spousal as well as non-spousal relationships, yet spousal relationships are not specifically mentioned in the document until point (10), the final paragraph in the document. Senator Hawkins stated that he thought it was confusing to mix into one document policy affecting both those in spousal relationships and unmarried faculty and students. He thought perhaps there should be a separate policy related to spousal relationships, especially because it is not an insignificant issue on the UO campus.

President Bybee called for comments or questions. None were forthcoming.

Mr. Tom Givon was next to speak. He stated that he would not be able to attend the public hearing, but that he had some concerns about the policy. He agreed that the most "pernicious" piece of the policy statement concerning the burden of proof, item (6)(a), had been reversed in the September 27, 1996 draft. However, he was concerned about the language of Section (2)(a), specifically the use of the word "constitutes" in the passage below:

"...Such a relationship constitutes an unethical abuse of power and creates a conflict of interest..."

Mr. Givon pointed out that such relationships have the potential of giving rise to an unethical abuse of power, and may create a conflict of interest, but they do not automatically create unethical abuses of power (emphasis his). Mr. Givon was also concerned by the rule's potential interference in the freedom of two consenting adults to engage in a relationship. Mr. Givon feels that the policy implies that faculty are incapable of making correct choices in certain situations. Further, he fears that the policy leaves the issue of asymmetry of power open to a wide interpretation, which could include power differentials based upon such factors as race or economic status.

Senator Soper, reading from a prepared statement, was the next to take the floor. Senator Soper's concerns focused upon the standard of evidence in the case when the accused proclaims his or her innocence. He expressed his concern that the judges in these cases might be biased, and since a "preponderance of evidence" requires only that it is more probable than not that the accused is guilty. Since the penalties are potentially very serious should one be accused and found guilty of violation of the policy (including possible dismissal from the University), Senator Soper proposed a resolution that the standard of evidence be changed from "a preponderance of evidence" to "clear and convincing evidence." If the evidence is not clear and convincing, then no decision should be made that does serious harm to an individual.

The proposal for a Senate resolution changing the standard of evidence from "a preponderance" to "clear and convincing" was seconded. The resolution was then opened to further discussion.

At this point Senator Margie Paris went to the blackboard and gave brief definitions of the legal terms used for standards of evidence. A "preponderance of evidence" means that something is more probable than not, or that one is "fairly sure" that the evidence supports the claim. "Clear and convincing evidence" means that one has a definite and firm conviction that the evidence is true--that is, that one is "very sure." "Beyond a reasonable doubt" implies that the factfinder is left with a moral certainty that the facts are true--that is, one is absolutely certain.

At the completion of Senator Paris's explanation, Senator Westling expressed concern that the only place in the policy where the burden of proof is mentioned is when it is being determined whether a sexual relationship took place. On the issue that is seemingly the crux of the policy, that is, whether immediate and appropriate action was taken to mitigate the situation, there is no standard of proof indicated. If we are concerned about the standard of proof in the one, relatively small area [of whether a sexual relationship actually occurred], then we should also be concerned with the standard of proof in what seems to be the more significant area, i.e., what action was taken to mitigate the problem.

Senator Ryan then commented that he supports the policy, and believes that faculty must take a leadership role in creating a comfortable and safe educational environment for our students. For that reason, faculty should voice the strongest disapproval possible of any kind of behavior, including sexual relationships between faculty and students, that threatens this environment. Senator Ryan expressed the need for a change in the campus climate which essentially has allowed any kind of relationship between faculty and their students.

Senator Ryan continued his remarks by saying that if we are really interested in protecting faculty rights, then we should be more concerned with the AAAC (Affirmative Action Advisory Council). The AAAC hears these complaints, and makes recommendations to the President about how to rule on them. As of last Spring, there were no faculty members on the AAAC. Senator Ryan said a proposal would be forthcoming that would state that since faculty are by and large the ones that are involved in these cases, there ought to be faculty representation on the AAAC.

Addressing the resolution still on the floor, Senator Ryan raised a final point regarding the standard of evidence. It is difficult in cases like these to find "clear and convincing evidence," since the evidence concerning whether or not a sexual relationship occurred usually comes down to the testimony of individuals. This higher standard of evidence may result in a situation where faculty are not held accountable for their behavior. Additionally, if the standard of evidence is raised to "clear and convincing" to make sure that faculty are not falsely accused, it may well create a disincentive for students to register complaints. What we need to do is balance the rights of faculty with the freedom and rights of students to do something about abusive situations when they do occur.

Ms. Caroline Forell (School of Law) then stated that she feels that "preponderance of evidence" is the correct standard for this policy. She explained that in sexual harassment cases, the current standard is "preponderance of evidence." She also noted that in non-criminal cases there are very few instances in which "clear and convincing" evidence is required. If a faculty member is accused of a sexual relationship which leads to an abuse of power, there will be a long investigation process to determine that person's guilt or innocence before severe penalties such as dismissal or reduction of pay are invoked.

Mr. Peter Swan concurred with Ms. Forell's statement that the "clear and convincing evidence" standard is used very sparingly in civil law--generally only in cases of fraud, or when the plaintiff is seeking damages.

Senator P. Young brought up the issue of the third party clause. Senator Hurwit pointed out that in this draft policy "clear and convincing" evidence is required in the case of a third party complaint. Then the question arose as to whether consent wasn't in actuality a defense, whether or not we say it is. Peter Swan responded by saying that the real issue is whether or not immediate corrective action is taken when a relationship involving an imbalance of power develops.

Senator Belitz endorsed Senator Soper's resolution to change the language regarding the standard of evidence. He also noted that the question of who has greater power in a sexual relationship is a tricky one. It is clear who holds higher rank, but power and rank are not necessarily equated. He further noted that with regard to third party complaints, in former drafts of the policy the third party had to prove by clear and convincing evidence that they had been damaged by a relationship between two other persons. He was concerned that in the current (9/27/96) draft the third party need only establish, by clear and convincing evidence, that a sexual relationship occurred. He fears that this language will encourage faculty and students to spy on one another.

Senator Belitz also pointed out that the language in items (7) and (9) regarding sanctions and mitigation of the conflict seemed contradictory. Is the taking of immediate and appropriate action to mitigate the conflict sufficient to prevent sanctions from being imposed upon the party with supervisory or evaluative power? Or might sanctions be imposed even if the person has taken steps to mitigate the problem?

Senator D. Pope agreed with Ms. Forell's statement concerning the standard of evidence, and also with Senators Hurwit's and Belitz's concerns about the third party clause.

President Bybee then asked for a vote by show of hands on the resolution on the floor, to substitute "clear and convincing evidence" for "a preponderance of evidence" in section (6)(a) of the 9/27/96 draft was put to a vote. The resolution failed, with a vote of 8 in favor; 22 opposed.

The floor was then opened to further discussion. Senator Halpern asked if the wording of the draft was sufficient to tell an individual what he or she must do to mitigate the problem.
Senator Tedards replied by referring Senator Halpern to item (1)(a) of the draft, on the top of page 2, wherein several possible mitigating actions are outlined. Mr. Hubin provided some additional background regarding the intent behind the language concerning mitigation. He pointed out that under certain circumstances, "absolute" mitigation might work to the detriment of the injured party; thus the language was changed to "substantially mitigate," with the intention that a good faith effort be made to resolve the issue.

President Bybee called for any last comments. Senator D. Pope raised concerns about self-incrimination should one seek guidance from the Office of Affirmative Action regarding a relationship involving a power differential. Senator Tedards concurred with Senator Pope's concern, and then returned to item (6)(a), which says that it must be proven only that a sexual relationship occurred; there is nothing in that portion of the policy statement regarding evidence about whether any mitigating actions were taken by the party of greater power.

Senator Hawkins said that as he understands the document, abuse is not an issue, but only the simple fact that a relationship between non-equals existed. A relationship could occur between non-equals in which there was no abuse of power, and no advantage taken. If at some later point in time that relationship were to end, the party of lesser power could file a grievance, and the party with greater power, under this document, would be guilty, and could be subject to reprimand, even though the party of greater power did in no way take advantage of their power during the relationship. The fact that they had power and engaged in a sexual relationship is unprofessional and unethical, according to Senator Hawkins' reading of the document.

Senator A. Kimball added that the issue of sexual relationships needs to be separated from the abuse of power. According to Senator Kimball, the two issues are "hopelessly confused" in the present document. He pointed out that there are many other potential opportunities for abuse of power between faculty and students besides sexual involvement that are not addressed in this policy statement.

In response to Senator Hawkins, Mr. Lehrman (Office of Affirmative Action) stated that whether or not there was abuse of power, a conflict of interest does exist in a relationship between non-equals, and that conflict of interest should be mitigated by whatever means are necessary, for example having someone else do the grading. The danger of sanctions being imposed are much greater if no mitigating action is taken.

Mr. Swan noted that in the written commentary he has received, the lack of a clear definition of "sexual relationship" has been a theme. He said the definition was intentionally left vague, but that might be something Senators want to comment upon, orally, in writing, or at the hearing on October 23, 1996.

ADJOURNMENT

A motion was made to adjourn the meeting at 5:14 p.m. The motion being readily seconded, the meeting was concluded.

Julia J. Heydon
Acting Secretary