President P. Nelson delivered the President's report (See Appendix A - Available by Request from the Senate Office). At the conclusion of his report, President Nelson asked Vice President Sachs to give the report which he had prepared for his department on the Harrington Seminar and which is included in the minutes (See Appendix C - Available by Request from the Senate Office). Nelson asked if there were comments on the President's report. Hauge referred to 9-63. He said that after the last Senate meeting he looked through the Senate minutes up through October 1, 1970, and said that he could not find any reference indicating that President Smith had not approved 9-63. President Smith responded to Hauge's remark, saying that Proposal 9-63 was not approved, and "that should be formally introduced into the minutes now."

Reports on Meeting of the Academic Council. There were reports on two meetings of the Academic Council. President P. Nelson attended the first meeting and delivered the report (See Appendix D - Available by Request from the Senate Office) Vice President Sachs attended the second meeting and delivered the report. (See Appendix E - Available by Request from the Senate Office).

Vice President Romig said that there was one correction of Sachs' report. There will be only one Career Workshop for women per institution. He said that Sachs reported on the Council meeting accurately, but Romig said he found that information out today.

Reports on Meeting of the Board of Control Vice President Sachs delivered a report on the meeting of the Board of Control (See Appendix F - Available by Request from the Senate Office)

President Nelson, chairman, gave the report. This year the members of the Curricular Policy Committee are Dr. Eugene Huang from Civil Engineering, Dr. Virgil Snyder from ME-EM, Dr. Michael Coffman from Forestry, Dr. Charles Nelson from Humanities, Dr. Paul Nelson from the School of Business, and John Strump, the student member.

The Committee held a meeting on the proposed industrial forestry option. Comments which had been received from academic deans and department heads were discussed. Enough questions had been raised on the proposal to warrant further discussions with the Forestry Department and others before the proposal can be brought to the Senate Floor, for a vote under Senate Policy 10-70. The Committee hopes to have the industrial forestry option proposal before the Senate at its next meeting.

B. Instructional Policy - No Report.

D. Elections Committee

Senator Evensen gave the report. He reported that the Academic Faculty had ratified Proposal 8-76, Constitutional Amendment to Provide Senate Representation for Newly Created Departments (Amendment V to the Constitution). The vote was 145 in favor of the Proposal and 20 opposed. He said that one ballot came to the Elections Committee with the comment written on it, stating that nobody's really defined "newly created." The Elections Committee Report, dated October 18, 1976 was signed by Virginia Doane, Mildred Townsend, Virgil Snyder.

President P. Nelson said that clearly more than two-thirds of the Academic Faculty who voted approved the amendment and that it shall become effective upon approval by the Board of Control, and that the Council will submit Proposal 8-76 to the President to submit to the Board of Control for their consideration.

E. Roles of the Senate and Faculty Association - No Report. President P. Nelson is looking for a person who is willing to be chairman of this Committee.

Senator Hauge, Committee member, distributed copies of two Senate Proposals on smoking which he and three others prepared. (See Appendix A - Available by Request from the Senate Office). He said that Kauppila participated in the discussion on smoking at the last meeting and that President P. Nelson suggested that Hauge might participate in preparing a proposal since the matter had originally been raised by the Social Sciences Department. Four people met; they were R. Kauppila, K. Kraft, L. Rakestraw and V. Hauge. The proposal that they have come up with is essentially in two parts; one directed at the Senate itself, in terms of its own behavior, and one directed to the Senate as they would address the President of the University. The proposal relating to the Senate is that smokers shall be segregated to one area of the faculty lounge during meetings of the Senate, that area to be downwind of the nonsmokers.

The portion of the Senate proposals directed to the President of the University basically breaks down into two parts, one being Recommendations for the restriction of smoking to designated areas/sections of the environment and the other, Recommendations for the prohibition of smoking in certain environments. There are two recommendations concerning implementation of these proposals.

The Committee thought that the faculty and others might be interested so they offered a recommendation directed to the campus groups such as students, and the faculty in their roles as members of the Faculty Association and at departmental meetings.

"The Senate Smoking Committee recommends that other campus groups may wish to pursue the general sense of Proposals 4-77 and 5-77 by designating smoking and nonsmoking areas or by prohibiting smoking entirely from certain places or functions.

For example, at present on a given floor of the ME-EM building, both alcoves (1) lack adequate ventilation and (2) are designated as smoking areas. The Student Government may wish to request the President to have (1) the ventilation problem rectified, and (2) one alcove reserved for nonsmokers.

For another example, the Faculty Association may wish to designate smoking and non-smoking areas at its meetings and functions.

For yet another example, University departments may wish to prohibit smoking at meetings of their members.

Finally, The Senate recommends that this policy statement be given general distribution to all organizations within the University community."

He noted three results of the Smoking Questionnaire which Kauppila had distributed in May. (1) By a vote of 375 to 163, 375 respondents objected to inhaling the smoke of others. (2) Sixty-four of the 554 replying to the questionnaire objected to the smoking of others on the basis of health, for reasons such as allergies. (3) Three hundred sixty-six who responded thought that designated smoking areas should be established. These kinds of findings directed the thinking of the four who wrote the proposals. Hauge said that if the Senate did not act favorably on the first proposal directed at the Senate itself, it should not consider the other, because obviously, it would not be appropriate for the Senate to recommend to others what it would not recommend for itself.

President P. Nelson said that the proposals would be published with the agenda and considered at the next meeting, and asked for discussion.

One Senator asked whether there were any smokers in the group of people who wrote the proposals. Hauge responded that he believed not.

Booy made some comments on the proposals. First, she said it should be called the Nonsmoking Committee. She commented on the Recommendations for the prohibition of smoking in an environment. (1) The recommendation that smoking be prohibited in the Finnish Room. She suggested that this might require further thought because recruiters frequently lunch in the Finnish Room with the faculty in order to discuss students who are seeking jobs. She said, "I'm not sure that would be the most hospitable thing to knock a cigarette effectively out of a possible job donor's hand. (2) The recommendation that smoking be prohibited in University cars if nonsmokers are present. She said that quite a few nonsmokers do not care if they ride with smokers, depending on the density of smoke, the amount of ventilation, and the legality or illegality of the material being smoked. (3) The recommendation of separate sleeping facilities on University trips for smokers and nonsmokers should nonsmokers request. She said that she is not sure that it is really that necessary that the University have a policy on who sleeps where. (4) The recommendation that smoking should be prohibited wherever conditions warrant. Booy also was critical of this recommendation. Booy concluded by saying that the Senate should think further about these four items in considering adoption of the proposals.

Sachs spoke out against adoption of the smoking proposals saying, "People, I discover, are pretty decent; you cannot legislate morality; there's nothing in here that says how you're going to enforce this . . . if people are polity they will be nice to one another, and the smoker will desist if it's making somebody uncomfortable or ill."

Hauge responded by pointing out his surprise at the large number of people who find it uncomfortable to go out of the stands between periods at hockey games because of the suffocating smoke in the halls, and he has been surprised with the concern that people expressed in this regard. Secondly, he brought up the subject of obscenities at Tech movies, and the fact that it has not been enough to ask spectators "to cease and desist; something more has been necessary and it has not been forthcoming . . . in that case they poisoned the air in another respect. In this case we're talking about smoking, but I think the analogy still stands."

Baillod said that his impression is that there is existing Board of Control policy on the smoking question. Booy had investigated this matter and responded to Baillod's comment. She referred to the minutes of the December 10, 1971 meeting of the Board of Control. She read, "The President also recommends that the 1948 regulation concerning smoking on campus be updated and revised with the following, and the quote is, 'Smoking is not permitted in areas where such action is prohibited by the administration;' it was moved, seconded and passed unanimously by voice vote that the Board approve and adopt the above two recommendations."

G. Promotional Policy and Professional Standards and Development - No Report.

Old Business - None

New Business

1. To Change the Winter Quarter 1976-77 Academic Calendar .

Senator Haut suggested a deviation from the Winter Quarter Academic Calendar for this year, suggesting the cancellation of classes on January 3, 1977 (This is Senate Proposal 5-77). President P. Nelson said that this proposal would be voted upon at the next Senate meeting, and asked for discussion.

One Senator asked why Haut was suggesting that classes be resumed January 4th rather than January 3rd. Haut responded that New Year's Day is a holiday and the weekend of January 1-2 can be considered a holiday weekend, and under the present calendar the weekend would be broken up by people traveling in order to return to classes on Monday, but if classes were resumed on Tuesday it would not be necessary to travel on the holiday weekend. Changing the calendar would also be convenient for those who have to be driven up by their parents; if the calendar is changed, they will not have to be driven up on New Year's Day. Under the present calendar many parents will be driving their children to Houghton Saturday, January 1; some parents will then be driving back home Sunday, January 2.

One Senator said that normally classes have resumed on Tuesday in order to get away from holiday weekend traffic for safety reasons, and wondered why classes are being resumed on the Monday after the Christmas - New Year recess.

A number of comments were made on the length of an academic quarter. Miller said that the length of academic quarters is not counted in numbers of weeks; what is counted is the number of instructional days during the quarter.

Mr. Romig said that there are approximately 51 1/2 days in an academic quarter. He said that the Senate should ask Bill Lucier to talk about the length of academic quarters some time. Mr. Lucier has worked very hard to try to keep the quarters almost identical in length. One problem is that the change in length of the Thanksgiving break has made the Christmas break somewhat shorter than it has sometimes been. Mr. Romig emphasized that he was not taking a position on Haut's proposal, but that there has been an effort to keep the number of days almost even in each quarter.

Pres. P. Nelson said that he would try to ask for comments from Mr. Lucier and members of his staff. He will also ask Art Weaver to give his comments because his committee was responsible for recommendations on the current calendar.