Professional Boundaries and Relationships

1. Policy

1. The policy statement is hard to parse because the list is not parallel and item 2 ("employees") is unclear. Consider rewording to: This policy outlines the professional boundaries that must be maintained in relationships between: (1) students and college representatives with an official role in the student experience; (2) employees and other employees; and (3) employees and their supervisors. It also specifies the actions required to prevent and address situations that violate these professional boundaries.
2. The statement should clarify that, to the extent the College regulates employee relationships, it regulates relationships between employees, not employees' relationships generally.
3. The opening paragraph identifies prohibited conduct but does not explain the purpose or underlying concern of the policy, which may obscure its intent.

2. References

1. n/a

3. Definitions

1. The procedure relies on the term "academic unit," but it is not defined, which may create ambiguity where the policy's restrictions turn on that term. Consider adding: Academic Unit: an organizational subdivision of the college, such as a department, division, school, or program (or equivalent), that administers academic instruction, curricula, or educational programs.
2. The inclusion of "household member" is unclear because the term may include platonic roommates, which may not align with the policy's apparent focus on relationships creating conflicts of interest or power concerns. Consider revising the definition to narrow its scope, for example: Household Member: an individual with whom an employee shares a residence and with whom the employee has a familial, domestic, or romantic relationship, such that the relationship may create an actual, potential, or apparent conflict of interest.
3. The policy does not explain how individuals occupying dual roles (e.g., student employees or employees/faculty who later become students) are treated, which may create uncertainty about which restrictions apply. Consider adding the following clarification to §3 or the Policy Statement: Individuals who occupy more than one role at the college (such as student employees or employees who enroll as students) are subject to the professional boundary requirements applicable to each role they hold. When more than one provision applies, the provision imposing the stricter boundary or limitation governs.
4. The definition of "relatives" is very broad, and the inclusion of in‑laws may create sweeping and difficult‑to‑administer consequences in practice.

4. Procedures

1. 4.A.1. The provision does not clearly distinguish between acting as a family member and acting on behalf of the College, which could be read to prohibit ordinary parental or familial assistance.
2. 4.A.1.This provision should clearly distinguish between the misuse of institutional authority or special access for a relative, which is the core concern, and assistance provided in a purely personal or familial capacity.
3. 4.A.1. As written, the provision could be interpreted to expose employees to discipline for routine family assistance during the workday, even where there is no misuse of authority.
4. 4.B.1. This section addresses only sexual or romantic relationships, but supervisory conflicts can also arise from familial relationships, which are not addressed here.
5. 4.B.1. The reporting structure and scope of this provision are unclear, as it appears to rely solely on self‑disclosure and does not define what qualifies as a "romantic" or "sexual" relationship. Consider revising to clarify both reporting expectations and scope.
6. 4.C.1. The restriction based on being in the "same academic unit" is overly broad and could unintentionally prohibit preexisting partners or spouses from enrolling in required general education or program courses, even where no meaningful power imbalance exists. Similar concerns apply to student‑facing offices (e.g., admissions, cashiering, advising) that necessarily interact with large populations of students. The provision also lacks an exception or waiver process for small departments or situations with only one qualified instructor, and it does not distinguish true conflicts of interest from low‑risk situations.
7. 4.C.2. This provision is overly broad because it treats any student enrolled in a class offered by an academic unit as a current student within that unit, which could create unreasonable results for spouses, relatives, or preexisting partners, particularly for required courses. It also creates uncertainty for individuals with indirect or administrative authority—such as course mentors, department coordinators, assistant deans, or others—whose roles may touch a student's experience without involving direct instruction or evaluation.
8. 4.C.4. The three‑year lookback raises unresolved questions about preexisting relationships, including who bears the operational consequences if a former partner later becomes a student and whether the restriction implies fault or misconduct where none exists.
9. 4.C.4. This provision is problematic where the individual with a prior relationship holds a broad or indirect role in the student experience, as it could be read to disqualify a student from entire programs or classes based solely on someone in the administrative or supervisory chain.
10. 4.C.4. This section is unworkable without a mitigation framework for preexisting relationships that do not involve a current power imbalance.
11. 4.D.1. A waiver or approval mechanism may be needed for academic or student‑experience conflicts that cannot be realistically avoided, similar to the process used in the employment‑of‑relatives context.
12. 4.D.2. There is no hyperlink to the Personal Relationship Disclosure Form.
13. 4.D.2. This provision does not clearly describe the disclosure process, mitigation steps, approval chain, or decision‑makers, creating uncertainty for employees—particularly where the supervisor is the person involved in the relationship.
14. 4.D.2. If reporting is required, the responsibility should not rest solely on the subordinate employee, particularly where the concern is a power imbalance. The supervisor or person in the position of authority should also bear a reporting obligation.
15. 4.D.2. This section should be aligned with the Employment of Relatives or Household Members framework, which places clearer reporting obligations on individuals with decision making authority rather than solely on the lower powered person.
16. 4.D.3. This provision appears internally inconsistent, as it strongly discourages new relationships while suggesting disclosure may allow them to continue, yet also leaves open the possibility of discipline. This tension may chill reporting if employees fear disclosure will primarily trigger punishment rather than mitigation.
17. 4.E.1. It is unclear why a separate sanctions section is necessary, as policy enforceability is generally implied. As drafted, this section reads as reactionary and punitive, particularly given that the policy's substantive requirements and mitigation framework remain underdeveloped.
18. 4.E.1. The reference to discipline reinforces the concern that the policy conflates employee‑supervisor issues with faculty‑student issues in a way that may not align cleanly under a single enforcement framework.