Present as Members of Faculty Council:
P. Baker, J. Bates, R. Beattie, M. Blagrave, P. Bogaard, R. Bruening, B. Campbell, K. Craft, P. Daigle, E. Dawe, A. Deb, G. DeBenedetti, F. Dykeman, P. Edwards, P. Ennals, J.-G. Godin, K. Hamer, C. Hayward, T. Holownia, J. Houtsma, R. Hudson, C. Hunter, S. Lochhead, R. MacPherson, M. McCullough, B. A. Miller, I. Newbould, A. Nurse, J. Ollerhead, N. Ralph, J. Read, B. Robertson, R. Rosebrugh, D. Stewart, J. Stewart, R. Summerby-Murray, R. Thompson, D. Tokaryk, G. Tucker, P. Varma, R. Wehrell, J. Weiss, L. Wilson.

Regrets: J. Keith, C. Riggs, I. Cohen, C. Wiktorowicz, N. J. MacPhee.

Observer: B. Evans, J. Good.

00.04.01 Approval of Agenda
I. Newbould introduced the agenda for the Special Joint Meeting as circulated.

00.04.01 Presentation of Draft Operating Budget to Senate and Faculty Council
J. Good of Financial Services introduced the major points of the draft budget, noting the major influences on revenues and expenditures projected for 2000-2001. On the revenue side, particular attention was drawn to the impacts of only minor increases in government funding and the need to generate increased revenues by increasing student fees. Other changes included the incorporation of international exchange programme revenues, including those from an expansion of the English Language Institute programme, and adjustments to the budgeting of the Continuing Education operation. While Continuing Education has been budgeted as a break-even operation in the past, it is now included as an income generator that can contribute to other sectors of the university. The increase in interest income for funds held in General Operating is also reflected as a revenue item. For expenditures, the largest increases come in the salaries and benefits lines to reflect contract increases. On the Ancillary Operations budget, the residence operation was budgeted assuming 1100 students plus further income from students involved in one of the exchange programmes. With increased costs, however, it was necessary to either cut custodial services or increase residence fees. An increase of 2% is budgeted for residence fees and 4% for meal plans, noting that students will be in residence 7 days longer in the 2000-2001 academic year. The Conference operation is forecasting 14,000 bed-nights compared to 20,000 in the last year but this forecast is more in line with usual levels. Any surplus generated here flows into residence capital work. The deficit budget on this item recognizes the potential to expand this operation. Other items such as the Bookstore operation were highlighted as well as items from Endowments and Special Operations.

In calling for discussion from the floor, I. Newbould noted that the draft budget generally conformed to past practice. A Nurse enquired why there was no listing for Women's Studies. Was this included in the budgets of contributing departments? J. Good responded that this was the case and P. Ennals noted that he intended to fund a small operating budget for this programme through the Vice-President Academic's office. J. Bates asked how the proposed joint appointment between Women's Studies and Philosophy would be funded. K. Hamer replied that this appointment is covered by a McCain Fellowship. P. Edwards noted the intention of transferring any surpluses from the Continuing Education operation to other sectors in the coming year. Have specific sectors been identified? J. Good noted that these surpluses have yet to be determined and distributed for the 1999-2000 year and P. Ennals indicated that departments should not expect a similar distribution at the end of the 2000/2001 budget year. J. Read objected to the current process for distributing this surplus in the past year and also noted that the McCain Fellowship in Science seems to have got stuck in the Biology/Biochemistry budget. I. Newbould suggested that this was a matter to be raised with the Dean of Science. R. Hudson asked about the accounting of unallocated amounts in Endowment funds generating interest that contributes to the operating costs of the Capital Campaign. J. Good replied that the campaign budget is separated out so it is easily visible and that it involves both interest income and an interfund transfer of $200,000 from the Operating Budget. A. Deb expressed frustration that even when there are increases in government funding there continue to be increases in student fees. These increases add $1000 a year to each student's fees. Residence and ancillary fees have continued to increase, without a clear rationale and without a mechanism for accepting or rejecting this budget. He hoped that in the future the university will be able to stop seeing students as just another means of raising revenues. I. Newbould responded that increases in government grants were really much smaller than commonly believed because only 50% could be allocated to Operating. And costs have continued to increase well above a net 1% increase in government funding, with everything from heat and light to salaries. While sharing A. Deb's concern, I. Newbould noted that the options appear to be either charge more or cut what is offered. C. Hayward expressed disappointment with the consultative process of the Budget Advisory Committee, citing insufficient time and noting that the committee's concern with the nature of interfund transfers was not dealt with sufficiently in the committee's report as included with the draft Budget. P. Ennals responded that he thought items 2 and 3 attempted to capture that discussion and he expanded on this point by noting that student members of the committee wanted to know why the surplus from last year's residence operations could not be applied in the next year to insulate students from the proposed increases in fees. The effect of this would be to privilege one year of students in the short term over a wider portion of the student body over a longer time period. P Edwards questioned the ongoing practice of budgeting for a break-even position or a modest surplus but turning up at year end with a significant surplus, some of which is then made not very visible through interfund transfers. Does this suggest an opportunity to plan better in terms of spending these funds? I. Newbould indicated that budgeting for a revenue shortfall is a conservative strategy, particularly given potential fluctuations in student numbers. Because the budget is conservative, it has less allocated to such things as teaching equipment which can then be funded from year-end surpluses rather than running into debt from the outset to purchase these items. Also, on a line-by-line basis, departments tend to generate surpluses by spending responsibly and not spending down their entire allocated budget. P. Edwards asked whether any surpluses have been moved from Operating into Endowment Funds and I. Newbould replied that that was not the case. Interfund transfers are required, particularly when amortising capital costs but there is no flow between Operating and Endowment. R. Rosebrugh pointed out that in comparison to the 1995-96 budget, while student fees revenue has increased from $7million to $11million, salaries and benefits have not increased at this rate. More expenditure is going on, with the bulk of it coming directly from students' pockets. I. Newbould responded that increases in salaries and benefits have far exceeded increases in government grants and there are major increases in infrastructure costs. J. Good noted also that the present budgeting practice makes provision for many items that were not included in the 1995-96 budget, including such things as computer replacement. R. Rosebrugh acknowledged this point but suggested that there seemed to be expenditures that were not necessarily in the interests of students. J Good rejected that contention, as the guiding principles here were the furtherance of student education and the transparency of process. P. Ennals further noted that changes in the demographics of our faculty component made comparisons with the 1995-96 budget difficult. There being no further questions, I. Newbould thanked the Budget Advisory Committee and all those who had put together the Budget.

Members of Faculty Council were invited to stay to listen to discussion of the next item.

Back to Top

00.04.03 Recommendations of Senate regarding the Strategic Plan
The Chair sought and received Senate's approval in advance to allow all non-Senate members of the Strategic Planning Steering Committee to speak to this item. P. Daigle made a brief presentation to Senate, noting the immediate purpose of bringing forth the Strategic Plan and establishing a monitoring committee to guide the development of a multi-year action plan. He noted that the present document is a strategy rather than a set of specific actions. The next steps will be to present the Strategic Plan and Senate's recommendations to the Board, set up the proposed monitoring committee, prepare the action plan and develop a process for implementation. An additional document to be distributed at the end of today's discussion would outline suggestions for specific actions.

P. Ennals, seconded by T. Holownia, moved that Senate adopt the proposed "Mount Allison University Strategic Plan".

P. Ennals noted that the current plan resulted from a sincere and wide-ranging effort to involve the entire community and has drawn in the voices of students, alumni, faculty, support staff and others. T Holownia pointed out that this sort of process has been a long time coming to this community. It now provides a broad framework by which to continue that process. B. Robertson acknowledged a sound basis in both common sense and inspiration in the Strategic Plan but expressed concern with the statement 'living document' on the front cover. Is the document complete? To what extent is it likely to change? Further, there were concerns with inconsistencies of writing style and some obvious need for further editing. B. Evans responded to the question of a 'living document' by stating the steering committee's desire that the document be sufficiently flexible that it wouldn't constrain those charged with implementation. R. Wehrell agreed that there remain numerous choices to be made in terms of developing concrete actions over the next five years. B. Robertson sought clarification on which parts were more or less likely to change. For example, could the mission statement be changed? P. Daigle responded that the strategies and subsequent actions are most likely to change as the process of implementation develops. Generally, the 'front end' of a document like this stays fairly stable because it contains the guiding principles of the project. B. Evans saw the existing document as a blueprint stating intentions while B. Campbell supported the motion for adoption as a way of moving toward discussion of the real trade-offs that will be required when deciding on specific actions. P. Edwards noted that the Board saw this process as an opportunity for the community to identify what it saw as being important in the future. One of those issues was the faculty salary scale and how this could be used to both recruit and retain high quality scholars. J. Read and N. Grant spoke in favour of adopting the Strategic Plan as a framework for moving ahead. C. Hunter was concerned at the collapsing of goals regarding access to learning, counselling and support and the dropping of the phrase 'for all members of the community'. A. Deb commented on the positive involvement of students in this process, an involvement he hoped would continue in the development of specific actions. P. Varma asked if the statement describing the Plan as a 'living document' could be reiterated in the introductory paragraph on page 2 and I. Newbould suggested this be added as an editorial change. C. Hunter expressed appreciation to P. Daigle for guiding this process. On question called, the motion

CARRIED.

P. Ennals, seconded by T. Holownia, moved that Senate and the Board of Regents establish a broad-based, cross-representative committee (modelled after the existing Strategic Planning Steering Committee) to oversee and monitor the implementation of the Strategic Plan as proposed in Strategy 6.3.

P. Ennals noted the need to maintain momentum and develop accountability of the process. This motion is a first action from the Plan and is crucial in indicating Senate's desire to support the Plan's intentions. B..A. Miller asked whether the committee would report to Senate. I. Newbould responded that the process is being driven by the Strategic Planning Steering Committee and B. Evans commented that the intention of the Committee was to keep the process moving by establishing a committee to monitor, advise and discuss. P. Ennals suggested that many of the eventual actions would come out of specific new groups and ad hoc committees that would be visible to members of Senate. R. Wehrell felt that any committee of Senate should be expected to report to Senate. J. Read noted that there has been considerable high quality input to the process so far and urged senators to read B. Campbell's written comment on an earlier version of the Plan. G. DeBenedetti suggested that the composition of the proposed committee would appear to be in the hands of Senate and the Board based on the motion. P. Daigle and I. Newbould noted that while the details had not been finalised, the expectation was that a member selection process similar to that set up to elect members to the Strategic Planning Steering Committee would be followed. K Hamer suggested that it might be appropriate to set an operational date for the committee at this point. P. Daigle suggested keeping the existing Strategic Planning Steering Committee in place until the new committee was set up. On question called, the motion

CARRIED.

00.04.04 Adjournment
The meeting adjourned at 3:25pm with I. Newbould expressing Senate's thanks to P. Daigle for his professional guidance. The Strategic Plan "Compendium of Actions" was distributed to Senators for their information.

Respectfully submitted,

Dr. Robert E. Summerby-Murray
Secretary of the Senate