Senate Minutes - March 22, 2000

The University Senate met on March 22, 2000, at 3:00pm in Tweedie Hall, I. Newbould in the chair.
Present:
I. Newbould, R. Summerby-Murray, D. Cameron, C. Riggs, P. Baker, P. Ennals, I. Cohen, B.A. Miller, J.-G. Godin, K. Hamer, C. Hunter, M. McCullough, S. Lochhead, T. Craig, G. DeBenedetti, D. Tokaryk, G. Tucker, R. Wehrell, D. Mossman, R. Aiken, J. Bates, R. Beattie, M. Blagrave, P. Bogaard, P. Bryden, B. Campbell, C. Grant, J. Houtsma, B. McNally, N. Ralph, J. Read, B. Robertson, J. Stewart, C. Storm, M. Tucker, P. Varma, J. Weiss, C. Wiktorowicz, L. Cameron, C. Cohoon, N.J. MacPhee, B. Mallory, S. Melanson, S. Peel, A. Deb, C. Hayward.

00.3.1 Approval of Agenda
The agenda was approved as circulated (Moved P. Ennals, seconded K. Hamer). The Chair acknowledged the presence of a number of students who had entered the room, and obtained the agreement of Senate to allow members of the press to be present.

00.3.2 Approval of Minutes of Meeting of 22 February 2000
Moved by R. Aiken, seconded S. Peel, that the minutes of 22 February 2000 be approved as circulated. The motion

00.3.3 Business arising from the Minutes
(i). White Paper
I. Newbould provided an update on the Strategic Planning process, noting that the White Paper had been circulated to the wider community. Senators were encouraged to respond.

(ii). Houtsma motion
Arising from item 00.2.11 (ii) of the February 2000 meeting, the following motion was introduced as circulated in the approved agenda:

Moved by J. Houtsma, seconded J. Weiss, that Senate recommend that there be 124 teaching days in the academic calendar for 2000-2001. In speaking to the motion, J. Houtsma wanted a further 3 study days added so as to be similar to previous years. The following amendment was proposed:

Moved by A. Deb, seconded S. Peel, that the motion be amended to read as follows: That Senate recommend that there be 4 teaching days added to the academic calendar currently proposed for 2000-2001, keeping intact the November break, the return date in January, and the length of the examination periods.

After discussion of the amendment, the Chair determined that the mover and seconder of the original motion were prepared to accept the amendment as friendly and discussion turned to the amended motion. G. DeBenedetti asked that his letter intended for the 22 February meeting of Senate and presently listed under Correspondence for this meeting now be read. R. Summerby-Murray read this letter. Much discussion followed, with A. Deb clarifying that the intent of the amended motion was to add 4 teaching days divided between the 2 terms. Senators noted that there were complex issues here, ranging from the length of Orientation, to the costs involved in the number of days the university has to run its residence operations, to the ability of the university to meet these costs from fees. I. Newbould emphasised that the academic issues surrounding this topic would come to the Vice-President's ad hoc committee established at the 22 February meeting. B. Mallory expressed satisfaction that this committee had been established but pointed out that its mandate was not specifically to address concerns for the 2000-2001 year. A. Deb and S. Peel affirmed their support for the motion and its intent of dealing with the upcoming year. P. Ennals and C. Hunter noted that the process to date had been consultative and inclusive of various concerns. J. Houtsma, as mover of the motion, summed up by pointing out that there was a need to discuss the length of the academic year in terms of course contact hours and that the amended motion was an attempt to bring the calendar into line with those of previous years so that the loss of learning associated with fewer teaching days could be minimised. On question called, the motion

C. Cohoon offered the thanks of the student members of Senate for the open and consultative process that had been followed on this item and P. Ennals acknowledged the role students had played in the process.

In order that the announcement be made while a large number of student observers were still present, I. Newbould reported that 9 under-graduate NSERC awards had been received in this year's competition. Based on student numbers per award, Mount Allison ranked first in its Maclean's comparison group and this speaks highly of the work being done by faculty and students.

00.3.4 Correspondence
The remaining item of correspondence was referred by the Secretary to the Vice-President's ad hoc committee on the academic calendar.

00.3.5 Questions
G. DeBenedetti asked about the status of Senate's 1999 recommendation to the Board of Regents that Professor Emeritus status be granted to M. Thorpe (April 1999, 99.04.9). I. Newbould noted that the recommendation had been reported to the Board but had been turned down by the Executive Committee. G. DeBenedetti gave notice that two motions further recommending the granting of emeriti status would be made at the next meeting of Senate and conveyed same to the Secretary.

00.3.6 Faculty Council
B.A. Miller presented a report on meetings of Faculty Council as deferred from the 22nd February meeting of Senate. Full reports of the Faculty Council Meeting of January 20, 2000, and the Special Meeting of Faculty Council on February 9, 2000, are found as appendices to the file copy of these Minutes. In summary, the January 20 meeting included extensive discussion of the academic calendar for 2000-2001, registration processes, the present timetable, and the Strategic Plan. The February 9 meeting addressed the question of "what is the appropriate teaching/research balance at Mount Allison University?"

00.3.7 Report on Elections to Tenure and Promotion Committee
R. Summerby-Murray reported that the result of the election of members and alternates to the Tenure and Promotion Committee was as follows:

00.3.8 Report on the Draft Policy on Students Disabilities
C. Hunter, seconded P. Ennals, moved adoption of the policy as circulated to Senators.

Speaking to the motion, C. Hunter noted that Mount Allison has a history of strong support for students with disabilities but has been noticeably deficient in not having a formal policy guiding this support. The consultative process followed in developing the policy was outlined, noting input from Senate, Faculty Council, students and faculty. The policy is designed to allow all academically-qualified students to demonstrate their learning potential. In keeping with existing practice, the policy requires individuals with learning disabilities to be diagnosed by a professional and the onus is on students to self-identify within a reasonable time frame. C. Hunter indicated that the policy is clear about not compromising the academic standards of the institution. G. De Benedetti welcomed the policy but noted that it appeared to be an abbreviated form of the version circulated earlier. C. Hunter replied that earlier versions had included an addendum listing on-campus services. G. De Benedetti asked whether the policy should state also a commitment on the part of the university to accommodate physical disabilities, noting that we have an at least short-term problem in terms of wheel-chair access and the like. R. Beattie reported that Faculty Council had devoted much discussion to the paragraph dealing with Fairness and enquired about the removal of the word 'just' from the present version. C. Hunter responded that the word 'just' as in 'not just about treating everyone the same' altered the intent of the sentence. A discussion of 'fairness', 'equality' and 'equity' followed with various suggestions of rewording the relevant sentence, including the following: "fairness is about providing everyone with an equal opportunity to succeed", and "fairness is about accommodating students with disabilities to achieve academic success". I. Newbould suggested that the authors of the policy could consider these alternatives. C. Hayward supported the motion in principle but expressed concern that the policy qualifies its commitment by making it subject to financial constraints. A second concern was expressed with the committee proposed under clause 11 as it would be required to deal with both academic and physical disabilities. Responding to a further question on this from J. Weiss, C. Hunter explained that the major headings of the policy were intended to apply to both types of disability and that the duplication of personnel on two committees would be cumbersome. L. Wilson, given leave to speak as an observer, noted that the fact that Mount Allison has good support for and a good reputation in supporting learning disabilities is more a product of circumstance than explicit design and it is now time to acknowledge such a design in a formal policy. L. Wilson argued that for too long our view of the campus as physically inaccessible has slowed our movement on adopting a formal policy on accommodating disabilities generally. Now is the time to work towards reasonable accommodation of both learning and physical disabilities. P. Ennals agreed that external societal pressures are such that the university should respond and that this policy is an important step forward. He noted that the advisory committee on the Meighen Centre would continue to exist and was not intended to be superceded by the committee proposed by the new policy. B. Campbell requested that an inventory be developed so that progress can be monitored, particularly in terms of physical accessibility to classrooms, laboratories and teaching spaces. It was suggested that such an inventory would be useful but that it need not be part of the formal policy. P. Varma suggested that there were still some wording changes required and reiterated the view that at no time should appropriate accommodation compromise academic standards. G. De Benedetti moved, seconded by J. Stewart, that the policy be referred back to the committee for adjustments to be made to the wording and that the policy then be returned to Senate. On question called on the motion to refer, the motion

00.3.9 Report of the Committee on Academic Matters
P. Ennals, seconded by S. Peel, moved that the last paragraph of Regulation 6.32 on page 17 of the Calendar be amended by adding the following italicised sentences so that the paragraph reads as follows:

A Semester Grade Point Average is calculated at the end of each term by dividing the total number of grade points obtained during the term (credit hours x grade points) by the number of credit hours attempted per term. A Cumulative Grade Point Average is calculated at the end of each year by dividing the total number of grade points obtained on all courses (credit hours x grade points) by the total number of credit hours attempted. In the event that a course is repeated, only the highest grade will be used in the Cumulative Grade Point Average calculation and in calculating the total number of credit hours used for the Cumulative Grade Point Average calculation. All results from attempts at a course will remain on the transcript."

B. A. Miller sought clarification to the effect that if a student repeats a course, they would not be penalised if they achieved a lower mark. P. Varma asked whether the committee had considered any limits on the length of time between attempts at a course and P. Ennals responded that the committee had discussed cases of recently-graduated students but had not set a limit on this. It appeared also that this change in the regulation approximates the situation at other universities. On question called, the motion

CARRIED.
P. Ennals, seconded by S. Peel, moved that contingent on the adoption of the above motion, the request made by A. Marcantonio to Senate in November 1999 for a recalculation of Cumulative Grade Point Average be approved. It is recommended that subsequent requests received from students in earlier years in the same position be dealt with in the same manner.

In speaking to the motion, P. Ennals noted that the committee considered the numbers of students being affected by this change in regulation to be low and therefore recommended a retroactive policy in addition to the specific case brought to Senate in November 1999. B. A. Miller and B. Campbell felt that there should be some limits on the retroactive nature of the motion while R. Beattie argued that this might have an impact on the fine lines drawn in previous years in the calculation of honours and distinction. J. Read similarly saw this as a potential problem and J. Houtsma noted that calculations for those on academic probation would also be affected in any retroactive calculation. P. Bogaard spoke in support of the motion, suggesting that it seemed unfair to approve the change in the calendar regulation but then disallow the appeal from the student which prompted the change. B. Mallory sought clarification on whether honours, distinction and probation calculations would be affected and R. Summerby-Murray that the motion would indeed have an impact on these if applied retroactively. J. Read noted that the impact in this case would be relatively minor and S. Peel suggested that the framers of the motion consider removing the second sentence.

P. Bogaard, seconded by S. Peel, moved that the motion be divided and on question called, the motion to divide

Discussion turned to the first sentence of the divided motion (that contingent on the adoption of the above motion, the request made by A. Marcantonio to Senate in November 1999 for a recalculation of Cumulative Grade Point Average be approved) and on question called, the motion

With the consent of the mover and seconder of the original motion, discussion turned to the second sentence of the divided motion. J. Houtsma suggested limiting the retroactive nature of the motion to the 1999-2000 academic year. G. De Benedetti, seconded by P. Varma, moved that the second sentence of the divided motion be referred back to the Committee on Academic Matters. On question put, the motion to refer

00.3.10 Clarification of Changes to the Terms of Reference of the Marjorie Young Bell Faculty Fund
P. Ennals reported on discussion at Faculty Council of the rewording of the terms of reference. In response to queries about this process, P. Ennals noted the intention of bringing a document forward to Senate for approval of any changes. G. De Benedetti welcomed this and noted that the terms of reference state that a two-thirds majority of the teaching members of Senate are required for the approval of changes to the terms of reference. The Secretary of Senate was asked to ensure that this process would be implemented. I. Newbould indicated that the Marjorie Young Bell Faculty Fund had been required to work with terms of reference that were in need of revision and that the present review process was timely.

00.3.11 Recommendation of Granting of Degree to Jason Abraham
The Chair of Senate read into the Minutes the following motions, already approved by e-mail ballot on 14 March, 2000:

1. That the Senate of Mount Allison University act under Calendar Regulation 6.36 to grant aegrotat standing for the remaining 15 credits of Jason Abraham's Bachelor of Commerce degree (Moved by P. Ennals, seconded by R. Aiken);

2. That in light of his aegrotat standing for the remaining 15 credits of his degree, Senate grant the degree of Bachelor of commerce to Jason Joseph Abraham (Moved by P. Ennals, seconded by R. Aiken).

I. Newbould reported on the condition of Mr. Abraham, noting that the degree had not been conferred as Jason and his family continued to hope for his recovery. The Abraham family was appreciative of Senate's actions in passing the above motions. G. De Benedetti raised a question of procedure and asked that Senate consider a motion affirming these actions.

P. Ennals, seconded R. Aiken, moved that Senate affirm the positive vote on these motions as implemented by the earlier e-mail ballot. The motion

CARRIED.
G. De Benedetti noted that in cases of the granting of aegrotat standing, Senators would normally have had access to the student's academic record and that it would have been useful to have included either the student's number so that Senators could have viewed the academic record electronically or a statement from the Registrar confirming the existing standing. A. Deb conveyed the gratitude of the Students' Administrative Council for Senate's prompt and positive action on this issue.

00.3.12 Other Business
1). R. Beattie enquired about the allocation of research chairs announced recently by the federal government. Was the university any closer to having information on how these would be distributed and what possibilities existed for Mount Allison in this distribution? I. Newbould responded that there continued to be debate over the allocation of these research chairs. The initiative has concentrated on a "centres of excellence" approach but there have been some recent changes which will benefit smaller research institutions such as Mount Allison. Each university is being asked to draft a comprehensive research policy and the allocation of funded 'chairs' will have to conform to that policy. Two types of allocations are proposed: first, to attract researchers of the highest international calibre as approved by a national committee; and second, to attract younger scholars of high research potential. It is probable that the smaller universities will concentrate on the second type of allocation. Mount Allison's recent successes in the Canadian Foundation for Innovation initiative and other projects show that there is a potential role for smaller high quality institutions. There remains work to do. P. Ennals confirmed that his office was working on developing a Strategic Research Plan which would conform to the requirements of the federal government's research chair allocation process.

2). J. Houtsma reiterated his support for the earlier motions re Jason Abraham and urged Senators to offer their prayers for his recovery.

00.3.13 Announcements
R. Summerby-Murray drew Senate's attention to a performance of Alex Fancy's play "This Hour has Too Many Minutes" on Tuesday March 28, 4:30pm in Avard Dixon 118. Recently returned from performances in Indiana and Ohio, the performance and subsequent discussion is sponsored by the Students' Administrative Council and the Senate Committee on Teaching.