Present as members of Senate:
W. MacKay (Chair), R. Summerby-Murray, D. Cameron, W. McMullen, C. Riggs, P. Baker, P. Ennals, C.P. Hunter, A. Paskauskas, J. vanderLeest, W. Godfrey, R. Ireland, R. Lapp, P. Bogaard, I. Cohen, E. Dawe, P. Edwards, A. Fancy, B. Fleming, R. Hawkes, B. McNally, B.A. Miller, N. Ralph, J. Read, W. Wilson, J. Bourque, H. Matthews, D. Thompson, A. Wasylishen, M. Mohammed, L. McGinnis, C. Pollock

Regrets:
C. Hunter, S. Lochhead, V. Reinsborough, M. Tucker

Observers:
T. Shaw, D. MacDonald, B. Seamone, M. Belding

01.04a.02 Approval of agenda
The Chair introduced the agenda by noting that the special meeting was called to complete discussion of business from  the 27 March 2002 meeting. While waiting for quorum to be established, it was agreed to proceed with the presentation of item 5, the report from the Senate ad hoc committee on emeriti appointments. With quorum  achieved during discussion of item 5, the agenda was approved with the revised order.
 
05.04a.02 Report of the ad hoc committee reviewing criteria for Emeriti Appointments
R. Summerby-Murray presented this report, noting that the ad hoc committee had not yet reached agreement on a joint recommendation in its consultations with the Academic Affairs committee of the Board of Regents. The ad hoc committee argued that authority for academic emeriti appointments should be vested in the Senate. It further recommended that the process be automatic for those retiring at full and associate ranks and that the Senate standing committee on Emeriti Appointments would bring forward  recommendations. J. Read expressed his support for the report and recommended that Senate approve it in principle at this stage. P. Edwards noted that the committee had considered the question of associate rank and asked how the committee proposed to deal with the issue of retroactivity. Further, there were significant jurisdictional issues to be considered, particularly concerning administrative influence over academic issues. If Senate were to accept the committee’s interpretation of the Act and By-laws, would this imply that the Executive Committee had been exercising its authority inappropriately in the past? C. Riggs asked about the nature of service to the university, arguing that emeriti status implied sustained merit of the individual and this was how the honour was recognised beyond the university community. E. Dawe supported the report and noted, as a member of the Academic Affairs committee, that a good deal of time had been spent on this issue, including discussion of resolution of the Thorpe case. If the processes of promotion through the ranks are working effectively, then there is good reason to support an automatic granting of emeriti status. W. Godfrey also spoke for the report and called for a vote in principle to indicate Senate’s position. He also raised concerns about retroactivity, noting that there were many colleagues who had given long service to the university who had retired at associate rank. B. McNally sought clarification of the library privileges referred to in the report and suggested that these be faculty library ‘borrowing’privileges. B. Fleming referred to his 1995 document on the etymology of ‘emeritus’ and its origins in ‘service’ rather than ‘merit’ and asked that it be made available to the Academic Affairs Committee. R. Summerby-Murray agreed to provide this to the chair of Academic Affairs. J. vanderLeest noted that the present report follows from the work of the similar committee in 1994, well before the Thorpe case. E. Dawe asked whether the ad hoc committee intended to meet with the Academic Affairs committee and R. Summerby-Murray responded that that was the intention although to date most of the liaison between the committees had been via the chairs of the committees. R. Summerby-Murray moved, seconded J. Read, that Senate approve in principle the revised criteria and process for emeriti appointments. D. Cameron noted that he was uncomfortable voting without hearing from the Academic Affairs committee and would not support the motion. Similarly, C. Riggs noted that he was not familiar with the processes of tenure and promotion and sought further information on these. D. Cameron asked whether the ad hoc committee had considered other categories such as Registrar and Chancellor emeritus. R. Summerby-Murray replied that the committee had not considered these specifically in the draft report and P. Ennals noted that provision for these other categories was contained in the existing policy approved in 1987. B. Fleming reminded Senate that the most recent Chancellor Emeritus appointment had not come through Senate. W. McMullen expressed concern about a vote in principle.  On question called, the motion CARRIED.

02.04a.02 Report from Advisory Committee on Emeriti Appointments
P. Ennals outlined the existing process of recommending emeriti appointments and provided the membership of the committee. Four names had been considered and the committee brought forward two recommendations. By secret ballot, Dr. Janet Hammock and Dr. John Stanton were approved by Senate to be recommended for emeritus status. The Secretary of Senate was asked to convey these recommendations to the Executive Committee of the Board of Regents.

Notice of motion was given for the following motions to be presented at a subsequent meeting of Senate:

 1. Moved by J. vanderLeest, seconded W. Godfrey, that Senate reaffirm its recommendation to the Board of Regents to appoint Michael Thorpe Professor Emeritus.

 2. Moved by J. vanderLeest, seconded W. Godfrey, that upon the Board of Regents appointing Michael Thorpe as Professor Emeritus that Senate recommend that C. Scobie and G. DeBenedetti be re-invited to accept their appointments as Professor Emeritus

03.04a.02 Policy on appointment of named Academic Chairs
Moved by P. Ennals, seconded K. Hamer, that Senate approve the revised Policy and Procedure on the Filling of Named Academic Chairs (attached to the file copy of these minutes). B. McNally asked whether a chair in the Library might be considered at some point in the future. P. Ennals noted that there was nothing that excluded that possibility. On question put, the motion CARRIED.

04.04a.02 Report from Committee on Committees re Review of Standing Committees
J. Read outlined the process that had been followed by the Committee, noting the guiding principles of reducing the size of the committees and considering the balance of elected and ex officio membership. The useful discussions held at Faculty Council had been important determinants of the details of the report. There was some urgency to move forward with these recommendations if the changes were to be in place for the next academic year.

(i) J. Read moved, seconded B. Fleming, that Senate approve the General Recommendations contained in the report "Review of Senate and Faculty Council Standing Committees" including the amendments circulated as "Amendments to the Report on the Review of Senate and Faculty Council Standing Committees".

R. Ireland asked about ex officio members delegating their tasks and J. Read replied that the assumption was that such delegation would be done in an appropriate manner. C. Riggs asked why committee minutes would go to the Secretary of Senate rather than the Archives and P. Ennals responded that the Archives lacked sufficient resources to manage the current operational records of the university. R. Summerby-Murray added that the office of the Secretary of Senate faced a similar resource issue and that there was a much larger subject of institutional records management that would need to be addressed in the future. Motion CARRIED.

(ii).J. Read moved, seconded B. A. Miller, that Senate approve the Specific Recommendations concerning the Senate Committees listed from (1) to (17) contained in the report "Review of Senate and Faculty Council Standing Committees" including the amendments circulated as "Amendments to the Report on the Review of Senate and Faculty Council Standing Committees" .

W. MacKay asked whether this motion included all committees, including those proposed to be disbanded. J. Read affirmed the intention of dealing with all of the committees within this motion but P. Edwards asked that the motion be divided so that each committee could be considered in turn. J. Read and B.A. Miller agreed, and the Chair suggested that the same mover and seconder be used for each motion.

1. Academic Matters
J. Read moved, seconded B. A. Miller, that the revised terms of reference and membership, as circulated and with subsequent amendments, be approved. The amendment that the university librarian would be invited to meetings considering course and programme changes was noted as well as a suggestion that regulation changes might usefully be referred to Faculty Council for discussion. Motion CARRIED.

2. Admissions
J. Read moved, seconded B. A. Miller, that the revised terms of reference and membership, as circulated and with subsequent amendments, be approved. With minor clarifications from the mover, the motion CARRIED.

3. Agenda
J. Read moved, seconded B. A. Miller, that this committee be disbanded. W. MacKay remarked that the current broadly-based committee served a useful purpose and that disbanding the committee would remove the presence of faculty members and students from Senate’s agenda setting process. J. Bourque expressed similar concerns and asked that the committee be retained. While agreeing with the need for broad representation, C. Riggs asked whether there needed to be a committee to carry out this task. J. Read commented that the Committee on Committees was attempting to reduce the committee load of members of the university. R. Summerby-Murray argued that there were potential procedural difficulties in terms of Senate being well-prepared for appropriate and efficient discussion. P. Edwards noted that removing this committee would give total authority to the chair. P. Bogaard pointed out, as a current member of the Agenda Committee, that disbanding this committee will put the onus on committee chairs to be well-prepared with the materials they bring forward to Senate. Motion CARRIED.

4. Committees
J. Read moved, seconded B. A. Miller, that the revised terms of reference and membership, as circulated and with subsequent amendments, be approved. R. Ireland asked whether a change of name, perhaps to the ‘Nominating Committee’, might be considered. J. Read indicated that the mandate of the committee goes beyond nominations to reviewing committee structures. Motion CARRIED.

5. Continuing Education
J. Read moved, seconded B. A. Miller, that this committee be disbanded but with the specific recommendation that the Director of Continuing Education report at least once a year to Senate. Motion CARRIED.

6. Committee on Students with Disabilities
J. Read moved, seconded B. A. Miller, that the revised terms of reference and membership, as circulated and with subsequent amendments, be approved. Motion CARRIED.

7. Emeriti
No recommendation was made, given the continuing work of the ad hoc committee reviewing criteria and procedure.

8. Research Ethics Board
J. Read moved, seconded B. A. Miller, that the revised terms of reference and membership, as circulated and with subsequent amendments, be approved. Motion CARRIED.

9. Graduate Studies Committee
J. Read moved, seconded B. A. Miller, that the revised terms of reference and membership, as circulated and with subsequent amendments, be approved. J. Read pointed out the amendment requiring an elected chair, as supported at Faculty Council, and the clarification of representation of Science faculty. Motion CARRIED.

10. International Exchanges
J. Read moved, seconded B. A. Miller, that the revised name, terms of reference and membership, as circulated and with subsequent amendments, be approved. Motion CARRIED.

11. Late Granting of Degrees
J. Read moved, seconded B. A. Miller, that the revised terms of reference and membership, as circulated and with subsequent amendments, be approved. J. Read noted that this was one case where the Vice-President Academic had been added to a committee, replacing the three academic deans. Motion CARRIED.

12. Library
J. Read moved, seconded B. A. Miller, that this committee be disbanded. J. Read referred to considerable discussion at Faculty Council on this recommendation, including mechanisms for faculty input into general decisions affecting the library and its collections. B. A. Miller noted that it was not clear why the existing committee had not been meeting; he hoped that the committee would not be disbanded simply because  it had not met recently. B. McNally noted that the Librarians were working on a proposal for a committee with a renewed mandate. J. Bourque asked that a student be included on any new committee. B. A. Miller asked that the old committee be retained until the new committee was in place. P. Edwards supported the need for a venue to advise on the development of the library and urged that the motion be withdrawn. J. Read did not wish to withdraw motion but B.A. Miller withdrew his seconding of it. A new seconder, W. Godfrey, was found and on question put, the motion CARRIED.

13. Planning
J. Read moved, seconded B. A. Miller, that the revised terms of reference and membership, as circulated and with subsequent amendments, be approved. J. Read indicated that this was the only committee where it was proposed to increase the number of members, in this case by adding a further student member. E. Dawe expressed concern with the increased size and the logistics of calling meetings but J. Read responded
that this committee was central to the university, and fed into the Budget Advisory committee. B. McNally wondered whether there was sufficient specific representation from librarians. J. Read agreed that the phrase ‘faculty and librarians’ would need to be interpreted broadly. There was further discussion of defining librarian representation more specifically at some future date. On question put, the motion CARRIED.

14. Readmissions Appeals
J. Read moved, seconded B. A. Miller, that the revised terms of reference and membership, as circulated and with subsequent amendments, be approved. It was pointed out that there were no earlier terms of reference to hand and the Committee on Committees had reworked the process by clarifying grounds for appeal, as well as taking account of advice from Faculty Council. On question put, the motion CARRIED.

15. Research and Creative Activity
J. Read moved, seconded B. A. Miller, that the revised terms of reference and membership, as circulated and with subsequent amendments, be approved. J. Read referred to the considerable discussion at Faculty Council on the new name of the committee and whether the Vice-President Academic and Research should be on the committee as chair. P. Edwards restated the points made at Faculty Council, suggesting that it was important that the Vice-President Academic and Research retain this leadership role to articulate a national perspective on the changing research environment. Further, there were the practical matters of avoiding tied votes and having appropriate student representation that needed to be considered. Accordingly, P. Edwards moved an amendment, seconded P. Ennals, that the Vice-President Academic and Research be the chair of this committee and that two students be appointed, one from Science and one from Arts/Social Science. J. Read spoke against the amendment, noting that the day to day operation of this committee could still be overseen by the Vice-President Academic and Research in the new structure and the role of the student representation has changed over the years. P. Ennals noted that he had not been present for the Faculty Council discussion on this and if he had, would have spoken against removing the Vice-President Academic and Research on the grounds that this individual provides an important link to the external processes affecting our increasingly research-oriented environment. A. Paskauskas, the Director of Research Development, spoke in favour of the amendment. M. Mohammed spoke in support of the presence of students at the meetings to determine the allocation of Summer Fellowships. A. Fancy was inclined to support the main motion rather than the amendment but suggested that an alternative to the amendment might be to specify that the Vice-President Academic and Research would be invited on a consultative basis to all meetings at which matters of policy were being discussed. W. Godfrey reminded Senate that  the Committee on Committees discussed this at great length and considered it logical that the Vice-President would appear when requested and that the Director of Research Development could continue to report to the Vice-President, as has been the case in the past. P. Ennals wished it to be known that the committee works with two subcommittees that the Vice-President does not sit on. The more plenary meetings tend to deal with external issues and matters of policy, and there the former arguments regarding the need for broader perspectives are especially relevant. P. Edwards argued that the continued leadership of the Vice-President in the area of research and creative activity will be crucial as the institution moves forward. The amendment was put and CARRIED. With discussion returning to the main motion, M. Mohammed moved a further amendment to add that the two students would participate in all meetings except those involving the adjudication of faculty awards. The mover acknowledged this suggestion would be considered a friendly amendment. The main motion as amended was put and CARRIED.

16. Scholarships and Bursaries
J. Read moved, seconded B. A. Miller, that the revised terms of reference and membership, as circulated and with subsequent amendments, be approved. Motion CARRIED.

17. Teaching and Learning Committee
J. Read moved, seconded B. A. Miller, that the revised terms of reference and membership, as circulated and with subsequent amendments, be approved. Motion CARRIED.

(iii). Honorary Degrees
J. Read moved, seconded B. A. Miller, that Senate recommend to the Board the changes proposed to the joint Senate-Board Honorary Degrees Committee contained in the report ‘Review of Senate and Faculty Council Standing Committees’. Motion CARRIED. The Secretary was requested to convey this recommendation to the Board of Regents.

(iv) J. Read moved, seconded B.A. Miller, that all members of all Senate Standing Committees be voting members. W. Godfrey noted that it was the view of some members of the Committee on Committees that a distinction should be made between academic ex officio members and ex officio managers; the role of the latter is to provide input and advice but would not be involved in the decision making. Both sides of this issue were raised by Senators and on question put the motion CARRIED.

(v) J. Read moved, seconded B.A. Miller, that during the academic year 2002/2003, all Senate committees review their revised mandate and membership and recommend any revisions to Senate through the Committee on Committees. Motion CARRIED.

06.04a.02 Report from Faculty Council
J. vanderLeest noted the contribution of the two recent Faculty Council meetings to the review of Senate and Faculty committees.

07.04a.02 Other Business
P Edwards moved that Senate express its gratitude to the Committee on Committees and its Chair for a well-managed review and a clearly presented report. Motion CARRIED by general assent.
A. Fancy requested that the Academic Matters committee follow up on the Committee on Committee’s recommendation that degree and academic regulations be presented to Faculty Council for consultation before being brought to Senate.

P. Ennals, seconded R. Lapp, moved adjournment at 5:30pm.

Respectfully submitted,
 

Robert Summerby-Murray
Secretary of Senate

Return to Mount Allison University Senate Menu