Members Present
R. Summerby-Murray, D. Cameron, P. Baker, P. Ennals, B.A. Miller, J. vanderLeest, J.-G. Godin, K. Hamer (by conference call), C. Hunter, M. McCullough, S. Lochhead, W. Godfrey, R. Lapp, J. Rogers, D. Tokaryk, G. Tucker, R. Aiken,  J. Bates, R. Beattie, M. Blagrave, P. Bogaard,  D. Campbell,  A. Fancy, B. Fleming, C. Grant, R. Hawkes, T. Holownia, J. Houtsma,  B. McNally, J. Read, C. Storm, W. Wilson, N. Anand, L. Morrison, Z. Taylor.

Associate Members Present
N. Baldwin

Regrets
W. Cross M. Elton, I. Newbould,  N. Ralph, C. Riggs, M. Tucker

Observers
P. Edwards, M. Fancy

P. Ennals took the chair to open the meeting but relinquished it to P. Baker, who announced the items on the agenda of the special meeting as circulated. P. Baker advised that observers would be recognised as speakers after members of Senate had held the floor.

00.12.01 Institutional Strategic Research Plan
P. Ennals referred to the recent introduction of the Canada Research Chairs programme and outlined how information about this programme had evolved since May 2000. He presented a proposed allocation of research chairs at Mount Allison, noting that all universities’ allocations are subject to review. In describing the process followed to date, P. Ennals indicated that a commitment was made in the early stages to consult with departments and deans, despite the very tight time requirements. In order to allow a reasonable consultation process, a decision was taken to move submission of Mount Allison’s plan to the December deadline rather than the September deadline. The Research Committee and the Planning Committee were consulted and a number of revisions made. The essential portion of the final document was presented to Senate (although not the full plan as it contained the names of potential nominees and publication of this material would breach confidentiality) outlining the major research themes, objectives and intended appointments of chairs.  P. Ennals reminded Senators that approval of this document did not in any way undermine the validity of the other research and creative activity taking place on campus. The Canada Research Chair programme has been conceived in a way that carries a  bias towards the Science disciplines but the proposed plan uses our allocation creatively through a special category created since May specifically for the smaller research universities. Noting that the Plan provide an opportunity for excellence in research that is consistent with the Strategic Plan, P. Ennals moved, seconded J-G. Godin, that Senate accept in principle the University’s major strategic research themes and objectives as outlined in its Institutional Strategic Research Plan Summary document.
B.A. Miller asked whether some of the proposed appointments would dilute existing teaching strengths and how many appointments might be made internally. For example, if an internal candidate was successful and was granted a course release in order to pursue a stronger research programme, this would decrease our teaching resources. P. Ennals noted that it was impossible to answer this definitively but that it was anticipated that there would be internal candidates for these appointments. If anything, the plan offered the opportunity to protect our existing teaching and resource strengths. Some discussion of release time would occur but the intention of the programme was that those filling these chairs would be involved with teaching students. Some portion of the allocated monies might also be made available to fund further post-doctoral positions which could enhance our teaching strength. Further, it may be possible to redirect any salary released from an internal appointee to other departments or needs within the institution as a whole. P. Ennals argued that ultimately this process could represent a net gain to the university’s base funding. W. Godfrey agreed that at the end of the 5-year period, it appeared to represent a substantial gain. Was the situation that optimistic at the end of a 10-year period, however, when projected external funding will have ceased? P. Ennals expressed the hope that the programme would continue beyond the present round. Z. Taylor stated that students would be concerned if they were seen as a potential funding base to shore up any shortfalls at the end of this programme and N. Baldwin pointed out that many of the complex issues did not appear in the existing document. P. Ennals noted that specific discussion of candidates was beyond the purview of Senate and that the process of assessing nominees had to conform to the guidelines of the programme. R. Lapp, while generally supportive of the plan, asked why the phasing was such that appointments in the Arts and Humanities come later than those in Science. P. Ennals noted that to some extent this was a defensive move to retain existing researchers. The university intended to make an NSERC appointment in Year 4 and a SSHRC appointment  in Year 5.  There is some flexibility here, argued P. Ennals, pointing out that the initial possibility of a Tier I appointment had now been divided into two Tier II positions. R. Lapp argued that this mechanism of dividing a Tier I chair could have been used to recommend support for both Science and Arts/Humanities/Social Science. P. Ennals noted that these options had been considered. R.  Aiken reported that while Biology would benefit from the proposed plan, there remained difficulties with the document related to the research focus, the timing, and how competitive our strategy would be in relation to other institutions.  P. Ennals responded that many of the specific details would come with particular nominations. This document provided the background to the nomination process and outlined some areas of strength and future development. Senate was not being asked to vote on the specifics of actual appointments but on the general principles of the strategy. J. Read noted that while he also shared concerns with the present document, the specific appointments would be where the real strength was developed. R. Hawkes spoke in support of the plan, arguing that it responded to the consultative process at the departmental level and appeared to address relevant issues for researchers and students as we moved forward over the next decade. M. Fancy suggested that part of the present difficulty had arisen because of the lack of a larger institutional research plan in which this programme could be situated. P. Ennals agreed but noted that the University had to act quickly to take advantage of the present programme.

Gaining Senate’s assent to consider the question, the Chair asked that the motion be read again. On question put, the motion CARRIED unanimously.

00.12.02 Approval of Guidelines for Marjorie Young Bell Faculty Fund
P.  Ennals spoke to the motion deferred from the 23 November meeting, noting that it had been moved and seconded at that point but deferred for further information. Minor wording changes had been made to sections 3 and 4 as circulated. W. Godfrey asked how long the Fund had been operating without guidelines that had been confirmed by Senate and P. Ennals noted that this had been the case for at least two years. W. Godfrey remained concerned with the wording of Category C and moved, seconded R. Lapp, that the word “Also” be substituted for “Normally” in the final sentence. On question put, the motion to amend this sentence CARRIED.

W. Godfrey also questioned the intention of revisions to section 3 which appeared to imply that the Research Committee was to be required to report on all applications, not just those to category C. P. Ennals agreed that this was an error and that the addition of the words ‘in Category C’ at the end of the second sentence would clarify this. Similarly, the final sentence referred to the “Awards” Committee, not the Research Committee. The word “Awards” was added as a friendly amendment. P. Edwards noted that the statement of categories remained problematic and the Guidelines, even as revised, failed to contain clear criteria on adjudication and evaluation. He urged the Awards Committee of the Marjorie Young Bell Faculty Fund to develop stronger and clearer assessment criteria. Questions on the nature of voting procedure were raised with J. vanderLeest noting that the new guidelines contained voting procedures that were not exactly as found in the 1966 guidelines and had apparently never been approved. B. Fleming suggested that the Chair should always be considered eligible to vote. R. Summerby-Murray noted that the by-laws provided for the chair to vote only to break a tie. P Bogaard suggested that the chair rule on a method of voting based on the guidelines. The chair ruled that the motion would require a two-thirds majority of the teaching faculty present at the meeting to pass. On question called, the motion as amended above was CARRIED unanimously by those eligible to vote.

The Meeting adjourned at 3:15pm.
 

Respectfully submitted,
 
 

Robert Summerby-Murray
Secretary of the Senate
 

Return to Mount Allison University Senate Menu