Present as members of Senate:
J. Keith, W. MacKay (Chair), R. Summerby-Murray, D. Cameron, N. Grant, P. Baker, P. Ennals, K. Hamer, C.P. Hunter, C. Hunter, S. Lochhead, R. Polegato, V. Reinsborough, J. vanderLeest, R. Adlam, B. Campbell, R. Lapp,  J. Rogers, D. Tokaryk, F. Baerlocher, P. Bogaard, I. Cohen, T. Craig, W. Cross, E. Dawe, E. Edson, P. Edwards, A. Fancy, B. Fleming, R. Hawkes, S. Law, B. McNally, B. A. Miller, N. Ralph, J. Read, C. Storm, W. Wilson, J. Bourque, H. Matthews, D. Thompson, A. Wasylishen, R. Heffernan, M. Mohammed, L. McGinnis, C. Pollock

Regrets:
W. McMullen, C. Riggs, R. Winters, J. Stewart, M. Tucker

Observer:
M. Fancy

01.11.01 Approval of agenda
K. Hamer moved, seconded R. Hawkes, that the agenda as circulated be approved. CARRIED.

02.11.01 Minutes of 29 October 2001
C.P. Hunter noted that the words ‘with Distinction’ should be added at the top of page 7, after the words ‘First Class Honours’. D. Tokaryk moved, seconded F. Baerlocher, that the Minutes of 29 October 2001 be approved as amended. CARRIED.

03.11.02 Business arising
None

04.11.02 Announcement and Questions
President’s Advisory Committee on Physical Recreation and Athletic Facilities:
W. MacKay noted that this committee had begun its work and a consultant had been hired. The focus was on the facilities but there would also be some associated consideration of athletic programmes. It was intended that there be a broadly-based consultation with students, faculty, staff and the Town of Sackville. B.A. Miller asked whether the reference to ‘facilities’ implied the discussion of more than the present Athletic Centre and/or sports-fields. W. MacKay responded that the discussion might include the future uses of other buildings such as McConnell but the review had not set out initially to consider sports fields.

Authority to appoint faculty and staff
A revised version of the policy approved by the Executive Committee of the Board of Regents was circulated (attached to file copy of these Minutes). W. MacKay noted that it took account of many of the issues raised earlier at Faculty Council and codified and clarified some current practices. P. Edwards asked which positions were covered under 2.2.2 ‘Other positions’ and W. MacKay responded that these were staff positions and the policy did not represent a change from existing practice.  P. Edwards inquired whether section 2.1 should be read widely or restrictively. Does the Board have the choice of not following the recommendations of the President on the appointment of Vice-Presidents and Deans? W. MacKay felt that the wording suggested that such recommendations would be upheld ‘in all likelihood’.

Additions to faculty complement
W. MacKay announced that, after wide consultation, there will be additions to the faculty complement in the coming budget in response to concerns over student-faculty ratios, class size, and pedagogy. The Planning Committee will be bringing these forward and the university will move to advertise these positions as soon as possible.

05.11.01 Report from Faculty Council
J. vanderLeest presented a brief report on the recent meeting, noting that the main item was the hiring policy noted above. Faculty Council had had a wide-ranging discussion of the policy with some elements from that discussion now incorporated into the final policy document. J. Read commended this process, highlighting the important role of Faculty Council as a forum for this sort of discussion.

06.11.01 Report from Senate Committee on Teaching
D. Tokaryk presented the report from the Senate Committee on Teaching (copy attached to file copy of these Minutes). After a summary of the committee’s activities, noting workshops, presentations, and innovative teaching initiatives, Tokaryk identified key issues for the future. Among these were the need to strengthen the teaching development capability of the Purdy Crawford Teaching Centre and the issue of formalised teaching evaluation (a seminar in January 2002 was planned to address this). Further, the issue of teaching load require greater consideration with the possibilities of some form of teaching assistance in the Arts, Humanities and Social Sciences disciplines that require extensive written assignments. Increasing the number of faculty positions would help to deal with this but there is a larger issue here concerning the changing expectations of research and teaching activity for faculty. This is particularly significant for those trying to establish research careers and has ramifications for the university’s ability to attract and retain faculty. C. Pollock reiterated the need for increased faculty complement, noting that Faculty Council continued to raise this point, most recently in a discussion of course capping.

07.11.01 Report from University Planning Committee
P. Ennals presented this report (copy attached to the file copy of these Minutes), noting that two matters were addressed: additions to the faculty complement, and a review of the Commerce programme. The earlier report to Senate (September 2001) identified replacement positions resulting from retirements and resignations. The second part of the process developed a detailed assessment of the need for ‘net new positions’. These net new tenure-track positions have now been identified and prioritised as follows, with appropriate recommendations made to the President: 1. Psychology; 2. International Relations; 3. Chemistry; 4. Women’s Studies; 5. English; 6. Philosophy.

The second matter concerned the Commerce Department which is presently facing difficulties with high student numbers, increased class size, and instability in its faculty complement. The Planning Committee, in consultation with the Department, proposed a review of the Commerce programme, to consider curriculum, pedagogy and faculty retention. P. Ennals indicated that this review would be different from  earlier departmental reviews in that an external facilitator may be brought in to work with the department and students to develop a longer term plan. Because this is a deviation from past procedure, the Planning Committee recommends that Senate consider and formally endorse this approach. Accordingly, P. Ennals gave Notice of Motion follows, with the intention that this be considered at the January meeting:
 That Senate recommends that the University conduct a thorough review of the Commerce program with a view to developing a plan for the future staffing and curriculum renewal of this program in keeping with the University’s overall goal of academic excellence. In view of the urgency and importance of securing the future staffing and stability of this program, it is further recommended that this process be initiated and completed in a timely way.

B. A. Miller asked whether this was the tip of the iceberg; that is, do these issues affect only the Commerce Department or are they reflective of a wider problem? P. Ennals responded that the Commerce programme faced somewhat different situations than other programmes in terms of faculty retention. The programme has sometimes struggled with developing a research culture that fits with the rest of the university, in part because the marketplace for people with Commerce qualifications is such that there is considerable competition for these faculty members. Further, a recent pattern among other Business and Commerce programmes has been to established them as named business schools, with external donors acting in partnership with universities to overcome these market differentials for faculty salaries. Some consideration of a similar approach might be given here. Many of these issues are quite different from those faced by other departments. W. Cross asked whether there were plans for future reviews of other departments given that many of the most recent ones now are some years old. P. Ennals responded that no process was in place at the moment but a good deal had changed since those reviews and it was perhaps time to revisit this. In response to a question from E. Dawe, P. Ennals noted that the Commerce programme was last reviewed in 1994. J. vanderLeest asked that it be noted that the listing of the net new positions in the Planning Committee report reflected priorities set this year. If these are not all filled, the report is not meant to suggest that this priority be set in stone. VanderLeest was of the opinion that the priorities need to be revisited annually.

08.11.01 Committee on Committees
J. Read clarified that C. Storm’s nomination to the Agenda Committee was for 2 years: 2001-2003. A progress report was provided on the review of committee membership and terms of reference. The Committee on Committee had developed guidelines for its review, noting that it was considering such things as length of appointments, quorum, the archiving of materials, the balance of ex officio and student members, and the stream-lining of processes. To date, the Committee had considered its own membership and terms of reference and those for the committees on Continuing Education, Academic Matters and Agenda. J. Read listed those committees still to respond to the Committee on Committees’ request for information.

09.11.01 Ad hoc committee on emeriti appointments
J. Read opened discussion by referring to the review of this process in 1994-95. The Academic Affairs Committee of the Board is presently considering this process but Senate should develop its input also as it is an important academic issue. J Read moved, seconded N. Ralph,
 That an ad hoc committee be formed to review the criteria for the appointment of professors emeriti and make suggestions for revisions. The Committee on Committees will establish this committee.

P. Edwards asked what was meant by ‘establish’ in this context and J. Read replied that the intention was that the Committee on Committees would bring forward recommendations to Senate for approval. On question put, the motion CARRIED.

10.11.01 Dates of Academic Diary
R. Summerby-Murray presented dates for the 2002-2003 Academic Diary for information only. C. Hunter asked whether these could be provided for 2003-2004 also. R. Summerby-Murray suggested that this be referred to the Vice-President Academic for further action based on the guidelines established by the ad hoc committee reviewing this issue in early 2001. J. vanderLeest requested that this issue should be coming to Senate for its approval, following the practice prior to the 1990s where the Registrar presented the calendar of events for Senate’s approval. K . Hamer noted that the calendar of events and a template for the future had been set out by last year’s committee. C Hunter and P. Edwards considered that the issue of dates for 2003-04 should be referred to the Vice-President Academic for development and then presented to Senate for information. J. vanderLeest moved, seconded C. Storm, that the academic diary for 2002-03, with its details of academic timing, be brought to Senate for approval.

P. Ennals noted that there were financial issues to consider also in the setting of the calendar of events or academic diary. P. Edwards moved an amendment, seconded D. Tokaryk, that the diary be ‘presented to Senate for advice only’. The Chair ruled that this was not a friendly amendment. J. vanderLeest sought clarification of the financial implications of the academic diary and P. Ennals noted that there were significant costs related to residences, custodial staff etc. These were considered to be administrative issues, not academic. K. Hamer asked whether the intention of the main motion was to work within the established dates. J. vanderLeest replied that the intention was to work within the parameters setup by the earlier committee but there may be cases where dates require academic consideration and justification. On question put, the amendment CARRIED.

On question put, the main motion as amended CARRIED.

D. Tokaryk asked why it would not be possible to develop an examination schedule much earlier in the term. C.P. Hunter responded that there was a process of discussing the need for examinations with departments at the beginning of each term. C. Pollock asked whether it would be possible to develop an exam schedule based on the teaching timetable. K. Hamer suggested that information on which courses required examinations needed to be provided much earlier in the term, preferably within the first week of classes. P. Ennals noted that this issues continues to be reviewed and the intention was to use new timetabling software to make the examination schedule available sooner, especially to aid those many students who have to travel at holiday periods. B.A. Miller thought it interesting that instructors are required at the beginning of term to give dates of mid-terms but neither instructors or students can get the dates of examinations. E. Dawe suggested that department heads should be collecting this information from course syllabi in the first week to speed up this process.

11.11.01 Other Business
R. Summerby-Murray read a letter directed to the Vice-President Academic from B. A. Miller, N. Ralph and T. Craig regarding the disbursement of Continuing Education profits (Attached to file copy of these Minutes). P. Ennals responded that the letter provided a good opportunity to revisit this process and strategy. The most recent disbursement was a short term plan that has since been abandoned. If there is will to restore it, then this should be investigated further. J Read supported further investigation as there were questions of equity to consider, particularly as this disbursement had bypassed the formal budget process. Cases for disbursement should be made on academic grounds. B. A. Miller noted that funds are generated not just by departmental faculty members but by others hired to teach specific courses; that is, revenues are generated by courses. P. Edwards noted that many departments and individuals are involved in Continuing Education courses and these courses sometimes reflect financial concerns for the individuals involved.

12.11.01 Adjournment
The meeting adjourned on motion moved by D. Tokaryk, seconded P. Ennals.
 

Respectfully submitted,
 

Robert Summerby-Murray
Secretary of Senate

Return to Mount Allison University Senate Menu