A meeting of the Senate of Acadia University occurred
on Monday, 8 January 2001, beginning at
4:07 p.m. with Chair Ian Wilks presiding and 43 members
present.
| 1) Minutes of the Meeting of
11 December 2000 |
It was moved by S. Symons, seconded by R. Perrins that the Minutes of 11 December 2000 be approved as circulated. P. Cook noted that the first full paragraph on page 4 under item 4)a) should read ‘P. Cook noted that bursary monies available...’ MOTION AS AMENDED WAS CARRIED.
|
| 2) Announcements and
Communications a) From the Chair -re Regrets -re Today's Agenda
-re Senate Membership
|
Regrets were received from G. Draper, A. Irving, L. MacDonald, J. McLeod and L. White. I. Wilks welcomed P. Corkum back from her sabbatical.. He noted that there was a request to defer 3)b) on the Terms of Reference
for the Board of Continuing and Distance Education until the February meeting
of Senate. As there was opposition to this request, he said that
the matter would be put to a vote of Senate when it begins to consider
the Business of the day.
I. Wilks said that a question had recently been raised about the definition of ‘lay membership’, given that two of Senate’s current lay members are also employed by the University. He said that he had written to the Chair of the By-Laws Committee on 23 November, requesting an opinion on this matter (APPENDIX A). He subsequently received a response dated 5 December (APPENDIX B) in which the By-Laws Committee states ‘that a direct, professional, and/or monetary relationship with the University is not consistent with being a lay member of the Senate’. As the Committee itself noted, this finding is not based on the Constitution and By-Laws of Senate, or on Beauchesne or Robert’s Rules, since these documents do not address the issue. I. Wilks therefore directed the By-Laws Committee to prepare a motion which will establish the meaning of ‘lay membership’; by passing, defeating or amending this motion Senate will be able to express itself on this issue. J. DeWolfe, lay member of Senate and part-time lecturer at Acadia, commented
that she herself had raised the possibility of conflict of interest when
approached to sit on Senate, and was assured that there was none.
However she was always prepared to excuse herself from voting on any matter
which might involve such a conflict.
|
| b) From the President
-re Achievements at Acadia -re Honorary Degrees
|
K. Ogilvie congratulated the School of Computer Science on the launching of its E-Commerce Program. Based on information from the Provost, he noted that not only has the entering average to Acadia been rising, the success rate of students in their courses has increased. He closed by extending congratulations to the Librarian and her colleagues for their efforts in providing direct access to journals and other material online. Our library is leading universities in Atlantic Canada in this area. In reply to a query from G. Pyrcz regarding the selection of candidates
for an honorary degree at Acadia, in particular the lack of representatives
from the Arts and Humanities, K. Ogilvie assured Senate that all names
which are brought to it are considered by the selection committee.
G. Pyrcz asked that the protocol/procedure for submitting names be more
explicitly laid out, since names which he had submitted were not on the
list. The President asked G. Pyrcz to follow up with him on those
particular names to ensure they did indeed reach the Honorary Degrees Committee
for consideration.
|
| c) From the Vice-President
(Academic) -re Atlantic Innovation Fund -re Personnel Searches |
M. Leiter reported that the Atlantic Innovation Fund is still waiting for final terms of reference to be established, but that in the meantime it has a website where proposals from other universities may be viewed. Submissions may be made to this website. Cynthia Alexander is the contact person in this regard. Many search committees are currently active; efforts are being made
to fill two research chairs, the opening for the position of University
Librarian, and approximately 20 faculty positions.
|
| 3) Business Arising from the
Minutes b) Faculty of Arts – Terms of Reference for the Board of Continuing and Distance Education (001-14-CDE) |
It was moved by D. Looker, seconded by B. Moody that the order of the day be suspended to omit item 3)b) from the agenda. MOTION WAS CARRIED.
|
| a) Vice-President (Academic)
- Amendment to the Faculty Council Constitution (001-18-ARTS) |
It was moved by M. Leiter, seconded by T. Regan that Whereas the
Arts Faculty Council is subordinate to the Senate of Acadia University,
and
1)
M. Leiter stressed the importance of this motion, given that the Constitution of the Arts Faculty Council in effect challenges the authority of Senate. But Senate’s authority has its basis in acts of the Legislature, and cannot be challenged from any body within the framework of the University. He said that the Constitution of the Arts Faculty Council is also problematic because it dictates to Senate. But this Council is a subcommittee of Senate, and it is unacceptable that Senate be dictated to by one of its own subcommittees. The Vice-President also said that this Constitution is inconsistent with academic freedom. It requires that Arts Senators suspend their judgement or good sense when coming Senate, and vote according to how they have been instructed. T. Regan agreed with the motion. He said that faculty members should come to Senate prepared to express clearly the opinions which have been brought forward from their Councils. G. Pyrcz spoke against the motion. He argued that it was a very important issue, but before proceeding Senate must be certain that the procedure it uses is consistent with its powers as they relate to Faculty Councils. If it is procedurally correct, all Councils of all Faculties should be reviewed by Senate. It was moved by G. Pyrcz , seconded by J. Sacouman that the motion in item 001-18-ARTS be referred to the By-Laws Committee for the purpose of advising Senate of the current status of the authority of the Faculty Councils as authorized by the Senate of Acadia University and to address the juridical rights of Senate in this matter, and to advise Senate on the proper procedure for redress. A point of order was raised by T. Regan. The Constitution and By-Laws of Senate state that ‘the duties of the By-Laws Committee shall be to review annually the By-Laws of Senate, Faculty, and Faculty Councils and recommend any changes or additions deemed necessary’. He argued that this motion is not necessary because proper procedure is being followed in this case. The Chair ruled that it is still in order to consider a motion even if that motion is in fact not necessary. A point of order was raised by K. Ogilvie. He argued that what was at stake here was the fundamental right of Senate to debate a motion. Senate has never transferred any right to any other body with regard to those rights granted to Senate in the Act of Incorporation of Acadia University. If this motion stands, it means that at any time the authority of Senate can be deferred. This is an issue of the right of Senate to debate a motion of authority. The Chair ruled that this point might well stand as a strong argument for voting against the motion, but did not entail that the motion was out of order. D. Looker saw no reason to rush this motion through until all the information is available to Senators to make an informed decision. MOTION TO REFER WAS DEFEATED. J. Sacouman spoke against the original motion. He noted that there is a long democratic tradition of delegates being chosen to express the views of their specific constituency, that, in reality, Senators generally voted as delegates from their specific constituencies, and that such a practice encouraged healthier debate on issues than the Board’s practice of there being a general good that somehow stands above and always overrides the specific interests of constituencies. G. Pyrcz argued that the motion misread the nature of the obligation enacted by the Faculty of Arts. There is a prima facie moral obligation to support, as faculty from the Faculty of Arts, issues which the council wishes to be well represented at Senate. Each faculty member has, he contended, a number of obligations: to Faculty Council, to students, and, as academics and scholars, to say what he or she believes to be true. These at times conflicting obligations can and indeed should, on occasion, trump the prima facie obligation to represent Faculty of Arts positions. It is a necessary part of the governing procedure at Acadia to have the Faculty Councils represented at Senate. He felt that there was no special difficulty here and that the motion was unnecessary. D. Looker referred to a past incident when the Arts Faculty Council made a decision on a matter and an Acting Dean did not represent that Council's view at Senate as a representative of the Council. This was regarded as inappropriate, and it was at that time, after considerable thought put into the effort, that the wording in question was incorporated in the constitution of the Faculty Council. She closed by noting that the situation of conflict of interest between Faculty Council and Dean or Heads is rare. She urged Senators not to accept this motion, as it would challenge the rights of the Arts Faculty Council to set its own constitution. T. Regan spoke in favour of the motion and felt the existing constitutional wording was too binding. He argued that, as Dean, he must consider the position of his faculty when dealing with an issue and has an obligation to ensure that Senate fully understands his Faculty’s position, without necessarily fully supporting that position. M. Forrest noted that the Arts Faculty Constitution simply required that Arts Senators advocate Council positions, and that this did not create an obligation to vote for those positions. N. Price spoke in favour of the motion. He said that a member of Senate should deal with issues as they see fit after hearing debate, not as obligated by another body. G. Ness felt that an interpretation of the word ‘advocate’ as it appears in the Arts Faculty Constitution is necessary in order to solve this problem. N. VanWagoner felt that the Arts Constitution limited the right of Senators to express their views fully. Senate is a place for debate directed to the common good of the University. W. McLeod noted that Senators of Professional Studies are never instructed how to vote. MOTION WAS CARRIED.
|
| 2)
It was moved by M. Leiter, seconded by T. Regan that Be It Further Resolved that the Senate instruct the Arts Faculty Council to submit its amended constitution to Senate for ratification. It was suggested by P. Cabilio, and accepted by both mover and seconder of the original motion, that a friendly amendment be made to the motion as follows: ‘Be It Further Resolved that the Senate instruct the Arts Faculty Council to submit its amended constitution to Senate for ratification and that all faculties (Arts, Professional Studies, and Science) be instructed to submit their constitution to Senate for ratification. D. Looker asked if this motion included the Faculty of Theology and the Student Representative Council. It was clarified that the Faculty of Theology does not have a Council or a constitution. C. MacLatchy said that once a Faculty Council constitution is amended it should be submitted to the Senate By-Laws Committee. He noted that Article VIII (a) Item (ii) of the Constitution and By-Laws states that ‘it is the duty of this Committee to review annually the By-Laws of the Senate, Faculty, Faculty Councils and recommend any changes or additions deemed necessary; to monitor the evolution of the academic committees and to recommend changes to the committee structure of Faculty Councils and other bodies at the University for which it is responsible; to deal with any other matters which Senate might refer to the Committee’. MOTION AS AMENDED WAS CARRIED (19/12).
|
|
| 4) New Business
b) Curriculum Committee-
|
Because of the time remaining, the chair asked
Senators' permission to continue with Item 4)b). It was agreed to
proceed in this fashion.
It was moved by T. Regan, seconded by R. Perrins that the proposed curriculum changes for the Faculty of Arts as circulated with today's agenda be accepted. Explanations for changes were given. The addition made to the Sociology entry (circulated by e-mail as an addition to 001-26-CRE) was noted. MOTION WAS CARRIED.
|
| Faculty of Pure
and
Applied Science (001-27 to 35-CRE) |
It was moved by C. MacLatchy, seconded by E. Johnston that the proposed curriculum changes for the Faculty of Pure and Applied Science as circulated with today's agenda be accepted. Explanations for changes were given. Two amendments were made. On page 12, the first instance of NUTR 4233 was changed to FOOD 4233, and on page 9 the ENVS 1013 entry was withdrawn. MOTION AS AMENDED WAS CARRIED.
|
| Faculty of Professional
Studies (001-36 to 37-CRE) |
It was moved by W. McLeod, seconded by M. Brown that the proposed curriculum changes for the Faculty of Professional Studies as circulated with today's agenda be accepted. Explanations for changes were given. The new number system for some educational courses was noted. In response to a query regarding the educational ‘online’ courses and whether they would be eligible for a credit in the BEd program, M. Brown explained that the on-campus counterparts were set up to be part of an integrated suite of courses making up a full-time program, not a collection of independent courses. It was agreed by M. Brown that courses EDUC 40G3 NT and EDUC 40H NT be struck from the list until the description can be rewritten to better reflect the differences between on-campus and distance education delivery. MOTION AS AMENDED WAS CARRIED.
|
| a) Academic Program Review
Committee - Recommendations on the External Review of the Departments of Economics, Political Science, and Sociology (001-19-APR) |
THIS ITEM WAS DEFERRED.
|
| c) Ad hoc Committee to
review the role of the Senate Library Committee (001-38-LIB) |
THIS ITEM WAS DEFERRED.
|
| 5) Adjournment | P. Cabilio moved this meeting be adjourned. It was 6:00 p.m. |