A meeting of the Senate of Acadia University occurred on Monday, 13 March 2006, beginning at
4:07 p.m. with Chair Ian Wilks presiding and 34 members present.
 

1)Minutes of the Meeting of 13 February 2006	It was moved by R. Raeside and seconded by G. Iwama that the minutes of Monday, 13 February 2006 be approved.   MOTION WAS CARRIED.
2)      Announcements and Communications a)      From the Chair re Regrets	Regrets were received from J. Eustace, S. Franceschet, G. MacKinnon, P. Cook MacKinnon, S. Markham-Starr, and A. Smith.
re Visitors	Guest in attendance at this meeting:  S. Donovan, Office of the VP (Academic).
re Agenda	The Chair noted the following handouts related to Agenda item 3(b):  1) Report of the By-Laws Committee Re: "Is Senate able to create a Council for Graduate Studies?" 2) a document, written by the By-Laws Committee entitled, “Comparison between Terms of Reference in the Motion and Current Senate By-laws,” and 3) a document, compiled by the Chair, noting the amendments (in bold type) proposed at the 13 February 2006 Senate meeting.
re ad hoc Committee on Students with Learning Disabilities	In her absence, the Chair noted that S. Markham-Starr, Chair of the ad hoc Committee on Students with Learning Disabilities, had asked him to report the following to Senate:  that the Committee had met and discussed its mandate, that more meetings are scheduled, and that consultations with constituencies will take place.  A final report will be given at the May Senate meeting.
re Nominating Committee	The Chair gave advance notice that, for the May Senate meeting, the Senate Nominating Committee will need to put together a slate of Officers of Senate and nominations for Executive Committee positions that are not ex officio.
re April Senate Meeting	The Chair advised that the April 10th Senate meeting will begin at 10:00 a.m. in BAC 132.
re Learning Commons – Centre for Teaching, Curriculum and Learning	The Chair noted that the Centre for Teaching, Curriculum, and Learning would like to strike a steering committee.  He suggested the Senate Faculty Development Committee for this purpose.   G. Dinter-Gottlieb recommended that the Senate Faculty Development Committee liaise directly with the Centre, rather than instituting another “layer.”  I. Wilks agreed to take this suggestion up with R. Nilson and P. Cook MacKinnon.
From the President	G. Dinter-Gottlieb expressed her thanks to all involved in the Strategic Planning process and, in particular, the members of the academic community; to R. Nilson for his leadership and to the members of the ad hoc Committee on Strategic Planning “that did the re-write and came out with a document sensitive to the interests of campus needs”.
From the Vice-President (Academic)	R. Nilson added his thanks to those who gave of their time to participate in the Strategic Planning process.   R. Nilson noted the Academic Program Review Committee will review the School of Music on March 27-28/06 and the Department of Chemistry the week after.  He said invitations to meet with the Review teams will be extended and that opportunities for input will be provided.   In response to a query from J. Gould, R. Nilson updated Senate on the status of the Search for a Dean of Research and Graduate Studies.  He said the Search Committee is reviewing the candidates remaining in the “pool” as potential candidates for the position.
) Business Arising from the      Minutes ) Ad hoc Committee on      academic core of Strategic       Plan Report of 1 March 06     (056-55-ASP)	It was moved by R. Nilson and seconded by B. Matthews that the Senate of Acadia University approve the academic core of the Strategic Plan (version dated 1 March 2006) as attached to the agenda for the 13 March 2006 meeting.   R. Nilson began by expressing his thanks to G. Dinter-Gottlieb for the opportunity to be engaged in this process.
	R. Nilson noted when the first draft of the Strategic Plan, dated 27 September 2005, came before Senate, an ad hoc committee was struck to work with the Vice-President (Academic)’s Office to review and revise the document.   The ad hoc committee met regularly and often and paid close attention to the feedback it received.  A second draft, dated 20 February 2006, was reviewed by faculty and the resulting document, dated 1 March 2006, was developed based on feedback the committee received on the 20 February 2006 draft.   R. Nilson noted that the draft before Senate today reflects the values of the community.   The Chair opened the floor for further discussion on the document.
	It was moved by H. Hopkins and seconded by R. Raeside that the first line on p. 3/Attachment 3)a) be amended to change “creating” to “discovering” with respect to knowledge.
	H. Hopkins thought this change would make a better fit with the succeeding paragraph.
	Following discussion, the MOTION TO AMEND WAS DEFEATED.
	H. Hopkins questioned the use of the word “recursive” on p. 6 and p. 15 and asked whether it was indeed a word.  R. Nilson confirmed that it was a word and was descriptive of the process involved.
	H. Hopkins asked if the use of the word “affirming” on p. 9 was inclusive of gays and lesbians.  In learning that it was, he voiced the hope that this fact would be made widely known.
	At the request of P. Cabilio, R. Nilson outlined the major changes that occurred to the document following consultation with the faculties (i.e. the changes made to the 20 February draft, which resulted in the 1 March version).
	G. Iwama referred to the second sentence of the first bullet on p. 7 referring to “Departments, Schools, and Faculties are …” and asked whether the word “Programs” should be added.
	Following discussion, it was moved by D. Piper and seconded by A. Thomson that "Faculty members in all Academic programs are encouraged ” be added to the second sentence with the caveat that the reviews referred to in the sentence are in keeping with the Academic Program Review policy already in place.   THE AMENDMENT WAS CARRIED 21/9.
	G. Callon questioned whether the word “Schools” should be added to the third bullet on the same page.  This was accepted as a friendly amendment.
	The mover and seconder of the main motion (R. Nilson and B. Matthews) accepted a further friendly amendment to delete “as soon as possible” from the end of the second sentence of the first bullet on p. 7.
	Following a request by A. Quéma, R. Nilson outlined the next steps with respect to where the Strategic Planning document would go from here.  He referenced Appendix 2 of the Strategic Plan and noted that the other sectors are developing individual plans in support of the main academic core.  The document approved by Senate today along with the documents from the other sectors will be brought together as one document and presented to the Board at its May meeting.
	A. Quéma asked whether Senate would have an opportunity to view the complete document.  R. Nilson replied that it would, but that Senate approval would only extend to the academic core document.
	R. Raeside asked whether adopting the new Plan meant adopting a new Mission Statement.  R. Nilson confirmed this noting that approval of the motion it would mean the elimination of Appendix 3.
	D. Piper asked whether the University View Book and Curriculum documents/pamphlets, which seem to be in final form now, would be consistent with the final version of the Strategic Plan.   R. Nilson replied that these documents will be revised in light of today’s changes.
	The MOTION to approve the academic core of the Strategic Plan WAS CARRIED AS AMENDED.
	On behalf of Senate, I. Wilks expressed thanks to G. Dinter-Gottlieb and R. Nilson for their work on the Strategic Plan.
	I. Wilks referred to the last paragraph on p. 9 regarding the Senate review of admissions policies and asked that a report be presented to Senate at the end of the year.
) Research & Graduate    Studies – Proposed    Restructuring of Senate     R&GS Motion as attached    to February Agenda    (056-53-RGS)	The Chair reviewed the handouts associated with Agenda Item 3)b): 1) “Report of the By-Laws Committee Re: Is Senate able to create a Council for Graduate Studies?” (APPENDIX A)  2) a document, drafted by the By-Laws Committee, entitled “Comparison between Terms of Reference in the Motion and Current Senate By-Laws” (APPENDIX B) and 3) a copy of the original motion with the proposed amendments made at the 13 February 2006 meeting in bold type (APPENDIX C).
	I. Wilks reviewed the Cabilio/Roscoe motion to refer the proposal to the By-Laws Committee for consideration of “Council” versus “Senate Committee” and to the tabled Raeside/Piper motion to amend the title to “Senate Committee on Graduate Studies.”
	It was moved by J. White and seconded by L. McDonald that Senate take the motion from the table.   MOTION WAS CARRIED.
	I. Wilks invited P. Corkum to present the By-Laws Committee’s Report on whether Senate is able to create a Council for Graduate Studies.
	The By-Laws Committee’s findings were: ­       Senate does have the authority to create a new Council for Graduate Studies should it wish to do so. ­       If Senate chooses to create such a council, its membership should be broadly representative and include all faculty involved in teaching or supervising graduate students. ­       The new council would not likely be able to carry out the sorts of duties envisaged in the original proposal directly, but would instead have to strike a series of subcommittees to carry on its business.
	Background material for the above findings was contained in the Report (see APPENDIX A). I. Wilks asked for further comments from the floor. W. Bedingfield noted that when the re-structuring proposal was put together, the graduate coordinators did not have the documentation to determine how councils were created or what a council was.  As envisioned at this time, she said a committee structure would work although it is “not to say the ultimate goal wouldn’t be a council.” Concerning the amendment now before it, Senate accepted the Chair’s friendly sub-amendment to replace “Council of Graduate Studies” with “Committee on Graduate Studies” in all instances it appears in the document. The question was called on the amendment, to strike the phrase “Council on Graduate Studies” and replace it with “Senate Committee on Graduate Studies” in all instances it appears in the document.  THE AMENDMENT WAS CARRIED. I. Wilks noted that Senate would now consider the main motion to approve the re-structure of the Senate Committees responsible for graduate programs, honours programs and research as outlined in the document presented to Senate on 13 February 2006. A lengthy discussion took place.  Some of the points brought forward are outlined below: With respect to the Senate Committee on Graduate Studies, P. Cabilio asked if the proposed Terms of Reference would include the Faculty of Theology. As W. Bedingfield did not think the Terms of Reference would apply to the Faculty of Theology, P. Cabilio asked why the Faculty of Theology would need to be included in the composition of the Committee if it was not included in the Terms of Reference. L. McDonald noted that the Faculty of Theology has graduate students and programs and that his goal is to have the Faculty work more closely with the University.  In addition to the graduate student, he suggested that the Acadia Divinity College Program Co-ordinator also become a member of the Committee. B. Matthews added his support to what L. McDonald said and referred to the MA degree offered through the College.  He noted that Acadia University awards all Faculty of Theology degrees. W. Bedingfield thought the question was whether the Committee on Graduate Studies could address graduate programs within the Acadia Divinity College.  R. Nilson noted that in the Articulation Agreement between the University and the Acadia Divinity College specifies that the Acadia University Senate is the body that provides the academic policy at the University. A. Mitchell noted that this Committee would recommend policy in all matters concerning graduate admissions.  L. McDonald said that as it stands now the University has the right to veto any changes that the Divinity College might make to its admissions policies. L. McDonald clarified that Faculty of Theology and Acadia Divinity College were the same entity.  He noted that ADC faculty and staff receive the same medical and pension benefits as the University.  He noted that the College faculty were the most published seminary faculty in Canada. A. Mitchell asked if ADC accreditation might be affected if the ADC does not have control over its curriculum.  L. McDonald said the accreditation board for the ADC was the Association of Theological Schools in Canada and the United States.  He did not think the Senate Committee on Graduate Studies would propose anything that would pose a problem for the accreditation board. R. Nilson noted that the proposed Terms of Reference for the Committee were developed on the basis that it would be a “Council” and not a “Committee” and asked if there might be some language issues that would now need to be addressed.  A. Quéma noted that all language would have to be authorized by Senate no matter if it were a “Committee” or a “Council.”  P. Corkum noted that the terms of reference (a. to h.) are already in the By-Laws, just the operational changes to the committees would be necessary. H. Hopkins suggested that it might be wise to have the ADC Senate discuss the matter before it is passed by this body. Some Senators expressed concern that Senate’s actions might be in conflict with the Articulation Agreement. The mover and seconder of the original motion (Bedingfield/Gould) agreed to strike the first bolded phrase from the motion to facilitate passage of the motion.  [The phrase deleted was “a graduate student from the Faculty of Theology elected by the Acadia Divinity College Student Association…”.]  THE MOTION WAS CARRIED AS AMENDED. I. Wilks said that the Report would now be sent on to the By-Laws Committee for recommendations on language and amendments to the Senate constitution, with particular reference to the inclusion of the Faculty of Theology on the Committee. P. Corkum said the ADC Senate should report on its comfort level with the proposal before the By-Laws Committee proceeds with the inclusion of the Faculty of Theology on the Committee. W. Bedingfield and L. McDonald agreed to consult with the ADC and will advise the By-Laws Committee of the outcome.
4)  New Business	There were no items of New Business reported at the meeting.
5)  Adjournment	P. Cabilio moved this meeting be adjourned.  It was 6:04 p.m.
________________________________ I. Armstrong, Recording Secretary
Page 1/APPENDIX A SenateMinutes/13Mar06/Item 3)b) 056-53-RGS   Report of the By-Laws Committee Re: Is Senate able to create a Council for Graduate Studies?     At the last meeting, the By-laws committee was tasked with examining the question of whether or not Senate had the legal authority to create a new Council for Graduate Studies. After examining the historical documents related to the establishment of the three existing Faculty Councils, we conclude that:   Senate does have the authority to create a new Council for Graduate Studies should it wish to do so.                                                                                                                If Senate chooses to create such a council, its membership should be broadly representative and include all faculty involved in teaching or supervising graduate students.   The new council would not likely be able to carry out the sorts of duties envisaged in the original proposal directly, but would instead have to strike a series of subcommittees to carry on its business.   Discussion   Senate is the ultimate authority for academic policy at Acadia, and that authority is guaranteed in the act of the provincial legislature that created the university. The terms of reference for the Senate given in the act are reprinted on page one of the Senate's constitution and by-laws document, and begin as follows:   "The Senate is responsible for the educational policy of the University, and, with the approval of the Board of Governors insofar as the expenditure of funds and establishment of Faculties are concerned, may create such faculties, schools, departments and institutes, or establish chairs as the Senate may determine, and may enact by-laws and regulations for the conduct of its affairs …"   From this statement, it is clear that Senate, acting alone, could not create a new Faculty of Graduate studies. However, the existing Faculty Councils are separate entities from the Faculties they are associated with. The Faculty Councils do not spend money or occupy space; they were created by Senate to provide an inclusive and guaranteed forum for teaching Faculty to debate academic policy issues. They are subcommittees of Senate that report directly to Senate and no one else. The only money that they have spending authority over is in the form of scholarships or fellowships, which are a special class of expenditure for which authority has separately and uniquely been delegated to Senate in the same legislative act cited earlier. After examining the proposal put to us, we conclude that the proposed new   Page 2/APPENDIX A SenateMinutes/13Mar06/Item 3)b) 056-53-RGS   council would take no more authority upon itself than Senate is free to grant, and thus Senate would have the authority to create such a structure if it sees fit.   However, if a new council is to be created the By-Laws Committee feels strongly that to avoid confusion it should be structured to serve fundamentally the same purpose as the other existing councils; i.e., to provide an inclusive forum where all engaged in the delivery of a particular program can contribute to the development of academic policy. The proposal put to us does not do this, and is, in fact, a committee representing the wider body involved in Graduate Studies at Acadia.   To understand this conclusion, it might be illuminating to review the process used to create the existing councils and the rationale behind it. The four Faculties at Acadia were created in 1984 after the Board's acceptance, after Senate approval, of a report entitled "Into the Fourth Quarter". This was a board document, arrived at after extensive consultation with the wider university community, that proposed sweeping changes to Acadia's administrative structure. After agreeing to the proposals for change contained in the Board report, Senate was obliged to overhaul its own committee structure to reflect the new organizational model. It did this in part by asking its largest subcommittee, the duly constituted pan-university Faculty, to consider the recommendations contained in "Into the Fourth Quarter" and report back. Faculty reported back to Senate with a series of recommendations for change in a document often cited as the "Corbett Report". These recommendations essentially relinquished the role of the pan-university Faculty in the development of academic policy to the new councils. They were accepted and approved at the regular Senate meeting of April 14, 1986.   Two recommendations from the Corbett report are key to understanding the role of the councils and their place in the university structure. Recommendation II (1) says    "Each of the three faculties should have its own properly constituted Faculty Council the membership of which would include all full-time and half-time members of the faculty. As noted above one of the first tasks of a newly constituted (Senate) By-laws Committee would be to ensure that each Faculty Council adopt its own constitution."   And Recommendation III(c) states   "Faculty should continue as a subcommittee of Senate. In addition, the Faculty Councils should also be constituted as subcommittees of Senate. This would mean that Senate could consult either Faculty as a whole or one of the three Faculty Councils in the event of a matter of direct concern to only one of the faculties."   From the foregoing, it is clear that the councils were intended to be inclusive and operate under the authority of Senate. We feel that if a new council is to be created, Page 3/APPENDIX A SenateMinutes/13Mar06/Item 3)b) 056-53-RGS   it should follow this model. Such a council would have to have a constitution drafted and approved by Senate before assuming its duties, and may, in fact, be too large to carry out the duties envisaged in the proposal put to us in any sort of efficient manner. This would require the creation of subcommittees within the new council structure, and the creation of such subcommittees would be subject to the scrutiny of Senate in much the same manner as existing subcommittees of the other Faculty Councils already are.   Respectively submitted,   Andrew Mitchell Anne Quema Pat Corkum Page 1/APPENDIX B SenateMinutes/13Mar06/Item 3)b) 056-53-RGS   COMPARISON BETWEEN TERMS OF REFERENCE IN THE MOTION AND CURRENT SENATE BY-LAWS   Council of Graduate studies Terms of reference for the Council of Graduate Studies To develop policy on all matters regarding programs beyond the Bachelor’s degree at Acadia University including but not limited to admission and graduation requirements and to recommend such policy to Senate. Current by-laws on Senate research and graduate studies committee to formulate general policy in matters regarding all programs beyond the Bachelor's degree at Acadia University, and to recommend such policy to Senate;   to recommend minimum standards governing the admission of students into graduate programs and minimum residence and academic requirements for graduate degrees;   to ensure that all degree requirements have been fulfilled;   to review all graduate study applications and ensure conformity with Calendar or general regulations;   Terms of reference for the Council of Graduate Studies To consider graduate curriculum submissions from Departments, Schools and Faculties and to make recommendations to Senate. Such submissions include changes in existing programs, courses and degree requirements and proposals for new courses, degree requirements and programs. Current by-laws on Senate research and graduate studies committee to consider submissions from departments and schools, inform Faculty, and make recommendations to Senate on the establishment of new graduate programs or courses and the modification or termination of existing ones. The addition of new graduate programs and the expansion of existing ones will be undertaken only when required library materials and other facilities are available. Graduate programs will be maintained only in those areas where there is outstanding expertise among Faculty and sufficient student demand to justify a program;     Page 2/APPENDIX B SenateMinutes/13Mar06/Item 3)b) 056-53-RGS   to monitor the quality of graduate programs and deal with graduate curricula and course content as determined by the University Curriculum Committee;   Terms of reference for the Council of Graduate Studies To provide assistance to the Academic Program Review Committee in the review of graduate programs and by addressing recommendations resulting from those reviews. Current by-laws on Senate research and graduate studies committee to make recommendations to Senate on what graduate programs should be reviewed, the review criteria, and the implementation of Senate decisions regarding recommendations from review committees;   Terms of reference for the Council of Graduate Studies To establish policies governing the allocation of University funds to graduate students. Current by-laws on Senate research and graduate studies committee to allocate the funds available for graduate teaching fellowships (for which a student performs specific duties), and to disburse graduate scholarships and prizes awarded on the basis of demonstrated ability or other criteria (for which no duties are required);   Should item e)  be coordinated with the by-laws governing the duties of the scholarships, prizes and awards committee? Terms of reference for the Council of Graduate Studies To establish and oversee the internal adjudication process for Acadia’s applicants to external scholarship funds. New item     Terms of reference for the Council of Graduate Studies To identify needs and provide for educational opportunities for graduate students beyond specific degree programs. New item   Terms of reference for the Council of Graduate Studies To make recommendations to the Senate Committee on Research to enhance research programs and opportunities for graduate students. New item         Page 3/APPENDIX B SenateMinutes/13Mar06/Item 3)b) 056-53-RGS   Terms of reference for the Council of Graduate Studies To consider and respond to graduate program matters referred to it by graduate students, faculty members, Departments, Schools, Faculties, the VP Academic or by the Senate of Acadia University. Current by-laws on Senate research and graduate studies committee to hear and deal with requests from graduate students and from departments and schools regarding graduate work;   LEFT OUT FROM THE COUNCIL MOTION BUT PART OF CURRENT DUTIES OF THE RESEARCH AND GRADUATE STUDIES COMMITTEE to be responsible for the resolution of any problems pertaining to graduate examinations which have not been resolved by the schools or departments;   to recommend to Faculty and Senate the granting of graduate degrees, diplomas and certificates to students who have satisfactorily completed program requirements;   Senate Committee on Research Terms of reference in the motion To develop policies and programs that encourage and support faculty, graduate and undergraduate research at Acadia University. Current by-laws on Senate research and graduate studies committee to encourage the development of faculty research programs;   Terms of reference in the motion To establish and oversee the adjudication process for Acadia University’s internal research funds, excluding the University Research Fund (Article 25.55). Current by-laws on Senate research and graduate studies committee to oversee the awarding of the University's research funds;   Terms of reference in the motion To establish, propose to Senate for approval and subsequently to implement a consultative process for regular reviews of the Acadia University Strategic Research Plan. New item To encourage and facilitate interaction among Acadia’s researchers, community members, community organizations, government and industry to expand and enhance research collaboration and dissemination. New item     Page 4/APPENDIX B SenateMinutes/13Mar06/Item 3)b) 056-53-RGS   Terms of reference in the motion To consider and respond to research matters referred to it by graduate students, faculty members, Departments, Schools, Faculties, the VP Academic or by the Senate of Acadia University. Current by-laws on Senate research and graduate studies committee       to consider any other matters of policy relating to research and graduate studies, and any matters referred to it by the Faculty, Vice-President (Academic), Senate, or Board of Governors.   Terms of reference in the motion To receive the annual reports of Research Centres and the Research Ethics Board, for submission to Senate. New item     Senate Honours Committee Terms of reference in the motion Composition of the Senate Honours Committee The Senate Honours Committee should comprise two faculty members and one Honours student elected from each of the Faculties of Arts, Pure and Applied Science, and Professional Studies, and the Dean of Research and Graduate Studies. Proper wording should be integrated for composition of the committee with reference to VIII (i) i.   Terms of reference in the motion To regularly review policies governing Honours theses and to recommend changes to Senate as necessary. Current By-Laws on Senate Honours Committee to prepare and update regulations regarding Honours theses;   Terms of reference in the motion To establish and oversee the process of evaluation for Honours theses. Current By-Laws on Senate Honours Committee to examine and approve or reject Honours theses;   Terms of reference in the motion To establish and oversee the internal adjudication process for Acadia’s in-course Honours student applicants to external scholarship funds, summer research awards. New item To establish and oversee the adjudication process for Acadia University’s awards to honours students. New item Page 5/APPENDIX B SenateMinutes/13Mar06/Item 3)b) 056-53-RGS   To make recommendations to the Senate Committee on Research to enhance research programs and opportunities for undergraduate students. New item   Terms of reference in the motion To consider Honours Program applications not routinely accepted by the Registrar (i.e. special cases, appeals). Current By-Laws on Senate Honours Committee to consider all honours applications which are not routinely accepted by the Registrar's Office;   Terms of reference in the motion To consider and respond to Honours program matters referred to it by undergraduate students, faculty members, Departments, Schools, Faculties, the VP Academic or by the Senate of Acadia University. New item LEFT OUT FROM THE COUNCIL MOTION BUT PART OF CURRENT DUTIES OF THE HONOURS COMMITTEE to make recommendations to Senate for modification of the regulations respecting Honours programs; to consider such other matters as Senate may from time to time entrust to the Committee. Page 1/APPENDIX C SenateMinutes/13Mar06/Item 3)b) 056-53-RGS     Council of Graduate Studies   Composition of the Council of Graduate Studies:   The Council of Graduate Studies should comprise one graduate coordinator from each graduate programme, three graduate students (preferably one from each faculty) elected by the Graduate Student Association, a graduate student from the Faculty of Theology elected by the Acadia Divinity College Student Association, and the Dean of Research and Graduate Studies. The Council would invite the President, VP Academic, the VP academic of the ASU, and/or the Registrar to special meetings.   Terms of reference for the Council of Graduate Studies: To develop policy on all matters regarding programs beyond the Bachelor’s degree at Acadia University including but not limited to admission and graduation requirements and to recommend such policy to Senate. To consider graduate curriculum submissions from Departments, Schools and Faculties and to make recommendations to Senate. Such submissions include changes in existing programs, courses and degree requirements and proposals for new courses, degree requirements and programs. To provide assistance to the Academic Program Review Committee in the review of graduate programs and by addressing recommendations resulting from those reviews. To establish policies governing the allocation of University funds to graduate students. To establish and oversee the internal adjudication process for Acadia’s applicants to external scholarship funds. To identify needs and provide for educational opportunities for graduate students beyond specific degree programs. To make recommendations to the Senate Committee on Research to enhance research programs and opportunities for graduate students. To consider and respond to graduate program matters referred to it by graduate students, faculty members, Departments, Schools, Faculties, the VP Academic or by the Senate of Acadia University.   Senate Committee on Research   Composition of the Senate Committee on Research:   The Senate Committee on Research should comprise one elected member from each of the Faculty of Arts, the Faculty of Pure and Applied Science, and the Faculty of Page 2/APPENDIX C SenateMinutes/13Mar06/Item 3)b) 056-53-RGS   Professional Studies, one Canada Research Chair elected by the Canada Research Chairs, one graduate student elected by the Acadia University Graduate Student Association, one undergraduate student engaged in research and appointed by the ASU, one Director of a research centre chosen by the Directors, one professional librarian elected by the members of the University Community holding appointments as professional librarians, and the Dean of Research and Graduate Studies.   Terms of reference for the Senate Committee on Research:     To develop policies and programs that encourage and support faculty, graduate and undergraduate research at Acadia University. To establish and oversee the adjudication process for Acadia University’s internal research funds, excluding the University Research Fund (Article 25.55). To establish, propose to Senate for approval and subsequently to implement a consultative process for regular reviews of the Acadia University Strategic Research Plan. To encourage and facilitate interaction among Acadia’s researchers, community members, community organizations, government and industry to expand and enhance research collaboration and dissemination. To consider and respond to research matters referred to it by graduate students, faculty members, Departments, Schools, Faculties, the VP Academic or by the Senate of Acadia University. To receive the annual reports of Research Centres and the Research Ethics Board, for submission to Senate.     Senate Honours Committee   Composition of the Senate Honours Committee:   The Senate Honours Committee should comprise two faculty members and one Honours student elected from each of the Faculties of Arts, Pure and Applied Science, and Professional Studies, and the Dean of Research and Graduate Studies.   Terms of reference for the Senate Honours Committee:   To review policies governing Honours theses regularly and to recommend changes to Senate as necessary. To establish and oversee the process of evaluation for Honours theses.   Page 3/APPENDIX C SenateMinutes/13Mar06/Item 3)b) 056-53-RGS To establish and oversee the internal adjudication process for Acadia’s in-course Honours student applicants to external scholarship funds, summer research awards. To establish and oversee the adjudication process for Acadia University’s awards to honours students. To make recommendations to the Senate Committee on Research to enhance research programs and opportunities for undergraduate students. To consider Honours Program applications not routinely accepted by the Registrar (i.e. special cases, appeals). To consider and respond to Honours program matters referred to it by undergraduate students, faculty members, Departments, Schools, Faculties, the VP Academic or by the Senate of Acadia University.