Acadia University Senate
Minutes

The Chair, G. Ness opened the meeting by asking for a moment of silence in observance of the death of student Susan Swaine who died suddenly this week.

G. Ness welcomed newly appointed Board of Governor representative Lorne White to Senate.
 

1) Minutes of the Meeting of 8 November, 1999	It was moved by P. O’Neill, seconded by B. Moody that the minutes of  8 November, 1999 be approved.  Clarification of statement recorded on page 3, first paragraph, last sentence will be asked of N. VanWagoner at the next meeting of Senate as she was absent.  MOTION CARRIED.
2) Announcements and   Communications         a)  From the Chair              -re Agenda                   a) Items under New                      Business	Item 4)a) Senate Library Committee - Arts Faculty Council resolution concerning the Senate Library Committee (990-19-LIB) was deferred until the next meeting of Senate at the request of the Senate Library Committee in order that this committee has time to prepare a report for Senate.  Item 4)b) University Academic Sector Planning Committee - Requirements for Declaring a Major (990-20-APC) was deferred until the February meeting of Senate in order that the Faculty Planning Committees have an opportunity to discuss the question of requirements for declaring a major.
-re regrets	Regrets were received from D. Andersen, J. DeWolfe,  M. Ferguson, M. Forrest, B. Griffiths, A. Irving, and N. Van Wagoner.
b) From the President	K. Ogilvie expressed his pleasure with the weather, the look of the campus, the end of the term, and he wished all happiness.
b) From the Vice-President           (Academic)	M. Leiter reported that the Academic Program Review Committee has initiated formal review procedures and has requested the Division of Continuing and Distance Education to prepare a self-study.
3)  Business Arising from the       Minutes      a)  Research & Graduate          Studies Committee -          Notification of change of          By-Laws (990-14-RGS)	It was moved by R. Perrins, seconded by D. Looker that whereas Acadia University is required to comply with the Tri-Council Policy Statement entitled, “Ethical Conduct of Research Involving Humans” (August 1998), in order to be eligible for funding from the national granting councils, the following amendments [attached to Senate Minutes of 8 November 1999 as APPENDIX C and changes made to same in Item 4)a) of those minutes] to the composition of the Research Ethics Board (Approved by Senate on 11 January 1999) are being moved to comply with both the general Tri-Council requirements (specifically Article B2 “Membership of the REB”) and more specific recommendations which stem from a National Council on Ethics in Human Research (NCEHR) site visit report (visit date 12 February 1999).  P. O’Neill asked for clarification of and whether Acadia is fulfilling the following guideline from the Tri-Council’s proposed regulations:  “the institutions must ensure that the REB’s have appropriate financial and administrative independence to fulfil the primary duties.”  R. Perrins replied that progress has been made toward this requirement in the form of office space, support staff, and legal support.  P. O’Neill further asked for a definition of ‘administrative independence’; to which R. Perrins replied REB will report to Senate, the highest Academic body on campus.  As far as  being independent, the Director of Research and Graduate Studies will be a non-voting member of the REB and report back to Senate.  CARRIED
b)  By-Laws Committee -          Interpretation of By-Laws          re membership on          Nomination Committee          (990-16-LAW)	J. Cayford of the By-Laws Committee referred to the report of this committee as attached to this meeting’s agenda, regarding the question of student Senators serving on the Nomination Committee.  This report ruled student senators are not eligible to serve on the Nomination Committee.  Therefore a vacancy exists on the Nomination Committee and an election will be held to fill it.
c)  Senate Motion re Alcohol          Abuse by Acadia’s Student          Body (990-17-MISC)	It was moved by P. Cabilio, seconded by P. O’Neill  that be it resolved that the Senate of Acadia University deplore the culture of alcohol abuse that has increasingly permeated the student body, beginning with student orientation and continuing through countless organized activities in which alcohol plays the dominant role.  Be it further resolved that the Administration and the Acadia Student Union be urged to take immediate and meaningful action to curb this excess.  Such action shall include:  1.  An elimination of Acadia Student Union or Acadia University sponsorship or encouragement, tacit or otherwise, of alcohol related student activities.  2.  An active education program directed at new and continuing students on the emotional, physical, social, and intellectual consequences of continued alcohol abuse.  3. Provision of an on-campus counselling/therapy program directed to student alcohol abusers, and institution of an active campaign to induce those needing help to enrol in such a program.  4.  Increased co-operation with the Town of Wolfville to control and eliminate student drunken rowdiness which is the cause of despair and anger among many residents of the town, and which has seriously damaged the reputation of Acadia University and its students.  P. Cabilio spoke to the motion as presented as a notice of motion at the last meeting of Senate.  In reply to “what does alcohol abuse (which is just a life style) have to do with Senate?”, P. Cabilio replied it was his opinion that Senate deals with many issues such as student retention, attracting new students and student orientation (sometimes involving a form of hazing) which are directly affected by alcohol abuse; therefore academics are affected.  He stated that his motion does not require Senate to do anything, it is a request from Senate that the appropriate bodies take action on these matters; therefore, it is a relevant and an appropriate motion for Senate to consider.  P. Cabilio stated his motion is directed towards alcohol abuse, not banning alcohol use; and also expressed concern that ASU runs a profit-making bar on campus, therefore to hand the problem of alcohol abuse to ASU is a conflict of interest.  S. Langille gave a detailed outline of what is being done to control drinking on campus.   He had documented information to show the student body is decreasingly being affected by alcohol and is more responsibly using alcohol on the campus over the past five years and longer. The following points were made:  - The Acadia Safety and Security Department reports that recorded instances of alcohol infractions have declined over the past five years.  - Acadia students are adults, and should be treated as such.  They are responsible enough to make choices; however, the ASU is responsible for the manner in which events are marketed, and monitored, and have backup if a problem arises.  - Alcohol sales at the Axe Lounge on campus and the Anvil Lounge downtown have steadily decreased over the past five years and there is an increasing demand for non-alcohol events.  - Organizations such BACCHUS, which promotes non-alcohol events and activities, are on campus and supported by ASU.  - Students who have been drinking are monitored by such people as RA’s, security staff, and other students.  - Welcome Week behaviour does not include official hazing activities.  - The ASU activities on campus are planned to encourage students to stay on campus rather to go to surrounding communities.  - The relationship with Town of Wolfville is always being worked on and that relationship is a good one.  ASU is more than willing to work toward better relationships with surrounding residents and police force.  - If a student should come into trouble with drug or alcohol abuse, student support centers are set up for various needs of students and they are aware of this support.  - The ASU always considers the students’ safety first when planning events.  Banning alcohol from the campus would result in a lack of control over alcohol.  This would be more dangerous than current practices.  W. Cox voiced concern that Senate is dealing with something which does not come under its jurisdiction.  It was moved by J. Sacouman, seconded by G. Bissix that this motion be tabled in order to have input from the Student Union on alcohol abuse on campus.  J. Sacouman noted that the original motion required things to be done and this amendment would give the Student Union a chance to come up with some ideas to improve the situation because it was felt that there is a problem in this area.  MOTION TO TABLE WAS DEFEATED 17/14  It was moved by D. Looker, seconded by J. Boyd that the motion be amended to read that Senate ask the administration and Acadia Student Union to investigate the extent of use and abuse of alcohol on campus and take appropriate action to establish responsible behaviour.  It was clarified that this amendment would replace the original motion.  It was moved by G. Pyrcz, seconded by J. Sacouman that the amendment be amended to add " and report their findings to the April meeting of Senate”.  THE MOTION TO AMEND THE AMENDMENT WAS CARRIED.  It was noted that it is implicit that this amendment would include data on the extent that the University is working with the Town of Wolfville.  It was obvious that the problems are more widespread than the campus; as a large number of students live outside its boundaries.  Student representative D. Retson spoke on this issue from the view of a non-alcohol user who has participated in the organizing of  Welcome Week activities, as well as attending them.  Over his seven years as a student at Acadia it was his opinion that alcohol abuse and hazing activities on campus have decreased dramatically, but added there are still some concerns.  He also noted that Welcome Week activities have become more welcoming.  D. Retson felt that this issue was not an academic one and therefore not an issue which Senate should be considering.  As well he stated the issue should be drinking responsibility, not doing away with drinking alcohol.  G. Pyrcz spoke to the question of the authority of Senate, indicating that Senate, as a body has, and Senators, as individuals, have the right to express opinions on any matter.  Much debate followed.  AMENDMENT TO MOTION CARRIED.  MOTION DEFEATED 19/16.  It was clarified that the Provost would bring a summary of this matter forward for the April meeting of Senate.  At the same time, the ASU would give consideration to the same.
4)  New Business      a)  Senate Library Committee          - Arts Faculty Council          resolution concerning the          Senate Library Committee          (990-19-LIB)	Deferred to next meeting of Senate.
b)  Academic Sector Planning          Committee - Requirements          for Declaring a Major          (990-20-APC)	Deferred to February, 2000 meeting of Senate
c)  Academic Program          Review Committee -          Cluster Review of Biology,          Geology, and          Environmental Science          (990-21-APR)	It was moved by M. Leiter, seconded by C. MacLatchy that the report of the APRC to Senate on the Cluster Review of Biology, Geology, and Environmental Science of November 1999, as attached to this meeting’s agenda, be accepted.  It was moved by M. Leiter, seconded by D. Looker that Senate move into Committee of the Whole.  MOTION CARRIED.  M. Leiter introduced this report noting the reviews tended to be primarily reviews of the individual programs rather than on interrelationships among the programs which was hoped for.  It was agreed to go through the report by considering one recommendation at a time.  #1  The APRC recommends that Patterson Hall be renovated to meet the needs of biology and environmental science and notes that steps are being taken to address these needs.  In addition the construction of the Irving Environmental Centre will enhance the infrastructure available to these programs.  There was no debate.  #2   The APRC recommends that the Environmental Science Steering Committee address the concerns expressed by the reviewers regarding the lack of depth in the current Bachelor of Science with Major in Environmental Science program.  P. Taylor spoke to this recommendation.  He had concerns that taking away the interdisciplinary nature of the Environmental Science program would put students back into individual programs.  In addition he added students in the existing program have the added benefit and opportunity to interact with students from other disciplines.  K. Ogilvie stated that the reviewers praised the structure of the Environmental Science Program very highly and one of the most important features was the interdisciplinary nature of this program with a Science base.  #3  The APRC recommends that the co-ordinator be appointed from a participating department.  The committee notes that this practice is currently in effect.  There was no debate  D. Looker asked for clarification on ‘cluster’ reviews, in particular how departments are chosen to be clustered together and; how the Academic Program Review Committee determines interdisciplinary as a virtue in cluster reviews.  M. Leiter replied that the concept of cluster review was introduced and passed by Senate with a desire for greater emphasis on interdisciplinary programs.  J. Cayford noted that Senate passed the Cluster Review with the question of how you define a ‘cluster’ unresolved in the report on this item in 1996.  #4  The APRC supports the external review committee’s recommendation to develop a more ordered course stream and to offer upper year courses in alternating years.  Lengthy discussion was held on the three paragraphs and their content, leading up to this recommendation.  P. Taylor noted that the Biology Department would like to see this section of the report re-written with correct numbers in it as there were a number of errors such as the faculty course load statistics is actually 7.2 courses equalivants per faculty member rather than 3 as stated in report.  M. Gibson commented on the entire Cluster Review Report which was very positive and encouraging and also contained recommendations which were not included in the APRC’s report to Senate but should not be ignored.  He asked what will become of such recommendations?  M. Leiter explained that the report to Senate is a review of the whole report and contained all recommendations.  Numbers concerning teaching load will be reviewed.  The Chair advised that the whole cluster review report was available through the Library and Senators should take advantage of this before the next meeting of Senate when further debate on this matter will continue.
	As Senate meetings traditionally adjourn at 6:00 p.m. and carry over any busy until the next meeting, Senators agreed to do so.  The previous item will continue with the meeting in Committee of the Whole.
d)  Timetable, Instruction          Hours and Examinations          Committee - 2000-2001          Calendar Dates          (990-22-TIE)	This item was deferred until the next meeting of Senate.
6)  Adjournment	B. Perrins moved this meeting adjourn.  It was 6:08 p.m.