A meeting of the Senate of Acadia University occurred on Monday, 11 September 2000, beginning at
4:05 p.m. with Chair Ian Wilks presiding and 42 members present.
 

1) Minutes of the Meeting of      10 May 2000	It was moved by R. Raeside and seconded by R. Perrins that the minutes of 10 May 2000 be approved. D. Looker asked that an amendment be made to page 7, item 5)d), paragraph 2.  Let the following sentence be added "No formal motion was put to the committee regarding this issue". MOTION TO ACCEPT THE MINUTES AS AMENDED WAS CARRIED.
2) Announcements and      Communications From       the Chair        -re regrets	Regrets were received from P. Cook,  P. Corkum, A. Irving, M. Leiter, J. McLeod, T. Regan, L. White, and N. VanWagoner.
-re Welcome	I. Wilks introduced the following newly appointed members to the Senate [some are re-offering for another term]:  T. Voss, D. Looker, S. Ash, P. Corkum, M. Brown, D. MacKinnon, B. Robertson, S. Symons, R. Petrykanyn, M. Nugent, K. Robertson, E. Lemire, S. Deaton, P. Myers, G. Phillips, and himself.
-re Agenda	Item 2)a) was withdrawn.
b)  Vacancies on Senate             and Senate Committees	Referring to the Senate Membership List, I. Wilks noted that most vacancies were from the Faculty of Professional Studies and asked that these vacancies be addressed as soon as possible.
c) From the Registrar            -re Enrolment Figures	J. Cayford, the Registrar, distributed preliminary student enrolment figures to Senators (APPENDIX A) and advised that comparative figures will be available at the October meeting.
d) From the President	K. Ogilvie welcomed Ian Wilks to the chair of Senate.  He noted that Acadia's recruiting program has been very successful and numbers are expected to be a record.  He expressed thanks to the recruitment team for their efforts. The President congratulated the negotiating teams on reaching a new contract for faculty.  Welcome Week at Acadia was unusually successful with a high calibre of activities for first year students.  In particular Dr. Ogilvie mentioned the contribution of Heather Ternoway and James Sanford and colleagues, towards the success of this week.  He closed with an update on the Chancellor's Project or Campus Meeting Place and confirmed that it is scheduled for completion in Fall 2001.
3) Business Arising from the      Minutes      a) Senate Library          Committee-Arts          Faculty Council Resolution          and Senate Library          Committee (990-19-LIB)	I. Wilks read the original resolution passed by Arts Faculty Council in November 1999.  He noted that consideration of this resolution had been deferred in the December meeting of Senate, dropped from the agenda in the January meeting, and then deferred in each of the next four meetings.  He asked if anyone wished to speak to the matter on this occasion.  No one indicated that they did.  So he proposed that this matter be referred to the ad hoc Committee to Review the Role of the Senate Library Committee.  This proposal received general consent.  I. Wilks also proposed that this agenda item thereby be viewed as having been dealt with, and that it not be placed on the agenda of future meetings.  This proposal received general consent.
b) By-Laws Committee-         Proposals for Archive         Committee (990-76-LAW)	M. Grieve advised a report will be brought forward for Senators' consideration at the October meeting.  Reference was made to Appendix H of the May minutes of Senate.
4) New Business      a) Ad hoc Committee to Review          the role of the Senate Library          Committee	I. Wilks noted that at the request of Senate, the Nominating Committee had named the following as members of an ad hoc committee to review the role of the Senate Library Committee:  T. Ashley, Faculty of Theology; V. Provencal, Faculty of Arts; E. Reekie, Faculty of Pure and Applied Science; H. Hemming, Faculty of Professional Studies; A. Hussey, SRC representative; and O. Atkinson, Graduate Student.  The last-mentioned is no longer on campus and needs to be replaced by the Nominating Committee. The chair urged the Nominating Committee to fill this vacancy so that the ad hoc Committee can proceed with its task.  He also read a brief communication from the chair of this Committee (APPENDIX B) ITEM DEFERRED.
b) Ad hoc Committee to Review         the Board of Governor's         Report on a Proposed         University Governance         Structure (001-02-GOV)	G. Pyrcz as chair of this committee noted corrections to the committee's report as attached to this meeting's agenda.  Page 2, last paragraph, should not be “bold” and in Appendix One, an arrow should be shown from Board of Governors to Senate and there should be only one representation line from Senior Administration to Senate. It was moved by G. Pyrcz and seconded by D. MacKinnon that the recommendations in the Report of the Senate ad hoc committee regarding the "Report on a Proposed Governance Structure," Acadia Board of Governors, Feb. 2000 be adopted. It was moved by G. Pyrcz and seconded by D. Looker that Senate move into Committee of the Whole. MOTION CARRIED. G. Pyrcz spoke on the committee's task of reviewing the Board of Governor's proposed governance structure report.  He made the following points: ¨ The ad hoc committee saw their mandate as responding to the Board’s Governance document. ¨ The ad hoc committee did its best to adopt a Senate perspective in reviewing this proposal. ¨ The ad hoc committee held that the report on the proposed governance structure is grounded in a misreading of the current enacted authority of both the Senate and the Board.  When bodies have shared authority, one body cannot narrow the power of the other as this proposal attempts to do. By general consent, it was agreed to proceed with the ad hoc Committee's report one recommendation at a time. Recommendation One: As the only Board of Governors representative present at this meeting, J. Boyd stated that what is expressed in this recommendation appears to be right and true.  The difficulty is determining which items fall in the category being expressed at this discussion, i.e. threatening the power of the Senate. G. Pyrcz noted that where areas of authority are contested, it is necessary to proceed jointly rather than unilaterally. Recommendation Two: No comments. Recommendation Three: J. Boyd stated it was not the desire of the Board to question the powers of Senate by proposing the Carver model as the basis for governance at Acadia.  It was meant to be a model for the Board doing its business.  Recommendation Four: K. Ogilvie noted that accountability could fall on Board members as individuals under the current system where they are personally liable for the outcomes of their actions.  The proposal designed to ensure that Board members not find themselves as individuals in conflict with the law for their actions on behalf of Acadia University.  At the same time, board members have the responsibility to make decisions in the best interest of the University.  He stated that the views of the Board and ad hoc Committee on this recommendation are not very different. G. Pyrcz noted that the ad hoc Committee contends that there may be circumstances where it would be the duty of Board members to speak against a consensus of the Board.  He noted that the Board’s document regarding the code of conduct of Board members is inconsistent with the Mission Statement of the University. J. Boyd commented that this recommendation is a very germane issue as there is not always agreement on proposals and as Board members, appointed from various constituencies, are set up to have conflict of interests on occasion.  Much of what the Board does would not require a joint motion of Senate and what the Board does is understood by law to be in the best interests of the University. It was moved by J. Boyd and seconded by J. Sacouman that the words “by a joint resolution of Senate and the Board” be omitted from the last sentence of the first paragraph. G. Pyrcz clarified that the intention of this recommendation as regards “the best interests of the University” was to ensure a joint consideration of the issues falling under the responsibility of both the Senate and the Board. MOTION CARRIED. Recommendation Five: G. Pyrcz clarified that “parity” in this case meant equal representation of Senate and Board on a committee to investigate this issue.  There are two separate authorities/bodies, which the Carver model ignores, in Acadia's existing governance structure.  Greater formal communication is needed between the two bodies. J. Boyd stated the Board viewed the process of appointment of senior administrative personnel to be their responsibility. It was agreed that only recently has this responsibility been taken from Senate and it needs to be established that Senate has some input in the procedure of these appointments.  However it was not considered feasible to Senator Boyd to have Senior Administration equally accountable to two separate boards. It was agreed to amend this recommendation to read “senior administrative and academic personnel”, where appropriate. Recommendation Six: It was agreed to remove the word “greater” in the second sentence of the first paragraph.  Appendix One: The Chair ruled that appendix one would not be included in this consideration. It was moved by D. Looker and seconded by S. Symons that Senate move out of Committee of the Whole. MOTION CARRIED. By general consent, all amendments to Recommendations proposed by the Committee of the Whole were accepted.  The pending motion was taken as so modified. By general consent, it was agreed that Senate would consider and vote on each Recommendation of the motion separately. Recommendation One. CARRIED Recommendation Two. CARRIED Recommendation Three. CARRIED  Recommendation Four as amended in Committee of the Whole. CARRIED Recommendation Five as amended in Committee of the Whole. CARRIED Recommendation Six as amended in Committee of the Whole. CARRIED. It was noted by D. Looker that recommendations one, two, four and six were carried without dissent.
c) Senate's Faculty Development         Committee      (001-04-LAW)	J. Cayford spoke on the Senate's Faculty Development Committee. It has become defunct and not met in the last five years.  At one time this committee was funded to do faculty development, but those funds have run out.  Currently the AITT does some faculty development and there are some Vice-Presidential initiatives.  She recommended this matter go to the By-Laws Committee to determine if Senate still needs this committee and if so how do we rejuvenate it? It was agreed to send this matter to the By-Laws Committee.
6)  Adjournment	D. Looker moved this meeting adjourn.  It was 6:00 p.m.