Minutes Template

Acadia University Senate
Minutes

SENATE MEETING OF 12 February 2001

A meeting of the Senate of Acadia University occurred on Monday, 12 February 2001, beginning at
4:05 p.m. with Chair Ian Wilks presiding and 43 members present.

1) Minutes of the Meeting of
    8 January 2001 It was moved by C. MacLatchy, seconded by R. Perrins that the Minutes of 8 January 2001 be approved.
MOTION WAS CARRIED.

2) Announcements and
Communications
a) From the Chair
     -re Regrets

     -re Today's Agenda

     -re Faculty Constitutions

     -re Visitors to Meeting

Regrets were received from A. Irving, K. Ogilvie, R. Petrykanyn, B. Robertson, and L. White.
The Chair noted there has been a request to place item 4)a) prior to 3)b) on the agenda. It was agreed that the agenda would be so changed.
Pursuant to item 3)a) of the January meeting (re the Arts Faculty Constitution), the Chair announced that two of the Faculty Constitutions (for Professional Studies, and Pure and Applied Science) have been sent to the By-Laws Committee. When the Arts Constitution has been amended as required, it too will be sent to this Committee, which will study all three documents and prepare a motion either to ratify or amend them, as appropriate.
The Chair noted that there were three visitors to this meeting: J. Davies (Economics) in connection with item 3)c); and V. Provencal (History and Classics) and Trevor Jones in connection with item 3)a).

4) New Business
a) Curriculum Committee-
      School of Music
      (001-41-CRE)

     Environmental Science
     (001-42-CRE)

       School of Recreation
       Management and
     Kinesiology
      (001-43-CRE)

It was moved by T. Regan, seconded by R. Morrison that the proposed curriculum changes for the Faculty of Arts, as circulated with today's agenda, be accepted.
R. Morrison gave explanations for changes requested.
MOTION WAS CARRIED.

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.
MOTION WAS CARRIED.

It was moved by W. McLeod, seconded by G. Ness that the proposed curriculum changes for the Faculty of Professional Studies, as circulated with today's agenda, be accepted.
G. Ness gave explanations for changes requested.
MOTION WAS CARRIED.

3) Business Arising from the
   Minutes
a) Ad hoc Committee to
      Review the Role of the
      Senate Library Committee
      (001-38-LIB)

It was moved by E. Reekie, seconded by L. McDonald that the Report of the Senate Ad hoc Committee to Review the Role of the Senate Library Committee, as circulated with the January agenda, be accepted.
It was moved by E. Reekie, seconded by L. McDonald that the Senate move into Committee of the Whole.
MOTION WAS CARRIED.
T. Ashley spoke to this motion, stating that the Ad hoc Committee to Review the Role of the Senate Library Committee was formed as a result of a motion at the May 2000 meeting of Senate. He thanked all members of this Committee for their work, and also those who communicated with the committee so openly. The Committee discovered some uncertainties about the Senate Library Committee's mandate, and attempted to clarify these so as to facilitate the ongoing work of this Committee.
Senate considered the Report by proceeding seriatim through its individual recommendations. With regard to Recommendation #6, a friendly amendment was accepted which changed the wording to "policy recommendations".
B. Moody noted that the Senate Library Committee has reviewed this report and agrees with the recommendations.
It was moved by E. Reekie, seconded by R. Morrison that Senate move out of Committee of the Whole.
MOTION WAS CARRIED.
MOTION TO ACCEPT THIS REPORT AS AMENDED WAS CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.
I. Wilks thanked the Ad hoc Committee for a job well done. He asked that the By-Laws Committee take this Report under advisement and prepare whatever motions are needed to bring about the recommended changes in the Constitution and By-Laws of Senate.

    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 revised Terms of Reference for the Board of Continuing and Distance Education shall read "that the duties of the Board of Continuing and Distance Education shall be to review and recommend to Senate changes in policy which pertain to the operation and enhancement of Continuing and Distance Education at Acadia University”.
D. Looker said that the motion was being brought forward because of the importance of distance education at Acadia, and its potential for becoming even more important in the future. She said that there are significant issues about academic control and academic freedom in distance education, and that it is appropriate for Senate to assert its jurisdiction in this area as the ultimate academic authority in this University. She drew attention to a document distributed earlier in the meeting (APPENDIX A), which showed that with the exception of the Board of DCDE, every policy-making Committee of Senate brings policy recommendations to Senate for approval. She said that it is critical that Senate take its role seriously as the policy-making body for all academic issues at Acadia, including those of the DCDE.
M. Leiter replied as Chair of the Academic Program Review Committee. He stated that the APRC has been charged by Senate to do an academic review of the DCDE . This review has begun. He said that the Senate has the prerogative to set up two committees to do the same job at the same time, but felt that this matter should be referred to the existing review.
It was moved by M. Leiter, seconded by T. Regan that the pending motion referred to the Academic Program Review Committee in connection with its ongoing review of the Division of Continuing and Distance Education.
D. Looker commented that this matter first came to Senate in April 1999 and should not be delayed any longer. The issue of to whom the Board of DCDE should report is something which Senate can and should deal with, and it is separate from how the Division is managed, which is the main mandate of the review.
T. Regan reminded Senators that when the DCDE was last reviewed, it was the review committee which brought the recommendation for the current mandate. This current review is following the same procedure.
J. Sacouman said he opposed the motion to refer because it was referring the issue to a body outside the Senate, asking that body if Senate should be the ultimate authority for one of its own committees and for the policies of that committee.
M. Leiter noted that the motion to refer essentially confirmed the authority of Senate. He said that for an orderly conduct of Senate's business we need to refer this issue to the APRC, after which it will come back to Senate again for ratification.
B. Moody spoke against the motion to refer, stating that Senate should not and cannot give away its authority over academic matters. It is the body mandated to oversee and take responsibility for academic policy. It does not have the right to entrust that power to another body.
L. McQueen asked if recommendations from the last review came to Senate from the review committee and whether it was a Senate decision that policy would not be brought to Senate. Did Senate at that time accept that recommendation? If so it must have been part of a larger review, which would have been the basis for Senate to make that decision.
M. Leiter responded that the structure as it is now was established by Senate.
N. Van Wagoner informed Senators that the DCDE does not offer its own academic programs; programs are offered by academic departments, so academic and curriculum issues actually do come to Senate via academic departments. In reply to L. McQueen’s question, she said that the current structure and mandate of the Board of the DCDE was approved through Senate after considerable discussion and after a lengthy review. She further noted that the external reviewers, Dr. R. Garrison (Alberta) and Dr. J. Potter (UNB), have extensive backgrounds in distance education pedagogy and administration. She said that it would be unfair to these reviewers, given the time they have invested already, for the University to have a procedure take place which is parallel to the external review.
P. Cabilio said that he did not see the need to rush through with this issue at present. The Senate can act on these issues in whatever way it wishes once the review had taken place. He noted that he was speaking as a member of the APRC.
MOTION TO REFER WAS CARRIED (22/14).
There was no objection to referring the second part of the original motion to the APRC.

    c) Academic Program Review
      Committee -
       Recommendations on the
      External Review of the
      Departments of Economics,
      Political Science, and
      Sociology (001-19-APR)

It was moved by M. Leiter, seconded by T. Regan that the Report on the External Review of the Departments of Economics, Political Science, and Sociology, as attached to the January agenda, be accepted.
It was moved by M. Leiter, seconded by T. Regan that the Senate move into Committee of the Whole.
MOTION WAS CARRIED.
M. Leiter said that the APRC was pleased to present this Report. It summarizes the strengths and weaknesses of the three programs. He pointed out highlights of this Report and noted that the original Report is available on the V-P (A) Website. He suggested that Senate go through the recommendations one at a time.
D. Looker commented on the general nature of the review (APPENDIX B).
Minutes amended at March meeting to read: In response to the subvention from Sociology G. Pyrcz said that he was pleased that the review was so favourable towards Political Science and praised the faculty members of this department for achieving high program standards. He said that Acadia is on the right track with cluster reviews. He suggested that departments pay more attention to the selection of review committee members.
J. Davies of the Department of Economics said that he was satisfied with the review and the recommendations arising from it. Although there were originally concerns with the review process, the end result was satisfactory; he said that he hopes the recommendations will be acted on.
In reply to a query from the floor, M. Leiter explained that a cluster review process consists of three reviewers looking deeply into three programs.
Each recommendation of the APRC Report was examined. Comments were made on individual recommendations, but no amendments were proposed.
I. Wilks noted that the motion refers to the document indexed as 001-19-APR only, not to the original report of the external review committee.
It was moved by T. Regan, seconded by M. Leiter that Senate move out of Committee of the Whole.
MOTION WAS CARRIED.
MOTION TO ACCEPT THE ORIGINAL APRC REPORT WAS CARRIED.

    d) By-Laws Committee -
     Lay Membership Guides
      (001-40-LAW) J. MacLeod gave notice of motion as distributed with today's agenda, which states:
PREAMBLE
The By-Laws Committee has sought out opinions from Robert’s Rules of Order regarding lay status. It seems to be incumbent on Senate to agree on a definition of lay status and we propose the following motion:
Amend the last line of Section II of by-laws of the Acadia University Senate from "Three lay persons" to:"Three lay persons nominated by the Senate Nominating Committee who are not eligible for membership under the roles and categories laid out above”
This is compatible with the requirements of Appendix A:"that there be not more than three lay members of Senate, chosen by Senate".

5) Adjournment P. Cabilio moved that the meeting be adjourned. It was 5:35 p.m.

1) Minutes of the Meeting of 8 January 2001	It was moved by C. MacLatchy, seconded by R. Perrins that the Minutes of 8 January 2001 be approved. MOTION WAS CARRIED.
2) Announcements and Communications a) From the Chair -re Regrets -re Today's Agenda -re Faculty Constitutions -re Visitors to Meeting	Regrets were received from A. Irving, K. Ogilvie, R. Petrykanyn, B. Robertson, and L. White. The Chair noted there has been a request to place item 4)a) prior to 3)b) on the agenda. It was agreed that the agenda would be so changed. Pursuant to item 3)a) of the January meeting (re the Arts Faculty Constitution), the Chair announced that two of the Faculty Constitutions (for Professional Studies, and Pure and Applied Science) have been sent to the By-Laws Committee. When the Arts Constitution has been amended as required, it too will be sent to this Committee, which will study all three documents and prepare a motion either to ratify or amend them, as appropriate. The Chair noted that there were three visitors to this meeting: J. Davies (Economics) in connection with item 3)c); and V. Provencal (History and Classics) and Trevor Jones in connection with item 3)a).
4) New Business a) Curriculum Committee- School of Music (001-41-CRE) Environmental Science (001-42-CRE) School of Recreation Management and Kinesiology (001-43-CRE)	It was moved by T. Regan, seconded by R. Morrison that the proposed curriculum changes for the Faculty of Arts, as circulated with today's agenda, be accepted. R. Morrison gave explanations for changes requested. MOTION WAS CARRIED. 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. MOTION WAS CARRIED. It was moved by W. McLeod, seconded by G. Ness that the proposed curriculum changes for the Faculty of Professional Studies, as circulated with today's agenda, be accepted. G. Ness gave explanations for changes requested. MOTION WAS CARRIED.
3) Business Arising from the Minutes a) Ad hoc Committee to Review the Role of the Senate Library Committee (001-38-LIB)	It was moved by E. Reekie, seconded by L. McDonald that the Report of the Senate Ad hoc Committee to Review the Role of the Senate Library Committee, as circulated with the January agenda, be accepted. It was moved by E. Reekie, seconded by L. McDonald that the Senate move into Committee of the Whole. MOTION WAS CARRIED. T. Ashley spoke to this motion, stating that the Ad hoc Committee to Review the Role of the Senate Library Committee was formed as a result of a motion at the May 2000 meeting of Senate. He thanked all members of this Committee for their work, and also those who communicated with the committee so openly. The Committee discovered some uncertainties about the Senate Library Committee's mandate, and attempted to clarify these so as to facilitate the ongoing work of this Committee. Senate considered the Report by proceeding seriatim through its individual recommendations. With regard to Recommendation #6, a friendly amendment was accepted which changed the wording to "policy recommendations". B. Moody noted that the Senate Library Committee has reviewed this report and agrees with the recommendations. It was moved by E. Reekie, seconded by R. Morrison that Senate move out of Committee of the Whole. MOTION WAS CARRIED. MOTION TO ACCEPT THIS REPORT AS AMENDED WAS CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. I. Wilks thanked the Ad hoc Committee for a job well done. He asked that the By-Laws Committee take this Report under advisement and prepare whatever motions are needed to bring about the recommended changes in the Constitution and By-Laws of Senate.
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 revised Terms of Reference for the Board of Continuing and Distance Education shall read "that the duties of the Board of Continuing and Distance Education shall be to review and recommend to Senate changes in policy which pertain to the operation and enhancement of Continuing and Distance Education at Acadia University”. D. Looker said that the motion was being brought forward because of the importance of distance education at Acadia, and its potential for becoming even more important in the future. She said that there are significant issues about academic control and academic freedom in distance education, and that it is appropriate for Senate to assert its jurisdiction in this area as the ultimate academic authority in this University. She drew attention to a document distributed earlier in the meeting (APPENDIX A), which showed that with the exception of the Board of DCDE, every policy-making Committee of Senate brings policy recommendations to Senate for approval. She said that it is critical that Senate take its role seriously as the policy-making body for all academic issues at Acadia, including those of the DCDE. M. Leiter replied as Chair of the Academic Program Review Committee. He stated that the APRC has been charged by Senate to do an academic review of the DCDE . This review has begun. He said that the Senate has the prerogative to set up two committees to do the same job at the same time, but felt that this matter should be referred to the existing review. It was moved by M. Leiter, seconded by T. Regan that the pending motion referred to the Academic Program Review Committee in connection with its ongoing review of the Division of Continuing and Distance Education. D. Looker commented that this matter first came to Senate in April 1999 and should not be delayed any longer. The issue of to whom the Board of DCDE should report is something which Senate can and should deal with, and it is separate from how the Division is managed, which is the main mandate of the review. T. Regan reminded Senators that when the DCDE was last reviewed, it was the review committee which brought the recommendation for the current mandate. This current review is following the same procedure. J. Sacouman said he opposed the motion to refer because it was referring the issue to a body outside the Senate, asking that body if Senate should be the ultimate authority for one of its own committees and for the policies of that committee. M. Leiter noted that the motion to refer essentially confirmed the authority of Senate. He said that for an orderly conduct of Senate's business we need to refer this issue to the APRC, after which it will come back to Senate again for ratification. B. Moody spoke against the motion to refer, stating that Senate should not and cannot give away its authority over academic matters. It is the body mandated to oversee and take responsibility for academic policy. It does not have the right to entrust that power to another body. L. McQueen asked if recommendations from the last review came to Senate from the review committee and whether it was a Senate decision that policy would not be brought to Senate. Did Senate at that time accept that recommendation? If so it must have been part of a larger review, which would have been the basis for Senate to make that decision. M. Leiter responded that the structure as it is now was established by Senate. N. Van Wagoner informed Senators that the DCDE does not offer its own academic programs; programs are offered by academic departments, so academic and curriculum issues actually do come to Senate via academic departments. In reply to L. McQueen’s question, she said that the current structure and mandate of the Board of the DCDE was approved through Senate after considerable discussion and after a lengthy review. She further noted that the external reviewers, Dr. R. Garrison (Alberta) and Dr. J. Potter (UNB), have extensive backgrounds in distance education pedagogy and administration. She said that it would be unfair to these reviewers, given the time they have invested already, for the University to have a procedure take place which is parallel to the external review. P. Cabilio said that he did not see the need to rush through with this issue at present. The Senate can act on these issues in whatever way it wishes once the review had taken place. He noted that he was speaking as a member of the APRC. MOTION TO REFER WAS CARRIED (22/14). There was no objection to referring the second part of the original motion to the APRC.
c) Academic Program Review Committee - Recommendations on the External Review of the Departments of Economics, Political Science, and Sociology (001-19-APR)	It was moved by M. Leiter, seconded by T. Regan that the Report on the External Review of the Departments of Economics, Political Science, and Sociology, as attached to the January agenda, be accepted. It was moved by M. Leiter, seconded by T. Regan that the Senate move into Committee of the Whole. MOTION WAS CARRIED. M. Leiter said that the APRC was pleased to present this Report. It summarizes the strengths and weaknesses of the three programs. He pointed out highlights of this Report and noted that the original Report is available on the V-P (A) Website. He suggested that Senate go through the recommendations one at a time. D. Looker commented on the general nature of the review (APPENDIX B). Minutes amended at March meeting to read: In response to the subvention from Sociology G. Pyrcz said that he was pleased that the review was so favourable towards Political Science and praised the faculty members of this department for achieving high program standards. He said that Acadia is on the right track with cluster reviews. He suggested that departments pay more attention to the selection of review committee members. J. Davies of the Department of Economics said that he was satisfied with the review and the recommendations arising from it. Although there were originally concerns with the review process, the end result was satisfactory; he said that he hopes the recommendations will be acted on. In reply to a query from the floor, M. Leiter explained that a cluster review process consists of three reviewers looking deeply into three programs. Each recommendation of the APRC Report was examined. Comments were made on individual recommendations, but no amendments were proposed. I. Wilks noted that the motion refers to the document indexed as 001-19-APR only, not to the original report of the external review committee. It was moved by T. Regan, seconded by M. Leiter that Senate move out of Committee of the Whole. MOTION WAS CARRIED. MOTION TO ACCEPT THE ORIGINAL APRC REPORT WAS CARRIED.
d) By-Laws Committee - Lay Membership Guides (001-40-LAW)	J. MacLeod gave notice of motion as distributed with today's agenda, which states: PREAMBLE The By-Laws Committee has sought out opinions from Robert’s Rules of Order regarding lay status. It seems to be incumbent on Senate to agree on a definition of lay status and we propose the following motion: Amend the last line of Section II of by-laws of the Acadia University Senate from "Three lay persons" to:"Three lay persons nominated by the Senate Nominating Committee who are not eligible for membership under the roles and categories laid out above” This is compatible with the requirements of Appendix A:"that there be not more than three lay members of Senate, chosen by Senate".
5) Adjournment	P. Cabilio moved that the meeting be adjourned. It was 5:35 p.m.