MSVU Senate Minutes -- November 24 2008
| dc.contributor.author | Senate, Mount Saint Vincent University | |
| dc.date.accessioned | 2010-04-15T17:53:14Z | |
| dc.date.available | 2010-04-15T17:53:14Z | |
| dc.date.issued | 2010-04-15T17:53:14Z | |
| dc.description | 1 Senate Meeting November 24, 2008 Rosaria Boardroom 7:30 p.m. Minutes of Meeting Present: K. Laurin (Chair), R. Bagg, R. Bérard, I. Blum, P. Crouse, A. Davis, K. Dewar, S. Drain, R. Farmer, M. Forrest, R. Gechtman, P. Glenister, P. Gouthro, C. Hill, B. Jessop, N. Kayhani, M. Lyon, B. MacInnes, J. MacLeod, A. McCalla, S. Mumm, N. Peach, J. Sawler, J. Sharpe, L. Steele, S. Walsh, P. Watts, M. Whalen, D. Woolcott Regrets : D. Bourne-Tyson, J. Jackson, A. MacGillivary, J. Mills, J. Neilson, T. Richards 1. Approval of Agenda Moved by R. Bagg, seconded by K. Dewar that Senate approve the agenda as circulated. CARRIED. 2. Approval of Minutes of October 27, 2008 Moved by M. Lyon, seconded by L. Steele that Senate approve the minutes of October 27, 2008 with the changes noted below. CARRIED. On page 4, last paragraph, â five 3000-level coursesâ should read â a concentration of five unitsâ On page 8, Item 7.12, should read â C. Hill reported that the Committee had its first meeting and is using findings from NSSE, the University Report Card Survey and the Survey of Graduating Students to set the agenda for the coming year.â On page 10, line 33, â R. Baggâ should be R. Farmer. 3. Business Arising from the Minutes of September 29, 2008 3.1 Revision to Senate by-law 14.3.1, CAPP Terms of Reference This item should have read Graduate Studies Program and Policy Committee Terms of Reference and was deferred until the January 26, 2009 Senate Meeting. 3.2 Revision to Senate by-law 14.8, UREB This item should have read Revision to Senate by-law 14.13, UREB and was deferred until the January 26, 2009 Senate Meeting. 2 4. Presidentâ s Announcements President Laurin noted the following Senators will finish their terms-of-office on December 31, 2008: P. Crouse, M. Forrest, P. Gouthro and A. McCalla. She thanked them for their contributions and service to Senate . In addition, the President noted the upcoming departure of S. Mumm and wished her well in her future endeavours. At the request of the President, B. Jessop gave Senators a synopsis of demographic information, enrollment information and financial information. In summary: Approximately 76 per cent of MSVU students are within the 17-29 age range. From 1991 to 2031, a steady decrease in the population for this age range is projected; from 2006 to 2016 there is a decrease of approximately 7.7 per cent. From 2002 to 2006, there has been a reduction of approximately 3 per cent in the number of high school graduates going to university. Between 2003 and 2008, enrollments at St. Francis Xavier University and Dalhousie University have remained steady and NSCC has experienced an increase. MSVU, Acadia University, St. Maryâ s University, and Cape Breton University have experienced decreased enrollments. MSVUâ s Budget is $44M; student fees are $22M and provincial government grants are $17.5M. University salaries and benefits comprise approximately 70 per cent of the budget. Utilities account for approximately 8 per cent of the budget. The original three-year financial plan projected a 5 percent decrease in enrollments for 2008/9; however, enrollments decreased by 8.5 per cent for 2008/9. Therefore, the total projected variance by 2009/10 is -$880,000. The current negative market has resulted in decreased endowment income; a one per cent decrease in endowment income results in an annual decrease of $150,000 for scholarships and bursaries. As of the 2011-2012 school year, the provincial government funding formula will be structured on a three-year average of enrollments from 2008-2010. In addition, even though current market conditions have resulted in decreased interest rates, the administration fees and liquidity fees applicable to debt servicing have both increased. P. Gouthro noted that mature students are not in the traditional age range of 17-29. Although the numbers of mature graduate students have not decreased, there has been a decrease in the numbers of mature undergraduate students attending MSVU and there appears to be insufficient marketing targeted at this group. B. Jessop indicated that although enrollment numbers have changed, the overall trend of age distribution has been consistent. P. Gouthro stated that the mature-student market is a potential source of additional enrollments. S. Drain noted that enrollments at MSVU were fairly consistent from 2003 until 2007; the notable decrease from 2007/8 was an anomaly as opposed to a characteristic trend. B. Jessop explained that the nature of the programs at MSVU helped to prevent the decreases that other institutions experienced from 2003 to 2007. M. Whelan stated that it is difficult to explain the decrease for 2007/8, although the decrease must be taken in context with what is occurring throughout the region. For example, UNBâ s current enrollment is approximately 75 per cent of their enrollments in 2003. J. Sawler asked if there was any evidence to indicate the decrease in MSVU enrollments for 2007/8 was just an anomaly and that enrollment would increase for subsequent years. M. Whalen stated that there was no such evidence. B. Jessop highlighted that the population aged 17-29 has steadily decreased since 1991 and the projected population for this age group will continue to decrease. M. Whalen noted that the data distributed to Senate was a summary and 3 that his much more detailed presentation to the Board of Governors is available on the MSVU Intranet â Enrollment Managementâ site. 5. Question Period There were no questions. 6. Unfinished Business There was no unfinished business. 7. Committee Reports (Standing and Ad hoc) 7.1 Senate Executive There was no report. 7.2 Academic Appeals Committee J. Sawler reported that the Committee conducted a hearing to discuss an alleged incident of plagiarism. The judgment of the Committee was that plagiarism had occurred. 7.3 Academic Policy and Planning 7.3.1 Proposal for a Collaborative PhD in Education Moved by D. Woolcott, seconded by J. Sharpe that Senate approve the proposal for a collaborative PhD in Education. CARRIED. D. Woolcott stated that the Graduate Studies Program and Policy Committee brought the proposal to CAPP; it is the result of extensive collaboration between faculty at MSVU, Acadia University and St. Francis Xavier University as well as an external review/site visits at all three universities. The proposal is subject to approval at all three universities and, once approved, will go forward to MPHEC. D. Woolcott highlighted that the implementation of the proposal is dependent upon government funding. M. Lyon noted that the proposal was the result of much discussion and received the scrutiny of the Education Department. The present proposal has evolved from the 2002 framework proposal brought to Senate in order to receive approval in principle . However, Acadia University and St. Francis Xavier University were unable to move forward with the proposal at that time. M. Lyon noted that the proposal was sent to various institutions with graduate programs throughout the province for review and feedback. J. Sharpe drew Senatorsâ attention to the uniqueness of the inter-university nature of the proposal. A similar model exists in Ontario between Brock University, Lakehead University and the University of Windsor. The external reviewer for the MSVU proposal was involved in the Ontario proposal. However, the MSVU proposal is different in that it creates more of a research culture within the institutions, so the proposal requires a year of residency at one of the participant universities. All three universities are using a lot of distance-technology, i.e. teleconferencing and computer conferencing, to create an appropriate culture for graduate seminars between the campuses. J. Sharpe thanked S. McGregor for her work on the proposal and highlighted the 21 members of the Inter-University Doctoral Program Proposal Committee 4 and the 60 faculty involved in all three universities and the strength of the faculties. The external reviewer was most impressed with the research base, present culture and strength of the faculty. P. Gouthro expressed support for the proposal and asked if the $6,000 funding for students was expected to be a portion of faculty research grants or was a projected amount. J. Sharpe stated that $6,000 is an average amount. M. Lyon later indicated that the $6,000 is a projected amount and there is nothing in the proposal that guarantees funding. P. Gouthro asked if the funding was a realistic amount or if it was to increase the chance of a positive government response to provide funding. J. Sharpe replied that the $6,000 is a projection and applie s only to the residency period, not for the entire length of the program. There is a general consensus that research efforts have been hampered in the past by not having full-time graduate and PhD students. A. McCalla asked if those who could supervise doctoral students also needed to hold research grants. J. Sharpe stated that a research grant was not necessary and that the admission process would be by committee. J. Sharpe noted that supervision of students in the program would be in accordance with supervision procedures at each institution. S. Walsh asked if there would be a differentiation between supervision of masters and doctoral students. J. Sharpe indicated that it was not an issue for this proposal. K. Dewar asked if the projected government funding was an existing or expected commitment and what would happen in there was no government funding. D. Woolcott replied that government funding is a necessary condition for the implementation of the proposed program. K. Dewar also asked if the July 2009 start-date was a tentative date. M. Lyon and J. Sharpe indicated that July 2009 was perhaps an overly optimistic date as the proposal still has to receive formal approval of all Senates and there has to be funding. M. Lyon stated that 2010 is probably a much more realistic start-date. 7.3.2 Academic Calendar Dates, 2009-2010 K. Dewar asked if the start-date for the February Reading Week was the same for MSVU, Dalhousie University and St. Maryâ s University. B. MacInnes believed that Dalhousie University had the same date, but was unsure of the start-date for St. Maryâ s University; all three Registrars hope to have a meeting in an effort to schedule similar schedules for that week. 7.3.3 Memorandum of Understanding and Student Exchange Agreement between MSVU and Universidad Carlos III de Madrid Moved by D. Woolcott, seconded by L. Steele that Senate approve the MOU and Student Exchange Agreement between MSVU and Universidad Carlos III de Madrid. CARRIED. I. Blum asked whether Universidad Carlos III de Madrid is a private university; M. Whalen indicated that it is a public university. 7.3.4 Academic Plan for MSVU : Focusing Efforts and Resources on High Quality, Distinctive and Sustainable Programs That Are Attractive to Students : Discussion Paper D. Woolcott asked that Senators provide comments and feedback regarding the criteria listed in the discussion paper. She noted that the academic plan of MSVU has not been updated since 2002. Destination 2012 identifies academic planning as an area of priority. Goal 1 of Destination 2012 relates to quality of programs in teaching, learning and research. Although there is 5 increased student interest in some programs, the environment in which the committee is formulating the plan is one of changing patterns of enrollment, lower enrollment in most programs and increasing financial costs. MSVU has a great breadth of programs and must distribute reduced resources among these programs; this results in an increased challenge for the University to maintain quality in programs. It is important that MSVU do what is required in order to sustain itself as an institution. There must be consideration of new undertakings to enhance programs and the cessation of practices that negatively impact sustainability. As this is a difficult task it is important to find the optimal mix of programs while maintaining quality. CAPP is continuing to compile data and foresees that in the future the Mount would offer fewer distinct full programs as opposed to discontinuing areas of study. S. Drain indicated that CAPP has noted on more than one occasion â the difficulty of maintaining quality in our programs.â However, there appears to be a lack of concrete evidence. D. Woolcott noted that reviews have indicated common themes on a consistent basis, one being a need for greater resources in order to increase the depth of programs. M. Lyon stated that no one is suggesting that less quality refers to the quality of teaching or students. The need for greater quality is more a reflection of the Mountâ s resource capacity, i.e. managing the part-time budget. The Mount has difficulty adding full-time faculty and approximately 70 per cent of courses are taught by part-time faculty. S. Drain noted that she was not questioning the substance of the proposal but the lack of concrete evidence, noting that reviews do not always come forward to Senate. K. Laurin suggested that it is important that the discussion focus on the criteria, so that the Committee can receive constructive feedback. K. Dewar noted that part of the problem with addressing the criteria is that the criteria accept the assumption of the discussion paper, which is lack of sustainability. The Mount has a long history of having many small programs and it is important that assumptions are supported with evidence. D. Woolcott responded that the demographic data that B. Jessop provided earlier speaks directly to evidence. Additional information is already available and indicates that the Mountâ s capacity to sustain sufficient quality is problematic. The current demographic reality is different than the 1990s. R. Gechtman stated his difficulty with the assumption of the document, i.e. the relationship between sustainability and education. Enrollment has been steady until this year and he is not convinced that the crucial factor is quality. He has serious concerns with how enrollment is managed, i.e. insufficient initiatives to recruit students from other provinces and internationally. There needs to be more effort towards finding niches which could potentially increase enrollment. D. Woolcott agreed and noted that Goal 4 of Destination 2012 involves accessibility; there are many people on campus who are putting as much effort into accessibility as CAPP is putting into academic planning. R. Gechtman stated that it was noted at a previous Senate meeting that the resources for the enrollment committee were limited and perhaps more resources would help increase enrollment. The relationship between sustainability and education is not an obvious one. For example, organizations would never engage in education because education is not sustainable by itself; other elements are required. Education is a long-term investment. R. Gechtman noted that although he agrees that difficult decisions are required, issues of enrollment should be addressed through enrollment management and issues of quality should be addressed as separate issues. N. Kayhani noted that the Mount will have difficulty attracting more students when the University is cutting programs and not adding them. She also stated that since 70 per cent of the University budget is for salaries, it is questionable how much money can be saved by cutting a few programs. D. Woolcott emphasized that the first principle in an academic setting is always 6 academic reviews with the desired goal being the attainment of an appropriate mix and range of programs and the delivery of those programs. The main reason for academic reviews is to have a quality university experience, which is attractive to students. S. Walsh referred to the criteria and indicated that many people who are already in a university setting are adept at doing research. In her opinion, there needs to be more statistical analysis and â sound evidence-based decisionsâ need to be more substantial. Site visits to other smaller institutions may also be helpful. R. Bérard stated that CAPP will have to pay attention to the criteria and make clear how they apply to various departments. For example, the use of a number of different criteria can make it difficult for CAPP to convince a Department that is affected by changes that CAPP considered the right criteria. J. Sharpe highlighted the need for creative thinking and noted that the document forces faculty to look at the mix of pr ograms. The best outcome of the plan would be to consider what various programs should look like, while not trying to sustain everything that has been done in the past. It is important to focus on needs and quality experiences. A. McCalla noted that Senate was being asked to put a lot of faith in CAPP and Senate should not be a faith-based institution. D. Woolcott responded that members of CAPP are elected from colleagues and include senior academic leaders of the community who have the best intentions for the Mount. A. McCalla suggested that more hard evidence would be a helpful aid to increase trust. D. Woolcott emphasized that CAPP is anxiously awaiting feedback which can be e-mailed to academic.plan@msvu.ca. If the criteria listed in the discussion paper are inadequate or problematic, then it is important to provide alternative suggestions so that CAPP can discuss and implement additional information. To date, there has been little substantive discussion in regards to the criteria. S. Mumm emphasized that the discussion paper is in no way an epigram of where CAPP thinks we ought to go. CAPP needs feedback from everyone concerned in order to make good decisions. There has been very little discussion as to whether or not the criteria are good criteria or if there are better alternative criteria. M. Forrest noted that she is confused by reports of reviews indicating too much part-time teaching because this practice has occurred for quite some time. She emphasized that she is in favour of creative solutions but noted that making major decisions is a risky process and curriculum changes are complex. On the one hand, enrollment is declining. On the other hand, the Mount is in the process of constructing a new building, which may be inappropriate for an institution that faces financial difficulties. B. Jessop noted that the new building will not move forward unless there is a viable and prudent business operating-plan. He stated that the Admissions office does a lot with limited funds and they should be complimented for working within those constraints. The Mount has spent an additional $150,000 for recruiting-related activities, i.e. strategic investment and marketing campaign and strategic reserve funds for Information Technologyâ s fibre network. S. Walsh stated that more references would be helpful so that people could have the option of reviewing the references in an effort to think more critically about the criteria. D. Woolcott said that the criteria came from the literature review and the committee could probably provide some 7 references. The list was the result of a June 2008 meeting of CAPP and some information would be considered common knowledge. K. Dewar emphasized that the faculty is very engaged in discussions about the document. However, a possible obstacle to engagement is that the document is a â downerâ to read. In addition, the paper seems to discourage reflection upon the past, but the past can be a good teacher and guide for present and future actions. For example, the Mount has always had a number of smaller programs with much creative leadership. K. Laurin noted that the opportunity for creativity is positive and agreed that one need not look to the past as a negative activity. The current situation is indeed challenging; however, the Mount has a tremendous history of doing a lot on a shoestring budget. The goal of the document is to assist everyone in understanding the current environment and to provoke creative thinking to result in productive conclusions and solutions; constructive feedback is necessary for collective decision-making. 7.4 Graduate Studies Program and Policy Committee M. Lyon had no further report from the Committee other than a minor prerequisite change presented for information regarding GCYS 6013, Intervention and Evaluation for Children and Youth (0.5 unit). 7.5 Graduate Studies Scholarships, Assistantships and Awards Committee M. Lyon reported that the Committee received one NSERC application as compared to last year, when the committee received the greatest number of applications. 7.6 Undergraduate Curriculum 7.6.1 Changes to existing programs 7.6.1.1 Biology Moved by S. Mumm, seconded by I. Blum that Senate approve the addition of BIOL 2207, Microbial Diversity and the addition of a Major, which replaces an Advanced Major. CARRIED. 7.6.1.2 Cultural Studies Moved by S. Mumm, seconded by L. Steele that Senate approve the requirements for a Major, and the deletion of CULS 1100, Understanding Music I, CULS 2000, Understanding Music II, CULS 2296, Aesthetics of Film, CULS 3303, Presenting Visual Culture I, CULS 3304, Presenting Visual Culture II, and the addit ion of CULS 2202, Music and Culture, CULS 2294, Film Genres, and CULS 3302, Censorship and Art. CARRIED. 7.6.1.3 Education Moved by S. Mumm, seconded by R. Bérard that Senate approve the program changes, the Practicum placement delay or denial, Elementary Education degree requirements, Secondary Education degree requirements, and the addition of EDUC 5404, Critical Media Literacy, EDUC 5429, Health Education/Healthy Living, and the deletion of EDUC 5353, Development and Exceptionality and EDUC 5428, Health Education in Elementary Schools. CARRIED. 8 7.6.1.4 English Moved by S. Mumm, seconded by S. Drain that Senate approve the program changes, Concentration (inserted before the Minor) and a new calendar description for the program Major. CARRIED. S. Drain queried the status of the Major Certificate mentioned in the attached documentation. S. Mumm responded that the Certificate was sent to UCC. However, it was not brought to Senate as a result of discussions with the Registrarâ s Office. Uniform wording will be used for all programs and there has been no decision yet regarding this wording. 7.6.1.5 History Moved by S. Mumm, seconded by K. Dewar that Senate approve the addition of HIST 2260, Cultural Encounters in the Modern World. CARRIED. 7.6.1.6 Mathematics Moved by S. Mumm, seconded by I. Blum that Senate approve the program changes, a new calendar description for the Computer Science Minor, a Concentration in Mathematics and a Concentration in Statistics. CARRIED. 7.6.1.7 Public Policy Moved by S. Mumm, seconded by J. MacLeod that Senate approve the program changes. CARRIED. S. Drain asked what the rationale was for the changes. S. Mumm noted that program change discussions began approximately 18 months ago in an effort to make the program more attractive to students. J. MacLeod added that the rationale is centered around viability and sustainability and to increase flexibility to ensure the Mount could offer an effective degree. N. Kayhani noted that the Departments listed on page 117 should also include Economics. 7.6.1.8 Registrar Moved by S. Mumm, seconded by B. MacInnes that Senate approve the 2.0 GPA required for minors/concentrations. CARRIED. 7.6.1.9 Sociology/Anthropology Moved by S. Mumm, seconded by M. Lyon that Senate approve the addition of SOAN 1102, Introduction to Anthropology, SOAN 1103, Introduction to Sociology, and the deletion of SOAN 4410, Senior Seminar, and the program changes, the Major replacing the Advanced Major, and the Honours degree requirements. CARRIED. S. Drain referred to page 128 and stated that students should not have to look in two places to receive an explanation. S. Mumm responded that, if the courses are approved at this Senate meeting, a calendar edit will eliminate the duplic ation. 9 7.6.1.10 Additional Concentrations Moved by S. Mumm, seconded by N. Kayhani that Senate approve the additional concentrations for Economics. CARRIED. Moved by S. Mumm, seconded by R. Gechtman that Senate approve the additional concentrations for History. CARRIED. Moved by S. Mumm, seconded by S. Walsh that Senate approve the additional concentrations for Womenâ s Studies. CARRIED. 7.6.2 Changes to existing programs (for information) 7.6.2.1 Biology 7.6.2.1.1 New course names, prerequisites, calendar descriptions BIOL 2202, General Microbiology (replacing Microbiology) BIOL 3302, Microbial Interactions (replacing Advanced Microbiology) BIOL 3309, Physiology of Plants BIOL 3310, Physiology of Animals BIOL 3312, General Ecology BIOL 3314, Evolutionary Biology 7.6.2.2 Cultural Studies 7.6.2.2.1 New prerequisites CULS 3310, 3311, 3312 Special Topics 7.6.2.2.2 New course name CULS 2293, Understanding Movies (replacing Introduction to Film Language) 7.6.2.3 Education 7.6.2.3.1 New course names EDUC 5305, Curriculum Practices in Family Studies I EDUC 5306, Curriculum Practices in Family Studies II EDUC 5327, Social and Cultural Contexts of Schooling I EDUC 5328, Social and Cultural Contexts of Schooling II EDUC 5331, Curriculum Practices in Secondary French I EDUC 5333, Curriculum Practices in Secondary French II EDUC 5360, Curriculum Practices in Secondary Mathematics I EDUC 5361, Curriculum Practices in Secondary Mathematics II EDUC 5370, Curriculum Practices in Secondary Science I EDUC 5371, Curriculum Practices in Secondary Science II EDUC 5381, Curriculum Practices in Secondary Social Studies I EDUC 5382, Curriculum Practices in Secondary Social Studies II EDUC 5383, Global Studies in Education (replacing The Impact of Global Studies on Practice) 7.6.2.4 Sociology/Anthropology 7.6.2.4.1 New calendar description SOAN 3360, Organizations and Society 7.6.2.5 Womenâ s Studies 7.6.2.5.1 New calendar descriptions WOMS 1110, Focus on Women I WOMS 1112, Focus on Women II 10 7.6.2.5.2 Delete prerequisites WOMS 2221, Women and Health WOMS 2231, Women and Culture WOMS 2281, Women and Caregiving 7.7 Committee on Appointment, Promotion and Tenure or Permanence for Academic Administrators (CAPTPAA) There was no report. 7.8 Committee on Information Technology and Services There was no report. 7.9 Library R. Bagg reported that the annual Library Committee Luncheon for Department Coordinators occurred on November 21st. The library is in the process of implementing new programs and there may be a second meeting of the Department Coordinators in the Spring of 2009. 7.10 Nominations 7.10.1 Senate-elected committees Moved by P. Crouse, seconded by I. Blum that Senate elect the following individuals to fill vacancies on the identified committees. CARRIED. Committee Nominee Term Begins Term Ends University Research Ethics Board Dr. Jeff Young January 1, 2009 June 30, 2011 Joint Board-Senate Liaison Dr. Jeff MacLeod Prof. Jean Mills When elected June 30, 2011 K. Laurin explained that the Joint Board-Senate Liaison Committee is a liaison committee comprising two representatives of Senate, two members from the Board of Governors, VP Academic, VP Administration, the President and the Board of Governorsâ Chair, and meets to discuss academic and financial issues. On the Senate agenda the committee would appear under â Other Reports.â R. Bagg stated that it may be a good idea to circulate the committeeâ s terms of reference to Senators since the Committee serves as a means of communication between the Board of Governors and the Senate on matters of common concern such as linking academic goals and financial forecasts. J. MacLeod noted that Senate does not delegate any authority to the Committee which serves a communicative function as opposed to being a decision-making body. 7.11 Research and Publications A. Davis reported that the Committee has met for adjudication and letters will be sent in the next few days. 7.12 Student Affairs C. Hill reported that the Committee has met and is working on regular agenda items. 11 7.13 Committee on Teaching and Learning P. Watts reported that the Committee met on November 18th and discussed Goals 1 and 3 of the strategic plan. The teaching award descriptions have been revised and the Committee hopes to present them to Senate in January 2009. 7.14 Writing Initiatives S. Drain reported that the collaborative writing program has been indefinitely postponed as the result of insufficient faculty interest. 7.15 Undergraduate Admissions and Scholarships B. MacInnes reported that the committee has met but has nothing formal to report. 7.16 University Research Ethics Board M. Forrest reported that the Chair and Coordinator are preparing for the Department Research Ethics Boards a revised set of guidelines in conjunction with new and/or refined guidelines from the Tri-Council Policy Committee, in particula r, those guidelines that apply to participatoryaction research. 8. Other Reports 8.1 Board of Governors R. Bérard reported that the Board of Governors met on November 13th. New members of the Board in attendance were Mike Brien, Sister Joan Butler and Sister Marjorie Gallagher. M. Whalen presented a report on enrollment. The Board approved MSVUâ s quarterly Compliance Report and the annual Directors and Officers Liability Insurance Report. The Board received the following reports: Presidentâ s Report on Senate Activities; Report on Re-appointments, Tenure and Promotion; Reports on Destination 2012; Pension Governance Report, and reports from regular Board committees. The Finance Committee reported that a deficit is projected. The Investment Committee reported that in consideration of the current economic turmoil, the Mount is not â doing as badly as we might be doing.â The Board also re-appointed Board members to further terms. 8.2 Studentsâ Union N. Peach reported that various committees of the Studentsâ Union have met. The Annual General Meeting is on November 25th. N. Peach attended Multi-Cultural Night and Civil Rights Night, both of which were well-attended. 8.3 Destination 2012 R. Farmer reported that the Committee met November 24th. M. Forrest noted that the template for the insertion of data is somewhat problematic and the Committee hopes to rectify and simplify this issue and to distribute additional information by December 15th. 12 9. New Business There was no new business. 10. Items for Communication No items for communication were noted. 11. Adjournment Moved by J. MacLeod, seconded by R. Bagg to adjourn the meeting at 9:20 p.m. CARRIED. Respectfully submitted, Lorna Cottenden Recording Secretary | en |
| dc.identifier.uri | https://hdl.handle.net/10587/754 | |
| dc.language.iso | en | en |
| dc.title | MSVU Senate Minutes -- November 24 2008 | en |
| dc.type | Other | en |