MSVU Senate Minutes -- April 28 2008
Loading...
Date
2010-04-15T17:42:01Z
Authors
Senate, Mount Saint Vincent University
Journal Title
Journal ISSN
Volume Title
Publisher
Abstract
Description
Senate Meeting April 28, 2008
EMF 130 7:30 p.m.
Minutes of Meeting
Present: K. Laurin (Chair), I. Blum, D. Bourne-Tyson, B. Casey, P. Crouse, A. Davis, K. Dewar,
A. Eaton, R. Farmer, M. Forrest , R. Gechtman, P. Glenister, J. Gordon, P. Gouthro, C. Hill, M.
Lyon, B. MacInnes, R. MacKay, J. MacLeod, K. Manning, S. Mumm, M. Raven, J. Sawler, J.
Sharpe, L. Steele, S. Walsh, P. Watts, M. Whalen, A. Whitewood, D. Woolcott, R. Zuk.
Regrets: R. Bérard, A. Daley, A. McCalla, B. Taylor
Guests : J. Jackson, K. Musgrave, J. Neilsen
1. Approval of Agenda
Moved by J. Gordon, seconded by D. Woolcott to approve the agenda as circulated. CARRIED.
2. Approval of Minutes of March 3, 2008
Moved by P. Crouse, seconded by I. Blum to approve the minutes of March 3rd with the
following corrections. CARRIED.
Page 6, Item 7.8 first paragraph corrected to â meeting the lab in Seton 315 345â
Page 6, item 7.8 final paragraph correct â March â ¦ departments.â to â Chairs should be contacted
in March for department software requests for the fall term.â
Page 4, 5th paragraph correct to â the department to which the student belongs and is receiving a
degree fromâ
Page.7, Item 8.3 correct â but that would proved a visible changeâ to â but that would provide a
visible changeâ
3. Business Arising from the Minutes
3.1 Service Award Ad Hoc Committeeâ deferred to May 7, 2008 meeting
President Laurin announced that a draft has been completed by the Committee but as Robert
Bérard is unable to attend this meeting the item has been deferred to May 7th.
4. Presidentâ s Announcements
A Memorandum of Understanding between the University and the Province has been signed and
will provide stability in funding and the ability to improve planning for the next three years.
The provincial budget is expected on April 29.
2
There has been confirmation that the Minister of Education will release the Report on Teacher
Training in Nova Scotia on May 1st. We are awaiting this response in light of the announcement
by Dalhousie University regarding their agreement with Memorial University to begin their own
Education Program.
On April 27 the Mount hosted a Scholarship Reception of the students and parents of those
offered Scholarships with about three hundred attending. The positive feedback from the
prospective students and their parents was most gratifying.
The purchase deal was closed on the Our Lady of Perpetual Help Church property. The Mount
will lease the sanctuary back to the congregation until completion of their new church in 2010. In
the interim the University has access to the glebe (space for 12-14 offices) as well as the large
basement of the church building. Some funding is available for retrofitting the basement and a
recommendation will be coming forward in the near future on the best usage of this space.
The Destination 2012 Implementation Team has met and identified six strategies to begin
working with. Those responsible for these strategies have been contacted and have been asked for
their response. President Laurin extended thanks to those who responded so quickly. The next
meeting is scheduled for May 20th.
This past month the Mount hosted the Atlantic Association of Universities Conference with
presidents from seventeen Atlantic Universities attending. This was the first time the Mount has
hosted the event since the 1990s. The feedback received was that many were impressed with the
campus and the warm and welcoming environment, in particular the wireless facilities in Rosaria
and the recent improvements made to the Meadows.
5. Question Period
R. Zuk asked if there was to be a Nancyâ s Chair appointment for the 2008-2009 term. S. Mumm
responded that the Committee had interviewed candidates and had made an offer to a candidate
who, after some consideration, had refused the offer.
R. Zuk asked if, as past candidates have provided a research presentation to the community to
provide feedback, that would occur this year. S. Mumm noted that the agenda has not yet been
completed for the year and that the presentation could occur. The agenda will be set on the
recommendation of the Chair of the Womenâ s Studies Department.
6. Unfinished Business
There was no unfinished business.
7. Committee Reports (Standing and Ad hoc)
7.1 Senate Executive
7.1.1 Responses to 2006-7 Nominations Committee annual report
P. Glenister reported that the Senate Office had been asked by Senate Executive to request Senate
Committees to review the information used by the Nominations Committee when it seeks
nominations. To date most Committees have replied but, as it is now past the deadline to make
changes for this year, the outstanding reviews should be included for next year.
7.1.2 Ratification of Senate Executive approval of Deanâ s Evaluation
Committee members
In an effort to expedite the review process Senate Executive approved, pro tem, the nominations
for these individuals on the Review Committee for the Dean of Education:
William Hare, Education
3
Ann MacGillivary, Member at Large
Brook Taylor, Senate Representative
Moved by I. Blum, seconded by L. Steele that Senate confirm the election of the listed
individuals to serve on the Review Committee for Dr. Jim Sharpe, Dean of Education.
CARRIED.
7.2 Academic Appeals Committee
J. Sawler reported that there was one hearing held on an alleged case of plagiarism and that the
hearing had been settled in favour of the student.
7.3 Academic Policy and Planning
7.3.1 Students with Disabilities Policy
Moved by D. Woolcott, seconded by C. Hill that Senate approve the Students with Disabilities
Policy. CARRIED.
D. Woolcott noted the importance of this policy as it has been observed that there is an increasing
number of students applying with varying disabilities, presenting the University with some
challenges and a need for clearly articulated policies. The policy was prepared by Dr. Carol Hill
in conjunction with a large committee who have spent considerable time consulting with students,
faculty and others inside the University as well as those outside the community, e.g. the Learning
Disabilities Association, those with legal expertise, and with other Universities. D. Woolcott
introduced Kim Musgrave who is the Disabilities Coordinator for the University.
C. Hill stated that the committee working on the policy had made a number of changes based on
advice from the Learning Disabilities Association and from our students with disabilities and
from faculty. It was noted that, as this is a challenging area subject to change over time, the
committee has tried to identify adaptable procedures and guidelines that they will not have to
come to Senate repeatedly. The committee felt they had kept the spirit of Destination 2012 in the
opening Commitment.
D. Woolcott informed the Senate of the two fundamental principles underlying the policy: 1)
Academic integrity, whereby accommodating students wonâ t change the standards for admission
or the continuation of study, and 2) the duty to accommodate, a legal duty that falls under the
Human Rights Act to permit modif ication to some extent how a student may be tested, how they
learn or how we might teach and, depending on the disability, the need to make physical
accommodations.
C. Hill then reminded Senate that this proposal does not represent a new policy but is rather a
formalizing of the current practice at the University.
P. Gouthro inquired about cases when a disabled studentâ s disability did not just affect her as a
teacher but the class as a whole and how disclosure to other students could be made so that they
can better work with the student who requires accommodation, and when it would be appropriate
to disclose, what level would be appropriate to disclose, and how to make the decision to
disclose. C. Hill responded by stating that this is an often asked question and the answer has yet
to be determined. Section 8 of the policy addresses Confidentiality and disclosure to Staff or
Faculty but not to other students. It was suggested that the faculty member work with the student
4
with the disability to determine whether the student felt it was in his/her best interest to have
some disclosure.
J. Gordon asked about the circumstances when faculty require accommodation, e.g. a faculty
member with an allergy to dogs and a student requiring a service dog in the classroom. D.
Woolcott responded that this seemed to be a situation where there was a need for two
accommodations.
M. Raven wondered it the term â midtermâ should be clarified in the document as it may not be
clearly understood by new students coming from high school, International students and/or their
parents.
J. Sawler inquired if the University has a shared responsibility (Item 7) when a student is unable
to self-advocate and what then becomes the responsibility of the University? C. Hill responded
that we must lead the student toward advocating for themselves so that as students move through
university from first year onward it would be expected that they become able to advocate for
themselves.
M. Lyon addressed the need for a student to identify their requirements before accommodation
can occur: if the student does not identify a condition to the university, there is no legal obligation
or responsibility. This policy makes it clear that the student must identify needs and ask for
accommodation which must be agreed to beforehand so that appropriate accommodation can be
made.
M. Forrest questioned that, since frequently students cannot advocate for themselves and may
have an assigned advocate, should there be a section under Item 2, Purpose, that outlines the
responsibilities of the student and/or his or her appointed advocate? Further should we be
providing some potential for students to find an appropriate advocate to assist them? C. Hill
responded that these situations fall under the responsibility of the Disabilities Services
Coordinator (DSC), Kim Musgrave.
B. MacInnes asked whether the students had to request accommodation each semester. C. Hill
confirmed that, although the disability may remain constant over time , students do need to request
accommodation each semester as the classes they are enrolled in change and there may be need to
change accommodation for the new class.
D. Woolcott clarified that Senate would be voting on the Policy document and not on the actual
Procedures and Guidelines which were included for Senateâ s information. At this point the vote
on the Policy motion was held and carried at which time K. Laurin opened the floor for questions
regarding the Procedures and Guidelines.
K. Dewar referred to Section 8, Procedures for Dispute Resolution, asking if it is stated anywhere
who had the final authority in assigning a grade once all of the accommodation had been made.
D. Woolcott answered that, unless the case went through the Appeals Committee, it is the faculty
member who holds this authority. She reiterated that accommodation does not mean a change in
grade standards, nor in the role of faculty, only that it may mean that what a student is asked to
demonstrate knowledge of subject matter may change.
R. Farmer asked if the Request forms for Midterm and Examination Accommodation request
forms could be combined into one form to suit both scenarios. C. Hill responded that combining
forms could pose a problem as the Midterm Accommodation form goes through the DSC to make
5
the arrangements for accommodation but the Registrarâ s office makes arrangements for final
exams. To overcome the difficulty posed for students actually going to two different offices, K.
Musgrave has worked with the Registrarâ s Office to make appropriate arrangements.
C. Hill also pointed out that during the process of developing the Procedures and Guidelines
students with disabilities who were consulted did not want other students to feel that they were
given any special consideration or â free rideâ .
R. Zuk expressed concern over Appendix 2, List of Accommodations , relating to Note Taker and
Tape Recorded Lectures in that students do not always wish to take notes for other students or are
unwilling to turn over their notes and that this accommodation asks other students to be
responsible for someone elseâ s education; perhaps resources for a paid note taker would work.
With reference to Tape Recorded Lectures, classes have objected to having class discussions tape
recorded. What accommodation can be provided then? C. Hill responded that many students with
disabilities are eligible for provincial funding for note takers but are required to name the note
taker on their application for funding form when they may not know who the note taker will be.
A department could investigate identifying some honours students prepared to be paid note takers
if notified soon enough to make arrangements.
K. Dewar asked whether provision of a Sign Language Interpreter should be noted on the list of
Accommodations to which C. Hill replied that this listing was not meant to be a comprehensive
listing of all possible accommodations.
P. Gouthro noted that in her experience with an hearing impaired student the lack of an ASL
interpreter puts the onus on faculty to work individually with a student. She questioned whether
this situation had been rectified and if funding was available for interpreters. C. Hill responded
that the students are eligible for funding for this service under the Canada Studies Grant.
K. Laurin questioned whether faculty members regularly contacted C. Hillâ s office with regard to
particular situations surrounding issues of accommodations. C. Hill responded that in fact they do
receive a number of calls but most go through K. Musgrave, the DSC, S. Kirincich, the Disability
Resource Facilitator, or the counselling staff.
7.3.2 Recommendations for changes in degree structure and titles
D. Woolcott introduced this item as resulting from a CAPP sub-group that had worked with Dr.
M. Lyon over the past two years to develop changes in degree structure and tit les. The working
group had been motivated by the Pan-Canadian Framework for Undergraduate Degrees in Canada
out of which the Maritime Provinces Higher Education Commission published recommendations
for degrees through which MSVU was identified as being out of step. The University wants to
maintain three year degree programs in the BA and BSc but would like to designate degrees with
Majors to be twenty unit degrees.
Bachelor of Arts and Bachelor of Science Degrees:
Moved by D. Woolcott, seconded by M. Lyon that 15 unit Bachelor of Arts (General Studies)
and Bachelor of Science (General Studies) degrees be maintained. CARRIED.
Moved by D. Woolcott, seconded by M. Lyon that MSVU should discontinue the Bachelor of
Arts with a Major (15 Units) and the Bachelor of Science with a Major (15 Units) as described on
pages 79 and 81 of the 2008/2009 Calendar. CARRIED.
6
Moved by D. Woolcott, seconded by M. Lyon that the current Bachelor of Arts with Advanced
Major (20 Units) be renamed Bachelor of Arts with a Major (20 Units) and the current Bachelor
of Science with Advanced Major (20 Units) be renamed Bachelor of Science with a Major (20
Units). CARRIED.
Moved by D. Woolcott, seconded by M. Lyon that the interdisciplinary BA as described in the
2008/2009 Calendar, page 80, be discontinued. CARRIED
In Favour â 16 , Opposed â 11, Abstained â 1
M. Lyon reported that the work of the Task Force was to review the degree offering in the context
of the Pan Canadian Degree Framework and a number of external reviews which raised the issue
of fifteen unit degrees. The Task Force did the background research on the standards and
requirements of MSVU degrees and compared them to the standards and requirements of degrees
offered elsewhere. A number of recommendations were sent to CAPP and it was from those
recommendations that these motions were drawn.
J. Sawler referred to the rationale for Motion 1 (the â UCC will bring forward any specific
proposals for revisionâ ), suggesting that he would like to see what are these revisions before
voting on the motion. S. Mumm responded that the UCC is making a recommendation to CAPP
for the Bachelor of Tourism and Hospitality Management to have a concentration.
K. Dewar noted that if the University were creating a three year degree with a concentration he
would be in favour but as it is he is opposed. The three year Major program speaks to a historic
lack of confidence in what we do in that MSVU serves a constituency of less affluent students
who benefit from a three year program which is often a preparatory degree.
R. Gechtman voiced his disagreement with Motion 2 as a disservice to the students in that a large
proportion of the students come to MSVU to complete a degree in Education and the possibility
of a three year degree with a major allows them to have a career within five years. If the three
year degree with a major was eliminated a student would have to study for six years which, as
one of his students pointed out, was a longer timeframe than that of an engineer who could earn a
significantly higher wage with fewer years of training. Secondly, in some programs , the three
year degree with a major would pose a problem in certain departments where there is a sense that
the three year degree cannot provide a rounded education. However, there are departments in
which having just the concentration would not provide the necessary structure for a well rounded
education result ing in students having to pay for a fourth year of education.
J. Sharp clarif ied that in Nova Scotia it is not necessary to have a major in a teachable subject to
become certified as a secondary school teacher. The requirement is for five units in the first
teachable and three units in the second teachable , so it will still be possible to be certified with a
three year undergraduate degree and a two year graduate degree.
S. Mumm responded with clarification that with the current BA General structure students are
required to do two minors and to do a number of courses at the 3000 level or above. Students are
capable of creating a program that gains them admission to the Education program as Education
does not require a major. Any change to the BA General will not make the achievement of
admission to the Education program more diffic ult. Students will still be able to acquire the
degree of specialization required for admission to Education and other professional programs and
there has never been any proposal to offer a BA General that is not sequential and structured and
leads from lower level to upper level study.
7
M. Forrest questioned whether the Pan Canadian Degree Framework was the only impetus for
making changes that have such wide scale implications and if the Mount had entered into an
agreement that said we were going to try to get into step with other structures across the country?
D. Woolcott responded that the Pan Canadian and Maritime frameworks are the quality standards
and that these changes are an attempt to bring MSVU in line with them. No other institutions
offer an Advanced Major. This is an attempt to bring our quality standards up and to bring our
terminology in line with what is being used in the region and the country.
A. Eaton spoke from the studentâ s perspective supporting the discontinuation of the three year
Bachelor degree with a major as students graduating with the three year Bachelor degree often
felt they were not on the same level educationally as other students competing for the same
employment opportunity or placement in the next degree program; for these reasons a number of
students already take the Advanced Major.
R. Farmer requested clarification on when the discontinuation might come into effect. S. Mumm
stated that Senate could affirm a date at which any change would become effective,
grandparenting the existing program allowing students to graduate under the conditions of the
calendar that they entered their program under.
R. Mackay indicated in the sciences, and in particular Biology, a four year degree is what is
expected across the country and the continent and students in these departments are encouraged to
pursue the four year program.
B. Casey wondered if it is known how many MSVU graduates have been unable to gain entry
into graduate study as a result of holding a three year degree. The three year degree program has
been something making MSVU distinctive. She also felt that this might be a move to secure
funding through an extra year of tuition. M. Lyon reported that while not all students were
surveyed on this point a number of students had indicated to the Task Force and to CAPP that
they were surprised that a three year program existed, as the normal expectation for a degree was
four years. These students also felt very strongly that they wanted a degree that was at the same
level and standard as degrees available elsewhere.
R. Zuk disputed the idea that the Mount did not offer a good quality education and noted that
MSVU has made a number of shifts recently to conform with other institutions. She voiced
concern that the Mount may be losing those attributes, such as the three year BA, which
contributed to its distinction.
M. Forrest referenced the B.Ed. program which now requires Secondary students to have much
stronger majors and greater specialization. If the three year program becomes more generalized it
may be more difficult for students to specialize. There is also the problem for students upgrading
to improve their concentrations in their first and second teachable and having to take seven to
eight courses per term. These changes could have considered the possibility of an integrated or
concurrent program for Education.
T. Davis commented on a similar experience at St. F. X. some 10 years earlier where there were
concerns around enabling students to graduate with the quality degree for entering such a
competitive world. If there is no advantage for admission to the B.Ed. program with the
completion of the three year degree, is this not irresponsibly creating a misrepresentation?
K. Dewar clarified that the B.A. General Studies is not a B.A. General Degree which was created
to address a specific program with two Minors. If there is a problem created with terminology
8
could we not consider calling the four year program a Major and the three year program a
Concentration making that the same as the three year Major thus providing a degree better than
that of Dalhousie which requires five courses and Saint Maryâ s which requires four courses.
Perhaps, given the discussion and concern, Senate should table the motion until September when
the UCC could provide more specifics about the three year program.
A. Eaton felt that in her experience with students, many come to the Mount for reasons other than
the three year Bachelor program.
J. Gordon considered that the amount of time spent on researching the information for this
decision and the data collected seemed to be relevant and reliable. She felt the information
provided was trustworthy and that based on this information she would support this
recommendation.
P. Gouthro questioned whether, in the case of a concentration, it could be determined among the
departments what would be included in the concentration? S. Mumm clarified that concentrations
are defined by the department offering and that no structure would be imposed from outside the
department.
D. Woolcott closed the discussion by stating that the rationale for this document was distinctly
tied to a desire to be a better University. It is embedded around quality and ties into the new
Strategic Plan which has its #1 Goal around qua lity. This framework will put MSVU in line with
our competitors and will respond to the student who came forward to CAPP to express a need for
a degree that is recognized on a par with other universities.
Moved by L. Steele, seconded by K. Dewar to table the Bachelor of Arts and Science degree
Motion Moved by D. Woolcott.
This motion was subsequently withdrawn in favour of the following;
Moved by L. Steele, seconded by K. Dewar to refer the Bachelor of Arts and Science degree
proposed changes back to CAPP pending further information. DEFEATED
In favour â 12 Opposed â 15
Degrees in the Faculty of Professional Studies:
Moved by D. Woolcott, seconded by M. Lyon that the current Bachelor of Applied Arts (Child
and Youth Study) should be renamed Bachelor of Arts (Child and Youth Study). As amended by
a friendly amendment introduced by R. Farmer. CARRIED.
Moved by D. Woolcott, seconded by M. Lyon that students in professional degrees should have
the option to claim a minor. CARRIED with 1 abstention.
M. Lyon reminded Senate that these proposals came as a result of external reviews and research
done by the Task Force which had reviewed the nomenclature of titles used for professional
degrees at other Universities and recommended â Bachelor of Arts with a Majorâ rather than
â Applied Artsâ which is being increasingly used by community colleges. Secondly, as the only
professional degree that can currently declare a minor is Business, this motion will permit
students to claim a minor when they have completed the requirements in accordance with the
calendar.
K. Dewar asked why not revert to the original form of â Bachelor of Child and Youth Studyâ ?
9
M. Lyon answered that the choice of â Bachelor of Arts (Child and Youth Study)â was made so
that other institutions would better recognize the degree and is more consistent with how other
institutions name the degree.
7.3.3 MSVU student exchanges, 2007-2009
This list was presented for information.
Country Partner
University
Number of
Students
Received by
MSVU
2007-2008
Number of
Students to
be Received
by MSVU
2008-2009
(as of 1/4/08)
Number of
Students
Sent from
MSVU
2007-2008
Number of
Students to
be Sent by
MSVU
2008-2009
(as of 1/4/08)
Rep. of Korea Korea
University
Ewha
Womanâ s
University
-
3
3
2
-
-
2
-
China Ginling
College
3 5 6 8
United States University of
Arizona
University of
Cincinnati
1
1
-
-
-
-
-
-
Mexico Universidad
de las
Americas
- - 1 -
Spain Universitat de
Vic
3 - 2 1
Sweden Sodertorns
University
College
2 - - 3
Denmark Aarhus
University
- - - -
Estonia Audentes
International
University
- 1 - -
France ISTC Lille - 3 - -
Austria FH Wien 4 1 2 2
TOTAL 17 15 11 16
7.4 Graduate Studies Program and Policy
There was no report.
7.5 Undergraduate Curriculum
There was no report.
7.6 Committee on Appointment, Promotion and Tenure or Permanence for Academic
Administrators (CAPTPAA)
7.6.1 Professor Emeritus nominations
10
Moved by D. Woolcott, seconded by J. MacLeod to move to in camera session. CARRIED.
A vote was taken on the nominees and tabulated.
Moved by P. Gouthro, seconded by R. Bérard to move out of in camera session. CARRIED.
7.6.2 Revisions to Procedures and Privileges for the Granting of Emeritus
Status
Moved by D. Woolcott, seconded by J. Gordon that Senate approve the changes to Procedures
and Privileges for the Granting of Emeritus Status as shown in the attached handout. CARRIED.
7.6.3 Notice of Motion: Revisions to By-law 14.4, CAPTPAA
7.7 Committee on Information Technology and Services
P. Crouse reported that the Committee has reviewed five policy documents, four of which are
available on the Intranet for feedback to the Committee: Backup and Retention Policy, Research
IT Support Policy, Non-University Owned Equipment Support, and Student Email Policy. The
final policy under review is the Faculty and Staff Email Policy which will be available at a later
date.
7.8 Library
There was no report.
7.9 Nominations
7.9.1 Senate elected committees
P. Crouse noted that there is still one position vacant on the URC which will be addressed in
September.
Moved by P. Crouse, seconded by M. Forrest that Senate approve the names listed on the memo
to be elected to the respective committees for the terms indicated. CARRIED
Committee Nominee Term Begins Term Ends
Academic Appeals Dr. Fred French
Prof. Denise Nevo
Prof. Fernando Nunes
July 1, 2008
July 1, 2008
July 1, 2008
June 30, 2011
June 30, 2011
June 30, 2011
Graduate Studies
Program & Policy
Dr. Fred French
July 1, 2008 June 30, 2011
Undergraduate
Curriculum
Dr. Hong Wang July 1, 2008 June 30, 2011
Information Technology
and Services
Prof. Jean Mills
January 1, 2009
June 30, 2011
Library Prof. Robert Bagg July 1, 2008 June 30, 2011
Research & Publications Dr. Don Shiner
July 1, 2008
June 30, 2011
Teaching & Learning Dr. Jeff Young
July 1, 2008
June 30, 2011
Writing Initiatives Ms. Denyse Rodrigues July 1, 2008 June 30, 2011
Graduate Scholarships,
Assistantships & Awards
Dr. Jamie Metsala
Prof. Linda Mann
July 1, 2008
January 1, 2009
June 30, 2011
June 30, 2011
11
Committee Nominee Term Begins Term Ends
University Research
Ethics Board
Dr. Patricia Williams July 1, 2008 June 30, 2011
Student Judicial Dr. Daniel Lagacé-Séguin
Dr. Hui Li (Alternate)
July 1, 2008
July 1, 2008
June 30, 2011
June 30, 2011
Student Discipline
Appeals
Dr. German Avila-Sakar
Dr. Hui Li (Alternate)
July 1, 2008
July 1, 2008
June 30, 2011
June 30, 2011
7.10 Research and Publications
T. Davis reported that the adjudication process has been completed with respect to Research and
Research Time Release and that the letters of notification have gone out.
7.11 Student Affairs
7.11.1 Notice of Motion: Revision to By-law 14.9, Student Affairs
Committee
7.12 Committee on Teaching and Learning
P. Watts reported that planning is underway for Faculty Day 2008 scheduled for August 28th.
Unfortunately this year the Committee did not receive any nominations for the Instructional
Leadership Award or the Innovative Teaching Award and therefore there was no adjudication
process at the March meeting.
7.13 Writing Initiatives
P. Watts reported that the Committee has met twice since the last Senate meeting. A planned
Writing Circles session with Western Carolina University has been deferred to September.
7.14 Undergraduate Admissions and Scholarships
7.14.1 Notice of Motion: Revisions to Senate By-law 14.11
7.15 Graduate Scholarships, Assistantships and Awards
M. Lyon reported that the Committee had selected the nominee for the Graduate Governor
Generalâ s Medal to be awarded at Convocation. The Tri Council Post-Graduate Scholarships
have been determined and the announcement will follow shortly. Seven of the nine students who
were nominated for NSERCs were successful. Four of the five students who applied to SSHRC
were successful and the fifth is pending. Of the two nominees for a SSHRC Canadian Graduate
Doctoral Scholarship , one has been successful and will receive a $35,000 scholarship for three
years.
7.16 University Research Ethics Board
M. Forrest informed Senate that at the last meeting she had reported that the application process
was ahead of schedule but that since that time processing has tapered off. The Board ha s been
discussing how the Tri-Council Policy statements fit into the MSVUâ s Ethics Guidelines.
8. Other Reports
8.1 Studentsâ Union
A. Eaton reported that elections were held and that Studentsâ Union is in a transition phase. Job
Descriptions for Studentsâ Union positions have been revamped to provide greater clarity and the
decision has been made to hire a food and beverage manager for the Corner Store and Vinnieâ s
Pub.
12
8.2 Destination 2012 Implementation Committee
R. Farmer informed Senate that there has been discussion on the linkage of the Strategic Plan
with the business of various MSVU committees. He also requested all Senators to familiarize
themselves with the Strategic Plan and to pass on to him any suggestions to be taken back to the
Committee.
8. New Business
K. Laurin acknowledged the contribution, support and work of Brook Taylor, Jane Gordon, Ron
MacKay and Meg Raven who will not be returning to Senate in the fall. She also thanked Amy
Eaton for her contribution and looked forward to working with the new Studentsâ Union members
of Senate.
10. Items for Communication
There were no items.
11. Adjournment
Moved by M. Forrest, seconded by J. Macleod that the meeting adjourn. 10 p.m.
Respectfully submitted,
Sherrie Vanderaa
Recording Secretary