MSVU Senate Minutes -- April 28 2008
| dc.contributor.author | Senate, Mount Saint Vincent University | |
| dc.date.accessioned | 2010-04-15T17:42:01Z | |
| dc.date.available | 2010-04-15T17:42:01Z | |
| dc.date.issued | 2010-04-15T17:42:01Z | |
| dc.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 | en |
| dc.identifier.uri | https://hdl.handle.net/10587/751 | |
| dc.language.iso | en | en |
| dc.title | MSVU Senate Minutes -- April 28 2008 | en |
| dc.type | Other | en |