Faculty of Graduate Studies -- At Large
Recommended: That the Senate seat held by Alison Wylie, elected representative to Senate for the Faculty of Graduate Studies -- At Large constituency, be declared vacant as a result of her resignation, and
That David Bentley (English), runner-up in the last Senate election, be elected to complete Professor Wylie's term (July 1 to October 31, 1999).
Faculty of Social Science
Recommended: That the Senate seat held by Clive Seligman, elected representative to Senate for the Faculty of Social Science constituency, be declared vacant as a result of his resignation, and
That Roger King (Geography), runner-up in the last Senate election, be elected to complete Professor Seligman's term (July 1 to October 31, 1998).
Recommended: That the Senate seat held by Brian Timney, elected representative to Senate for the Faculty of Social Science constituency, be declared vacant since he will be an ex officio member of Senate in his capacity as Acting Dean of Social Science, and
That the term of Andrew Sancton (Political Science), who has served as Professor Timney's alternate since July 1, 1997, be extended to October 31, 1998, in order that he complete Professor Timney's term.
Recommended: That the Senate seat held by John Orange, elected representative to Senate for the King's College constituency, be declared vacant as a result of his resignation, and
That Ken McKellar (Modern Languages) be elected to complete Professor Orange's term (July 1 to October 31, 1998).
Recommended: That (subject to SCUP approval on June 1) the terms of reference and composition of the Subcommittee on Capital Allocations be amended as shown below:
Subcommittee on Capital Allocations (SUCA)
Terms of Reference:
To provide critical appraisal and recommendation of the [DELETE: biennial] capital plan to SCUP
To recommend to SCUP budget allocations for the [DELETE: biennial] capital plan and on an annual basis to establish the distribution of available funds between rehabilitation and facility adaptation
[DELETE: To recommend as part of the biennial capital plan, all alterations, construction and maintenance projects with a value greater than $15,000 regardless of the source of funding]
[DELETE: To approve alterations projects valued between $15,000 and $500,000 which are added to the capital plan during the course of the budget year]
[DELETE: To approve the assignment of campus space on a temporary and permanent basis, and to report such assignments to SCUP on a quarterly basis]
To be responsible for adherence to or amendment of the Campus Master Plan
To receive detailed reports from architects, consultants and others relative to any capital project affecting the Campus Master Plan
[ADD: To review: any capital building addition or external modification exceeding expenditures of $500,000; any landscape project in the core campus exceeding 5,000 square feet in area or expenditures of $100,000; any other project considered by the Administration or the Subcommittee to have significance for the campus as a whole.}
Four members appointed by SCUP, at least two of whom are members of SCUP
Chair of SCUP
Senior Director, Physical Plant & Capital Planning Services
[DELETE: Director, Facilities & Capital Planning]
[ADD: Planning Analyst, Institutional Planning & Budgeting]
Manager, Occupational Health & Safety
Executive Officer, SCUP (non-voting)
Associate Director of Physical Plant
Supervisor, Special and Capital Funds
[DELETE: Planning Analyst, Institutional Planning & Budgeting]
Recommended: That the second sentence in section B.2. of Appointments Procedures: Members of Academic Staff with Limited Duties be amended to remove "...School (e.g., School of Business Administration) and add "the Richard Ivey School of Business.
Since the merger of several Faculties and the creation of discipline-based Schools in the Faculty of Health Sciences and the School of Dentistry in the Faculty of Medicine & Dentistry, the Richard Ivey School of Business is the only "School" that has Faculty status. Therefore, it is desirable to amend the definition in the Limited Duties document to prevent confusion.
In April 1996, Senate approved the revised policy and procedures for the Senate Review Board Academic (SRBA), the highest level of appeal for students against certain types of academic decisions of Deans. The types of changes that were made are detailed in Appendix 1. In approving the revisions, Senate also directed the Operations/Agenda Committee to conduct a review within two years of implementation and report to Senate, with recommendations, if any.
The review was conducted this spring by the incumbent Chair of SRBA (Professor Michael Atkinson), two recent past chairs Professors Michael D. Owen and Donna Peterson), and the Secretary of Senate. Deans, Principals of the affiliated Colleges, the Ombudsperson, and the Presidents of the University Students' Council and the Society of Graduate Students were invited to respond to the questionnaire attached to Appendix 2. Responses were received from: the Faculties of Communications and Open Learning, Education, Engineering Science, Health Sciences, Law, Medicine & Dentistry, Music, Science and Social Science; Brescia College and King's College; and the Ombudsperson. A number of Deans indicated that they could not reply because they have not had any experience with SRBA since the policy and procedures were changed.
A compilation of the responses from the Faculties and Colleges indicated that:
In her response to the questionnaire, the Ombudsperson raised several concerns with respect to the understanding students have of the appeal procedures and the need for definitions. Although the working group did not agree that definitions, explanations and examples should be included in the procedures document, it did see considerable merit to having a "user guide" prepared by the University Secretariat which will be distributed with the Application for Hearing. The guide will include a definition of bias and will explain what is meant by "failure to follow a procedural requirement", "general marking or grading practices", "evidence", "grounds" and "reasons".
The working group that reviewed the SRBA procedures observed that the successive levels for request for relief are not always obvious to SRBA panels that hear appeals until the hearing takes place. The patterns may vary from Faculty to Faculty; for example, a Dean, in making his/her decision, may rely on the recommendation of a faculty-level appeals committee; or a Department Chair may delegate responsibility for deciding requests for relief to an Undergraduate Chair; or a Dean may delegate this responsibility to an Associate Dean. In considering this issue, it was agreed that it would be beneficial for members of SRBA to have included in the SRBA Handbook copies of hand-outs from each Faculty that explain the levels of appeal within the Faculty that are made available to students.
In December 1997, Senate approved a change in the 1999 Spring Convocation dates from June 8-11 to June 15-18, with the following rationale.
...on the basis of the ongoing review of the PeopleSoft Student Administration System software, the proposed implementation schedule ... and concern for processing delays which may occur during the first year of a major systems implementation, the Office of the Registrar recommends that Convocation begin later to provide an additional week to Faculties and Departments who will be using a completely new system of grade and progression adjudication for the first time.
A recent detailed review of the PeopleSoft implementation schedule suggests that it may be necessary to change those dates again, but information critical to this decision will not be known until later this summer. This notice is to alert the academic community and those expecting to graduate in the Spring of 1999 of the potential of another shift in dates. Confirmation of the June 15-18 dates or a proposal to change the 1999 Spring Convocation dates will be included in the September 1998 report of Operations/Agenda to the Senate.
On behalf of the Senate, the Provost approves the list of Candidates for Degrees upon the recommendation of the Registrar [S.96-124]. The list of Candidates approved by the Provost will be appended to the Official Minutes of the June 19, 1998, meeting of Senate.
Senate meetings on the following dates will be held in IR40 of the Richard Ivey School of Business while renovations to University College 224 continue: September 18, October 16, November 13, December 4, 1998.
Senate Agenda - EXHIBIT I - June 18, 1998 - Appendix 1
Compared to the SRBA policy and procedures prior to April 1996, the areas of significant change were:
Senate Agenda - EXHIBIT I - June 18, 1998 - Appendix 2
At the time that the policy and procedures were first reviewed, the objectives of the working group were:
1. In your opinion, have the three objectives of SRBA, as set out above, been met?
2. If your answer is no, which objective(s) has not been met and why? (Please be specific.)
Previously, students could appeal all rulings of Deans in academic matters. Under the new rules, jurisdiction has been defined to give the right of appeal to SRBA under certain circumstances and the opportunity to apply to have an appeal heard in others.
3. Is it more or less difficult under the new rules to determine whether or not a matter may be appealed to SRBA? If you feel it is more difficult, explain why.
4. In your opinion, are the new procedures working?
5. What are the benefits and/or costs of having a panel of SRBA determine whether or not to hear an appeal based on the grounds and evidence provided in the Application for Hearing?
If you have any other comments or concerns regarding the SRBA policy and procedures, please note them below.
Senate Agenda - EXHIBIT I - June 18, 1998 - Appendix 3
The University Senate has delegated to Deans the right to waive any academic regulation. The Deans' rulings in academic matters are final unless overturned or modified on appeal to the Senate Review Board Academic (SRBA). SRBA is the final body to which students may appeal certain rulings of Deans in academic matters, and its decisions are final.
APPEALS TO SRBA
In addition to jurisdiction conferred upon SRBA by any other Senate regulation or policy, SRBA has jurisdiction to hear appeals from certain academic decisions of Deans, other than those relating to admission and advanced standing, provided that the appellant has followed the procedures set out above for requesting relief at the earlier levels and provided that SRBA otherwise has jurisdiction to hear the appeal as set out below.
a. the appeal is against a finding that a student's conduct amounted to a "scholastic offence" and/or for relief against the penalty imposed by the Dean as a result of a "scholastic offence"; or
b. a student alleges that there has been a failure to follow a Senate regulation.
a. the Dean's decision requires the student to withdraw from a program, from the University or from an Affiliated College; or
b. the appeal is against general marking or grading practices.
c. the appeal is against a decision made with respect to the Policy on Academic Accommodations for Students with Disabilities.
A panel of SRBA, upon considering the written application of the student (see Application for Hearing, below), may in its discretion allow the appeal to proceed. In making its decision, SRBA will consider the grounds and evidence provided in the Application for Hearing.
If a party wishes to challenge the jurisdiction of SRBA to hear a particular matter, the party must give written notice with reasons to the Chair of SRBA prior to the date of the hearing. The Chair, upon receipt of such notice, or in any other circumstances where it appears to the Chair that there is a question as to whether the SRBA has jurisdiction to hear a matter, may in his/her discretion convene a panel to consider such written arguments as it deems appropriate and decide the issue of jurisdiction. The decision of any such panel shall be binding on any subsequent panel hearing the merits of the appeal.
Senate Agenda - EXHIBIT I - June 18, 1998 Appendix 4
Since the revised procedures for the Senate Review Board Academic were approved by Senate on April 18, 1996, a total of 43 Applications for Hearing have been received. Of these, 4 were submitted after the six-week deadline for appealing to SRBA; 3 were referred back to the Faculty for further consideration; 4 were withdrawn by the appellant before being considered by SRBA; and 3 did not fall within SRBA's jurisdiction to hear them.
Of the remaining 29 appeals, 20 were allowed a hearing: 2 had an automatic right to a hearing under Jurisdiction, Item 1, and 18 were allowed to proceed to a hearing by a panel of SRBA in accordance with Jurisdiction, Items 2 and 3. However, 3 additional appeals were withdrawn before a hearing was scheduled, resulting in a total of 17 appeals being heard by SRBA since April 18, 1996.
A breakdown of the appeals heard is set out below.
Appeals Heard by SRBA Since April 18, 1996
Jurisdiction Item 1 (Students have the right to appeal)
Jurisdiction Item 2 (Students may apply to have an appeal heard by a panel of SRBA)
Jurisdiction Item 3 (Exceptional circumstances under which SRBA may agree to hear an appeal)
Total Appeals Granted/Denied: Granted 6, Denied 11
Total Appeals Heard 17