MINUTES OF THE MEETING OF SENATE: MARCH 23, 2001

As approved at the April 20, 2001, Senate meeting. Copies of Appendices not included herein are available from the University Secretariat, Room 290, Stevenson-Lawson Building.

The meeting was held at 2:30 p.m. in Room 40, Richard Ivey School of Business.

SENATORS: 72

P. Barker, D. Bell, D. Bentley, D. Bevan, R. Bohay, D. Brebner, W.A. Bridger, C. Callaghan, T. Carmichael, R. Cash, G. Cherian, M. Curry, R. Darnell, P. Davenport, P.A.W. Dean, P. Deane, H. DeLasa, E. Dipchand, J. Doerksen, D. Dutrizac, W. Flintoff, R. Forbes, T. Fulton, J. Garland, J. Garnett, W. Gibson, R. Harris, I. Holloway, R. Howse, N. Kapoor, A. Katz, T. Kerman , G. Killan, A. Lee, F. Longstaffe, J. MacKinnon, S. Mangsen, C. McAulay-Weldon, D. McCarthy, M. McNay, P. Mercer, J. Morgan, N. Nelson, K. Okruhlik, J. Orange, S. Osborn, A. Pearson, A. Percival-Smith, L. Petrykowski, C. Prabhakar, S. Radcliffe, M. Randall, S. Rich, D. Rosner, C. Ross, J. Roth, J. Santos, C. Sinal, P. Skidmore, T. Topic, J. Van Fleet, A. Vandervoort, J. Wallace, A. Weedon, G. Weese, M. Westmacott, M. Weyers, J. White, R. Whyte, M. Witen, B. Wood, M. Workentin

Observers: D. Braun, L. Gribbon, D. Jameson

By Invitation: K. McQuillan, J. Thorp

[Dean Pearson chaired the meeting until Dr. Davenport's arrival at 2:50 p.m]

S.01-38 Minutes of the Previous Meeting

The minutes of the meeting of February 16, 2001, were approved as circulated.

S.01-39 STRATEGIC DIRECTIONS FOR THE LIBRARIES AT WESTERN

Ms. Garnett provided a report on the strategic direction for the libraries at Western. Overheads used during the presentation are attached as Appendix 1 to these minutes.

S.01-40 REPORT OF THE PRESIDENT

[Dr. Davenport resumed the Chair]

Dr. Davenport reported on the following items:

"Investing in Students Task Force Report" released this week
Government Relations

Investing in Students Task Force Report

The "Investing in Students Task Force Report" responds to the Minister's request that the Task Force examine current university administrative operations to ensure accessibility, accountability, and affordability of the system in the future. The Task Force Report contains a very strong statement to the effect that post secondary institutions are well managed and cost effective, but require a significant increase in funding to accommodate anticipated enrolment expansions. The Task Force adopted COU's position that universities need full average cost funding for all the students in order to accommodate the demands linked to enrolment increases.

COU's Council of Senior Administrative Officers (CSAO), led by Dr. Mercer, submitted a report to the Task Force, which included input from Western. The report contains 33 recommendations that relate to sharing data and facilities, collaboration among universities and between universities and colleges. COU will review the recommendations and refer them to committees and CSAO for response/action.

Government Relations

Dr. Davenport stated that it is hoped that the "Investing in Students Task Force Report" creates the foundation for a government funding announcement in the May budget.

Dr. Davenport reported that as Chair of COU he has met twice with the new Minister of Finance, Mr. Flaherty, who has made it clear that he understands the challenges faced by universities and colleges, particularly those associated with the double cohort and echo of the baby boom. COU conveyed to the Minister the need for full average cost funding for all students and the need for a multi-year funding announcement.

Two announcements are likely to be made over the next several months: an announcement relating to the allocation of the government's year-end surplus and the budget announcement which is anticipated in May and should contain ongoing base budget provisions and multi-year funding commitments.

OPERATIONS/AGENDA COMMITTEE [Exhibit I]

S.01-41 Disbanding of the Subcommittee on Computing and Networking Services (SUCNS)

On behalf of the Operations/Agenda Committee, it was moved by A. Pearson, seconded by A. Percival-Smith,

That the Subcommittee on Computing and Networking Services be disbanded.
CARRIED

S.01-42 Convocation Dates 2003

Spring Convocation 2003 will be held Tuesday, June 3, through Friday, June 6, and Fall Convocation 2003 will be held Thursday, October 23, and Friday, October 24.

S.01-43 Convocation Dates 2001

Senate received for information the following Convocation dates: the MBA Convocation is scheduled for Saturday, April 28; Huron University College Theological Convocation is scheduled for Thursday, May 3; and the Faculty of Medicine & Dentistry [MD program] is scheduled for Friday, May 18.

S.01-44 Amendment - Candidates for Degrees

On behalf of Senate, the Operations/Agenda Committee approved the following amendment to the list of Candidates for Degrees for Spring Convocation 1999, contained in Appendix A to the Senate minutes of June 18, 1999

Thursday, June 10, 1999 Faculty of Science
Bachelor of Science
DELETE: ALYSSA ANN GRANT

NOMINATING COMMITTEE [Exhibit II]

S.01-45 University Council on Student Housing (UCOSH)

C. Sinal (term to March 31, 2002), and C. Beynon (term to March 31, 2003) were re-elected to the University Council on Student Housing.

S.01-46 Senate Committee on Housing Policy (SCOHP)

The following were elected to the Senate Committee on Housing Policy: W. Brown, M. Scott, and M. Witen (terms to April 30, 2002) and P. Castle and G. Weese (terms to April 30, 2003).

S.01-47 McIntosh Gallery Committee

T. Baerg was elected to serve on the McIntosh Gallery Committee for a two-year term (to May 2003).

ACADEMIC POLICY AND AWARDS [Exhibit III]

S.01-48 Reform of the Undergraduate Program

Professor Thorp gave a presentation on the Reform of the Undergraduate program. Slides used during his presentation are attached as Appendix 2.

Professor Thorp stated that the third line of The Three-Year Bachelor's Degree [page 2] should read:

Minor (4-5) + Minor (4-5) and Optional courses (2-0)

On behalf of the Senate Committee on Academic Policy and Awards, it was moved by R. Harris, seconded by J. White,

That Senate approve the general structure for the bachelor's degree at Western as described below, the implementation of which will be determined by the Provost, in consultation with Deans and the Office of the Registrar.

The Proposed Structure:

A. The Modules

There would be four possible modules of study in any discipline:

Honors Specialization (9 or more courses)
Specialization (9 or more courses)
Major (6-7 courses)
Minor (4-5 courses)

B. The Degrees

These modules would be combinable into three different degrees, as follows:

The Honors Bachelor's Degree

15 courses after first year, as follows:
Honors Specialization (9 or more) + Major/Minor/Optional courses, or
Major (6-7) + Major (6-7) + Optional courses (3-1)

The Bachelor's Degree

15 courses after first year, as follows:
Specialization (9 or more) + Major/Minor/Optional courses,
Major (6-7) + Major (6-7) + Optional courses (3-1), or
Major (6-7) + Minors/Optional courses

The Three-Year Bachelor's Degree

10 courses after first year, as follows:
Major (6-7) + Minor/Optional courses, or
Minor (4-5) + Minor (4-5) + Optional courses (2 -0)

C. Notes on the Modules:

(a) Academic units may offer whatever modules they wish. Thus a given department, History for example, might offer just four: History Honors Specialization, History Specialization, History Major, History Minor. Or it might offer two different Major modules - World History Major and Canadian History Major, say -, or it might elect to offer only an Honors Specialization module. The Department of Chemistry might choose to offer only an Honors Specialization and a Minor. The Ivey School would presumably offer only the Honors Specialization. And so forth.

(b) The modules are highly permissive. Except for the number of courses in each, and the requirement that they be structured programs of study, academic units would be entirely free to stipulate such matters as course sequences, course levels, module-specific course sections, and the like. In particular, academic units would be free to structure the modules cumulatively, or not: that is, they might make the courses for the Minor a subset of the courses for the Major, which would in turn be a subset of the courses for the Specialization - or not. And it remains perfectly possible for a unit to specify, as part of one of its modules, courses offered by another unit. Thus FIMS could include in its Honors Specialization module, for example, courses offered by the Department of Computer Science.

(c) Interdepartmental or interfaculty modules are invited. In particular a pair of departments wishing to offer a program which integrates two disciplines (as opposed to offering them side-by-side as in the double Major) might wish to use the device of the Specialization or Honors Specialization to do this; the number of courses involved might be easily be as high as 13 or 14. Psychology and Physiology, for example, might wish to devise such an integrated program.

(d) SCAPA might wish at a later date to introduce, as a Major, a program in Core Studies. This module would reproduce the essence of the Core Program which was such a noted feature of the second iteration of this proposal; it would not, however, of course, be obligatory

(e) The difference between the Honors Specialization and the Specialization modules would be a matter of the level and nature of the courses required. Computer Science, for example, has a four-year program which involves as many courses as its Honors program, but which does not require as much study of advanced mathematics. Again, the four-year BACS and BHSc programs would be Specialization modules.

(f) The Major module is essentially equivalent, in number of courses, to our present Honors requirements when they figure in Combined Honors programs. The intention of this structure is that students would be entirely free to combine any Major module with any other, subject, of course, to the not insignificant constraints of the timetable.

(g) The Minor module would be expected to be a structured program of study.

D. Notes on the Degrees

(h) The intention is that the Bachelor's Degree - which has hitherto, unhappily, often been called the 'four-year non-honors degree' - should become the standard degree at Western. The Honors Degree is a more demanding qualification than the standard degree; the Three-Year Degree is a less demanding qualification.

(i) Some members of the University community have expressed the hope that this reform of the program might see the simple elimination of three-year degrees. Others have said that, whatever we do, the 3-year degree is likely to disappear when the Ontario secondary-school program really becomes a four-year program. Three-year degrees, however, seem to have a useful place in some disciplines as a preparation for professional schools. And the examples of Manitoba, of Saskatchewan and of Nova Scotia suggest that there is no essential incompatibility between a four-year high-school program and a three-year degree. Moreover the probable enrolment pressures of the Double Cohort years may lead us to be grateful for a 3-year degree option. The SCAPA has therefore preferred to maintain a three-year degree at Western.

(j) Discussion in the University has shown a strong general desire to keep our Honors programs intact. These programs are a distinctive feature of Western because they typically involve a much higher degree of concentration in a discipline than is the case in Honors programs at other universities in Canada. (For example, an Honors degree at the University of Toronto is simply a four-year degree; until this year it could be composed of three minors!) The Honors Specialization module as here proposed allows this traditional type of study at Western to be preserved.

(k) The present system of the required standard of performance for Honors degrees would be maintained. A student in an Honors Specialization module who failed to achieve the required standard of performance would graduate with a Bachelor's Degree rather than an Honors Bachelor's Degree

(l) The difference between the Honors Bachelor's Degree with two Majors and the Bachelor's Degree with two Majors would lie in the standard of performance achieved. A department could however designate certain sections of a course as intended for students pursuing Honors degrees.

(m) Students who graduate with a Three-Year Bachelor's Degree could enrol for a fourth year of study to upgrade their qualification.

(p) This matrix is proposed as the default matrix for the bachelor's degree at Western. It is understood that some bachelor's programs - e.g. the professional bachelor's programs such as BMus, BFA, BESc - might need to bend the matrix.

E. Implementation

Upon approval of this new structure by Senate, the Provost would consult with the Deans and bring forward a plan for its implementation, including a statement of resources to be devoted to the transition.

In the transition period SCAPA would form a task force to work with department representatives to adapt their programs to this structure. It is understood that, even though this structure has been very carefully devised, with much consultation, it may have to be altered in places as it encounters the complex realities of implementation.

The expected implementation date is September 2004.

Discussion included the following:

Professor Deane voiced concern that the period of implementation will overlap preparations for the increased cohort and place additional strain on university resources. He asked if SCAPA received reassurance from the Provost that the kinds of resources that will be needed for the implementation will be made available. Dr. Harris acknowledged these concerns and advised that the Provost is aware of this difficulty and is prepared to commit the necessary resources. Dr. Davenport stated that Western's enrolment plan is to position itself so that the enrolment percentage increase is about half of the percentage increase of the province as a whole. Western will meet the demands of the double cohort but does not intend to keep up with the rest of the province in terms of enrolment. COU's position is that universities should receive full average cost funding for all students including fourth year students and graduate students. If Western students do begin to choose more four year degrees and fewer three year degrees that should not in itself increase the student/faculty ratio as the fourth year students should bring in the resources needed to hire the appropriate number of faculty. Professor Thorp stated that the undergraduate reform provides an escape valve in that the three-year degree remains an option.

Professor Thorp said that issues relating to upgrading degrees continue to be considered by SCAPA and will be presented to Senate in due course.

Professor Westmacott asked if there is any intention to change the current requirements of the three-year degree. Professor Thorp advised that there is no intention to change the structure of the first year program or the progression/graduation requirements, however, some changes might occur in the reality of the implementation.

Asked about BUI funding related to a four-year degree and an honors degree, Dr. Davenport took the question under advisement and will respond at a future meeting.

The question was called and CARRIED.

Dr. Davenport and Dr. Harris thanked Professor Thorp on behalf of Senate for producing a program that addresses many of the objections and concerns raised during the consultation process.

S.01-49 Structure of the Academic Year

It was moved by G. Weese, seconded by M. Workentin,

That the Guidelines for the Organization of the Academic Year be amended as highlighted below, effective for the 2001-2002 academic year, and
That the projected table of dates attached as Exhibit III, Appendix 1, be approved.

Professor Katz observed that exams will be scheduled on the Saturday that falls between Good Friday and Easter Sunday. He asked if consideration could be given to not scheduling exams from Good Friday through Easter Sunday thereby allowing students the opportunity to travel and spend time with family. Professor Thorp acknowledged this difficulty, but stated that the line must be drawn at some point -- it would also be desirable to not hold exams on either of the days of Passover, or on the Sabbath.

Dr. Killan stated that scheduling exams on Sundays touches the religious sensibilities at the Affiliated Colleges. He reported that discussions with the Provost about this concern lead to an agreement that courses at the Affiliated Colleges would be exempt from Sunday exam scheduling.

Mr. Gauthier stated that the Teaching Assistants' contract states that graduate students cannot be required to proctor an exam on the Saturday or Sunday of a holiday. Dr. Weedon confirmed that there is a provision that graduate students cannot be required to work on a weekend day that is attached to a holiday.

The question was called and CARRIED.

S.01-50 Four-Year BA in Media, Information and Technoculture

It was moved by J. MacKinnon, seconded by C. Ross,

That a four-year Bachelor of Arts in Media, Information and Technoculture be introduced in the Faculty of Information and Media Studies, effective September 1, 2001.

CALENDAR COPY

FOUR-YEAR BACHELOR OF ARTS IN MEDIA, INFORMATION AND TECHNOCULTURE

Admission Requirements
To be considered for admission to the second year of the four-year BA in MIT, a student must achieve a minimum overall weighted average of 70.0% in 5.0 full-course equivalents numbered 001-099.

The selection process for admission to second year of the program is based on a student carrying a full course load, including the MIT first-year prerequisites. Eligibility is determined by a student's overall weighted average obtained at the end of the academic year. In cases where the number of applicants exceeds the number of spaces, admission will be competitive. Attainment of the minimum admission requirements does not guarantee admission.

Progression Requirements
To progress to the third and fourth years of the four-year BA in MIT, a student must achieve a minimum overall weighted average of 68.0% in each academic session, with no more than 1.0 unsatisfactory attempt in 5.0 full-course equivalents.

Graduation Requirements
To graduate with a four-year BA in MIT, a student must:

1. satisfactorily complete 5.0 courses numbered 001-099, including at least one course from two of the Faculties of Arts, Science and Social Science (or the equivalent in departments in the Affiliated Colleges) or an approved alternate. The 5.0 courses must include at least four different subjects and no more than two courses may be taken in one subject;

2. satisfactorily complete at least 1.0 course from each of the Faculties of Arts, Science and Social Science (or the equivalent in departments in the Affiliated Colleges), including those taken under item 1 above, or an approved alternate;

3. achieve a minimum overall weighted average of 68.0% in the 20.0 courses counted towards the degree;

4. complete all graduation requirements within the first 23.0 courses attempted, including repeated courses;

5. include no more than 13.0 courses in one subject among the 20.0 courses of the program;

6. satisfactorily complete at least 13.0 senior level courses numbered 100-499;

7. include no more than 5.0 courses taken at another university on a Letter of Permission. A minimum of 15.0 courses, at least 10.0 of which must be at the senior level, must be completed at Western or one of the Affiliated Colleges.

Students admitted with advanced standing are required to complete at least 10.0 full-course equivalents at Western or one of the affiliated colleges.

Program Requirements

First Year

After first year, a student must complete 7.0 full-course equivalents in MIT and 8.0 full-course equivalent electives. Students in the four-year BA may count up to 3.0 full-course equivalents from a list of approved alternates towards the MIT elective requirements. Students should consult the list of approved alternates in the section that follows MIT program requirements. The distribution of courses is as follows:

Second Year

Third Year

Fourth Year

CARRIED

S.01-51 Revision of Progression and Graduation Requirements for MIT Programs

It was moved by N. Kapoor, seconded by J. Santos,

That the progression and graduation requirements for the Three-Year BA in MIT, the Four-Year Honors MIT and the Four-Year Combined Honors program, be revised to read as shown below:

CALENDAR COPY

THREE-YEAR BACHELOR OF ARTS IN MEDIA, INFORMATION AND TECHNOCULTURE

Progression Requirements
To progress to the third and fourth years of the three-year BA in MIT, a student must achieve a minimum overall weighted average of 65.0% in each academic session, with no more than 1.0 unsatisfactory attempt in 5.0 full-course equivalents.

Graduation Requirements
To graduate with a three-year BA in MIT, a student must meet the general University regulations pertaining to graduation requirements for three-year BA programs. A student must also achieve a minimum overall weighted average of 65.0% in the 15.0 courses counted towards the degree. Students must complete all graduation requirements within the first 20.0 courses attempted, including repeated courses.

FOUR-YEAR HONORS BACHELOR OF ARTS IN MEDIA, INFORMATION AND TECHNOCULTURE

Progression Requirements
To progress to the third and fourth years of the Honors program, a student must achieve a minimum overall weighted average of 72.0% in each academic session, with no unsatisfactory attempts.

Graduation Requirements
To graduate with a four-year BA Honors in MIT, a student must achieve a minimum overall weighted average of 72.0% in the senior courses counted towards the degree, with no unsatisfactory attempts.

FOUR-YEAR BACHELOR OF ARTS COMBINED HONORS PROGRAM IN MIT AND ANOTHER SUBJECT

Progression Requirements
To progress to the third and fourth years of the Combined Honors program, a student must achieve a minimum overall weighted average of 72.0% in the MIT courses taken in each academic session, with no unsatisfactory attempts. If no MIT courses are taken in an academic session, the student must achieve the progression requirements for the other half of the combination.

Graduation Requirements
To graduate with a four-year BA Combined Honors in MIT and another subject, a student must meet the graduation requirements for both subject areas. For the MIT portion of the degree, a student must achieve a minimum overall weighted average of 72.0% in the senior MIT courses counted towards the degree, with no unsatisfactory attempts.

CARRIED

S.01-52 King's College: Four-Year BA in English

It was moved by G. Killan, seconded by J. MacKinnon,

That a Four-Year Bachelor of Arts in English be introduced at King's College, effective September 1, 2001.

CALENDAR COPY

FOUR-YEAR BA IN ENGLISH

Admission Requirements
A mark of at least 60% in English 020E or 022E or 024E.

Students should consult with the Department prior to admission.

Program
7.5 senior English courses including:

English 200 or English 201a/b and 204F/G

One of: English 211, 212, 214E, 224E, 234E

One of: English 244E, 254E, 264E, 274E

One of the above not already chosen or English 209E, 232E, 253E, 258E, 284E, 289E

3.5 additional senior English essay courses, no more than two of which may be at the 100-level. A half-course at the 400-level is optional.

NOTE: English 117 (Reading Popular Culture) and courses in Writing cannot be used to fulfil area of concentration requirements.

CARRIED

S.01-53 Splitting Awards, Scholarships, Medals and Prizes (S.97-219b, S.00-18)

It was moved by P.A.W. Dean, seconded by R. Harris,

That Senate approve that the policy on Awarding Scholarships, Awards, Medals and Prizes in the Case of Exact Ties be revised
FROM: One scholarship, award, medal or prize will be awarded except in the case of exact ties (without rounding) where the award value will be split equally. Faculties are strongly discouraged from splitting any award including scholarships, awards, medals and prizes, or from granting any award "in name only".
TO: Scholarships, awards, medals or prizes may not be split, i.e., awarded to multiple recipients. Awards may not be granted "in name only".
CARRIED

S.01-54 New Scholarships and Awards

SCAPA has approved on behalf of the Senate the following terms of reference for new scholarships, awards, bursaries and prizes for recommendation to the Board of Governors through the Vice-Chancellor:

Godsoe Family Continuing Scholarships (3)(Faculty of Social Science, Economic, History

Hydro One Inc. Scholarships in Engineering Science (10) (Faculty of Engineering Science, Electrical and Computer Engineering)

UNIVERSITY PLANNING (Exhibit IV)

S.01-55 First-Entry Undergraduate Enrolment for 2001-2002

It was moved by M. Workentin, seconded by R. Harris,

1. That the first-entry undergraduate enrolment objective for 2001-2002 be set at 4,350 students and that the approximate program-specific objectives be as described in Exhibit IV, Appendix 1.
2. That the Provost be granted permission to alter this enrolment target, following consultation and approval from SUEPP, as might be appropriate given the particulars of a government funding announcement.
3. That entrance requirements be set by the Provost to achieve these objectives as a function of final admission numbers, qualifications of applicants, and estimates of the rate of offer confirmations in each program.
4. That no program-specific entrance requirement be set below 77% except where performance is a major element of the selection process. Confirmed admission to any program will be contingent upon a final average of no less than 73%.
and
Affiliated Colleges:
That the following entrance requirements and processes for the Affiliated Colleges be approved for 2001-2002:
Brescia College. Brescia College is targeting a first year class of approximately 250 students in 2001-2002. As is the case at the Constituent University, Brescia College will not set general entrance requirements until more complete information on applicant qualifications is available. On the basis of current information, however, the College tentatively is considering an entrance requirement of 74% for early offers in March / April, 2001, and 72% for offers made in May 2001. Irrespective of final applicant qualification information, however, Brescia will set no program entrance requirement lower than 70%. The College will consider individual students with lower grades on the basis of supplementary information forms. No student will be admitted with a final OAC average of less than 68%.
Huron University College. Huron is targeting a first year class of between 310 - 320 students in 2001-2002. As is the case at the Constituent University, Huron University College will not set general entrance requirements until more complete information on applicant qualifications is available. On the basis of currently available information, however, Huron is anticipating a minimum entrance requirement of 78% for early offers in March / April, 2001. No student will be admitted with a final OAC average of less than 75%.
King's College. King's College is targeting a first year class between 750 - 800 students in 2001-2002. No offers will be made until May 2001, when more complete applicant information is available. On the basis of currently available information, and depending on the quality of the applicant pool, King's anticipates a minimum entrance average of 74-76% for Arts and Social Science and 76-78% for Childhood and Family Relations. For limited enrolment programs shared with UWO, King's anticipates 78% for ACS, 80% for BHSc, 78-80% for MIT and 77% for Kinesiology (or no less than averages set by the Constituent University). No student will be admitted with a final OAC average of less than 70%.
All Affiliated Colleges will be bound to the entrance requirements established by the Constituent University for limited enrolment programs, including MIT, BHSc, and Kinesiology.
CARRIED

S.01-56 Royal Bank Financial Group Foundation Economic Policy Research Institute

It was moved by D.M.R. Bentley, seconded by D. Brebner,

That Senate approve and recommend to the Board of Governors, through the Vice-Chancellor, the establishment of the Royal Bank Financial Group Foundation Economic Policy Research Institute (to be commonly known as the Economic Policy Research Institute or EPRI) as a Type 3 research entity, as described in the Constitution detailed in Exhibit IV, Appendix 2.
CARRIED

S.01-57 Royal Bank Financial Group Foundation Fellow & Executive Director of the EPRI

It was moved by N. Kapoor, seconded by P.A.W. Dean,

That Senate approve and recommend to the Board of Governors through the Vice-Chancellor, the establishment of the Royal Bank Financial Group Foundation Fellow & Executive Director of the Economic Policy Research Institute (EPRI), as detailed in Exhibit IV, Appendix 3.
CARRIED

S.01-58 Royal Bank Financial Group Foundation Post-Doctoral Fellow in Political Economy

It was moved by N. Kapoor, seconded by P.A.W. Dean,

That Senate approve and recommend to the Board of Governors through the Vice-Chancellor, the establishment of the Royal Bank Financial Group Foundation Post-Doctoral Fellow in Political Economy, as detailed in Exhibit IV, Appendix 4.
CARRIED

S.01-59 Academic Development Fund

Senate was advised that SCUP has approved the recommendations of SUPAD for Academic Development Fund grants. Details appear in Appendix 5 of Exhibit IV. The total budget for the Academic Development Fund in 2001-2002 is $1 million. Of this, $12,700 is required to fund the second year of projects given multi-year funding in the 2000-2001 competition. The sum available for allocation in 2001 is therefore $986,958, plus $79,658 reverted to the ADF budget from unused portions of previous awards, the previous years' commitment of $12,700 and the allocation of $80,000 to support the Small Grants Competition for 2001.

The total amount of the awards recommended for 2001-2002 is $976,046 , excluding recommendations for multi-year projects totalling $61,246 for 2002-2003 and $63,854 for 2003-2004.

HONORARY DEGREES COMMITTEE [Exhibit V]

S.01-60 Honorary Degree Recipients - Spring Convocation 2001

The Honorary Degrees Committee of the Senate announced that the following persons will be honored by conferment of honorary degrees at the morning and afternoon ceremonies to be held on Tuesday, June 5 through Friday, June 8, 2001.

Tuesday, June 5

10:00 a.m.

Douglas Cardinal - LL.D.

Faculty of Graduate Studies*

Faculty of Arts

Faculty of Information and Media Studies

Faculty of Music

* = students in programs hosted by the Faculties of Arts, Information and Media Studies and Music

Tuesday, June 5

3:30 p.m.

Alan Davenport - D. Sc.

Faculty of Graduate Studies*

Richard Ivey School of Business

Faculty of Engineering Science

Faculty of Law

Faculty of Medicine & Dentistry

* = students in programs hosted by the Richard Ivey School of Business, and the Faculties of Engineering Science, and Medicine & Dentistry

Wednesday, June 6

10:00 a.m.

Jeffrey Simpson, LL.D.

Faculty of Graduate Studies*

Faculty of Education

* = students in programs hosted by the Faculty of Education

Wednesday, June 6

3:30 p.m.

Joan MacDonald Smith - LL.D.

Brescia College

Huron University College

King's College

Thursday, June 7

10:00 a.m.

James A. Myer, D.Sc.

Faculty of Graduate Studies*

Faculty of Social Science (Honors and ACS)

* = students in programs hosted by the Faculty of Social Science

Thursday, June 7

3:30 p.m.

Stephen H. Davis, D.Sc.

Faculty of Graduate Studies*

Faculty of Science

* = students in programs hosted by the Faculty of Science

Friday, June 8

10:00 a.m.

Ronald J. Wonnacott - LL.D.

Faculty of Social Science (3 year program)
Friday, June 8

3:30 p.m.

Mark Tewksbury, LL.D.

Faculty of Graduate Studies*

Faculty of Health Sciences

* = students in programs hosted by the Faculty of Health Sciences

S.01-61 ANNUAL REPORT OF THE UNIVERSITY COUNCIL ON ANIMAL CARE [Exhibit VI]

The annual report of the University Council on Animal Care, detailed in Exhibit VI, was received for information.

S.01-62 REPORT OF THE AD HOC SENATE COMMITTEE TO REVIEW THE DRAFT CODE OF STUDENT CONDUCT [Exhibit VII]

Mr. C. Sinal, Chair of the ad hoc Senate Committee to Review the Draft Code of Conduct, introduced the report and recommendations that appear in Exhibit VII. A number of issues were brought to the attention of the Committee and all sides of the issues were discussed. The conclusions and comments of the Committee are contained in nine recommendations for revision to the draft Code of Student Conduct dated November 24, 2000, which is appended to the ad hoc Committee's report.

S.01-62a It was moved by C. Sinal, seconded by R. Forbes,

That Senate recommend to the Board of Governors that Section I.3. of the draft Code of Student Conduct be amended as highlighted below.

I. Scope of Code

3. The University does not stand in loco parentis to its student members: that is, it has no general responsibility for the moral and social behavior of its students, as if they were its wards. In the exercise of its disciplinary authority and responsibility, the University treats students as free to organize their own personal lives, behavior and associations subject to the law and to University regulations that are necessary to protect the integrity of University activities, the peaceful and safe enjoyment of University housing and facilities by other members of the University and public, the freedom of members of the University to participate reasonably in the programs of the University and in activities on the University's premises, or to protect the property of the University or its members. Strict regulation of such activities by the University is otherwise neither necessary nor appropriate.

The University encourages students to set for themselves the highest standards of behavior off-campus.

Professor Bentley asked what is meant by "integrity" in the phrase "integrity of University activities" and questioned whether it relates to the reputation of the University. Mr. Sinal deferred to the drafters of the original Code because the text in question was not debated by the ad hoc Committee. Dr. Harris offered an example: Something that might damage the operation of the University's computing systems and hence undermine the examination schedule would threaten the integrity of the University's activities. Professor Bentley suggested that when the Code is reviewed by the Campus & Community Affairs Committee (CCAC) of the Board, consideration be given to including reference to protection of the reputation of the University.

The President agreed that any suggestions that come out during discussion today that are not included in formal motions will be noted and conveyed to the CCAC. When the draft Code was first presented to Senate in November 2000, it had been hoped that a number of suggestions would be made that could then be considered by the Vice-Provost's Advisory Committee before the draft was forwarded to the CCAC. The debate at that time, however, focused solely on process and suggestions of the kind made today by Professor Bentley were not presented. Dr. Mercer added that members of Senate may also make written submissions for consideration by CCAC at its April 5th meeting. The Secretary advised that the deadline for submissions to the CCAC on the matter of the Code of Student Conduct is Monday, March 26, 2001, at 4:30 p.m., and these should be directed to the University Secretariat.

The question was called and CARRIED.

S.01-62b It was moved by C. Sinal, seconded by J. Morgan,

That Senate recommend to the Board of Governors that Section I.6. of the draft Code of Student conduct be amended as detailed below.

6. This Code applies to:

a) conduct that occurs on the premises of the University or its affiliated colleges;

b) off-campus conduct when the individual is acting as a designated representative of the University or a student organization recognized by the Board of Governors as representing parts of the student body (USC, SOGS, MBAA) or when the individual holds out that he or she is a representative or member of a student group or organization at the University; and

c) off-campus conduct that has, or might reasonably have, the object of producing an adverse effect on the proper functioning of the University or the rights of a member of the University community to use and enjoy the University's learning and working environments.

Professor A. Lee referred to the phrase in 6.b) "...when the individual holds out that he or she is a representative or member ...". She stated that "holds out" is bad writing, one reason being that it can be interpreted in two completely opposing ways. To "hold out" can also mean to "withhold", which is likely not what is intended here. She asked, as well, how an individual could be seen to represent himself or herself as a member of a student group or organization: Is wearing a t-shirt a way of "holding out" that one is a member of a group? If one refuses to volunteer that one is a member of a student group, does that have some significance? Mr. Sinal advised that the wording in question was developed by the Advisory Committee to the Vice-Provost, and while it was discussed by the ad hoc Committee, the latter did not in the end recommend a change in wording. The question of identifying with a group by wearing a t-shirt was discussed. It relates to a theme that ran through the Committee's deliberations, and that was one of "reasonableness" -- whether one could reasonably be seen as acting as a representative of the University.

Dr. Mercer advised Senate that the notion of "holding out" is a well understood concept in law. In this context it means representing oneself, whether designated or not, as being an agent of the University. The liability of the University as a large, decentralized organization, for activities that take place in its name or allegedly on its behalf goes well beyond liability that would accrue merely because it had designated or approved the activity. It is the fact that it is being represented and uncorrected that the University might be considered to have acquiesced in that unauthorized representation which needs to be corrected.

He added that one can imagine circumstances where if a group of students at a University residence put up a large banner and wore t-shirts with the same motto emblazoned upon them, representing themselves or holding out that they were somehow a University-affiliated organization, then that would constitute evidence that they were in fact representing themselves in that way.

Mr. Braun, President of the University Students' Council, stated that some aspects of the draft Code treat some students in an unequal manner, in particular, student leaders. The question arises as to what extent the University should limit the activities of its students off-campus. The ad hoc Committee's recommendations go a long way in resolving that matter. While he supported the principle that the Code should apply to students whose off-campus behavior interferes with another student's right, he objected to the notion that student leaders be singled out on the basis of their leadership roles. He argued that reference to representatives of recognized student organizations - USC, SOGS, and MBAA - should be removed, submitting that the University Students' Council, for example, "does not exist because of the University, but rather, it exists with the University, with the goal of representing students to the University and to all stakeholders of education. Unlike Intercollegiate Athletics, for example, the USC is incorporated under the Ontario Corporations Act and has full legal rights and privileges associated with that status." He stated that it is inappropriate to single out certain students on the basis of their leadership roles: "The Code of Student Conduct is not a code of student organization conduct." If the goal of I.6.b) is to apply to the actions of all representatives of students or Student Council, then it fails: there are officers of the USC who are not students. On the other hand, if the intent of that section of the Code is to apply only to officers who are students, then it is redundant since all students are covered by the Code.

S.01-62b-i It was therefore moved by J. Morgan, seconded by N. Kapoor,

That the motion be amended by striking from Section I.6.b) the words: "or a student organization recognized by the Board of Governors as representing parts of the student body (USC, SOGS, MBAA) or when the individual holds out that he or she is a representative or member of a student group or organization at the University", leaving the following:

b) off-campus conduct when the individual is acting as a designated representative of the University; and

Dr. Mercer stated that the effect of the amendment would be to undermine the purpose of the Code. It is not typically the case that off-campus conduct which "produces an adverse effect on the proper functioning of the University or the rights of a member of the University community to use and enjoy the University's learning and working environments" occurs when one is acting as a designated representative of the University. It is also not the situation in which typically liability accrues to the University. It tends to accrue when someone is not actually a designated representative of the University but when the individual behaves as if he or she were.

In response to a question as to whether the ad hoc Committee discussed removing reference to the USC, Ms. Nelson advised Senate that when the ad hoc Committee considered the question of off-campus behavior, it considered whether students were acting in their capacity as students or as individual citizens when they are off-campus. The Committee supported removal of reference to student "groups" in the belief that members of "groups" as individual students are accountable under the Code. With respect to the campus organizations mentioned in I.6.b), the Committee recognized that the USC, SOGS, and MBAA are organizations that purport to represent students. When, for example, an individual is acting as a designated representative of the University Students' Council, the Committee felt that they would be representing students of the University of Western Ontario and should be held to the same standard of conduct as other students.

Mr. Sinal confirmed that the Committee considered the substance of the recommendation that is now before Senate in the form of an amendment to the draft Code, but did not support it for the reasons mentioned by Ms. Nelson.

S.01-62b-ii At the suggestion of Ms. Dipchand, the mover and seconder of the amendment accepted the following wording in place of the original amendment:

That the motion be amended by striking from Section I.6.b) the words: "or a student organization recognized by the Board of Governors as representing parts of the student body (USC, SOGS, MBAA) or when the individual holds out that he or she is a representative or member of a student group or organization at the University" and inserting "or behaving as if he or she is", with the result that b) would read:

b) off-campus conduct when the individual is acting as a designated representative of the University or behaving as if he or she is; and

Dr. Mercer stated that the change to the amendment does not allay any of the concerns he expressed earlier.

The AMENDMENT was called and was DEFEATED.

Debate on the main motion continued. Dr. Mercer addressed the proposed striking of the words "group or" from I.6.b) as recommended by the ad hoc Committee. The effect of that change would be that the Code would apply only to individuals acting as designated representatives of student organizations recognized by the Board, in other words, USC, SOGS, and MBAA. It would not cover the off-campus conduct of any group claiming affiliation with the University. There are many groups that can claim affiliation with the University. They can publish literature, they can put ads in newspapers, they can engage in sorts of promotional activities while identifying themselves with the University. The effect of taking out reference to "group" would mean that the Code would not apply to them because they are not an "organization recognized by the Board as representing parts of the student body".

Dr. Mercer also spoke against the recommendation of the ad hoc Committee to insert the words "the object of producing" in I.6.c). That language would have the effect of importing into that section the element of intention, in other words, that the off-campus conduct could not be found to be under the scrutiny of this Code if the individual claimed that he/she didn't intend to produce an adverse effect, even if the action was a reasonable outcome of what the individual did. He advised that debate about intention is in the exclusive preserve of the criminal law.

While Dr. Mercer urged Senators not to support the proposed amendments, he suggested that a lot of the debate over application of the Code might be avoided if Western were to adopt language similar to that currently under consideration at the University of Alberta, which he plans to bring to the attention of the Campus & Community Affairs Committee: "This Code applies to all conduct by a student or by students that have a real and substantial link to the University, University activities, the University community, or University-related functions, whether or not the conduct occurred on or in relation to University property."

Professor White suggested that insertion of words to I.6.c) to the effect that off-campus conduct that has "or might reasonably be seen to have had" an adverse effect on the proper functioning of the University might clarify section I.6.c).

Speaking in favor of the motion, Ms. Nelson reminded Senators that the ad hoc Committee focussed on whether the individual is acting in his/her right as a student. Because Section I.6.c) deals with the effect of an action, rather than an action itself, a student or an individual might reasonably take an action without having any idea that the effect might be to produce an adverse effect on the proper functioning of the University. By adding the element "the object of producing", it redirects attention to the action itself, rather than at the effect of the action. She gave the example of one student assaulting another off-campus. The student who assaulted the other may not have had any idea that he would be adversely affecting the proper functioning of the University because the other student is no longer able to attend classes. This raises the question as to whether the student who committed the assault was acting as an individual or as a student. She argued that the Code of Student Conduct should deal only with actions, and not the unforeseen outcome of such actions.

Mr. Sinal noted that students had a lot to say about the section of the draft Code that deals with off-campus activities of student groups. The Committee heard all sides of the arguments -- from students, from the external community, and from the original drafters of the Code. The Committee was sympathetic to concerns about liability of the University and objections to the notion that the Code would apply off-campus at all. They decided that the key factor is whether the actions were committed in one's capacity as a student or as an individual. The Committee deliberated over whether a group of students undertaking activities off-campus, for example, the "Purple Binge Drinking Society", should be regarded as a group of individuals having a party or Western students who should then reasonably be expected to espouse the conduct required of Western students. The Committee believed that by removing reference to a student "group", the scope of the Code's net would be reduced but the Committee felt that it is more realistic and more appropriate.

Reflecting on the example given by Mr. Sinal, Dr. Mercer stated that any group that calls itself the "UWO Purple Binge Drinking Society", advertises, sells tickets on campus, holds an event on an off-campus location attended by students who are subsequently involved in an automobile accident and rendered quadriplegics, the University would be sued, and probably sued successfully as an occupier, if not as a provider. He recalled the recent Hunt decision involving a situation where Ms. Hunt drove home after an office party where liquor was served. Ms. Hunt was involved in an automobile accident and her employer was successfully sued. If that is a liability situation for the University -- and it is -- Western's Code of Student Conduct should align with that. On the other hand, if two individuals who get into an altercation off-campus with the result that one is injured, this would not reasonably be seen to have an adverse effect on the proper functioning of the University. Ms. Nelson argued that the injured student could bring charges under the Code of Student Conduct if the injury had "an adverse effect on ... the [student's] rights to use and enjoy the University's learning and working environments."

S.01-62b-iii It was moved by J. White, seconded by P.A.W. Dean,

That the motion be amended by striking the words "or might reasonably have, the object of producing" from Section 1.6.c) and inserting in their place "or might reasonably be seen to have had", so that the section reads:

c) off-campus conduct that has, or might reasonably be seen to have had, an adverse effect on the proper functioning of the University or the rights of a member of the University community to use and enjoy the University's learning and working environments.

AMENDMENT CARRIED

Discussion on the main motion (S.01-62b) as amended, continued.

In response to concerns about liability and lawsuits mentioned by Dr. Mercer, Mr. Braun stated that lawsuits cannot be stopped, but to his knowledge there has never been a successful case in Canada of the type described. Dr. Mercer responded that there are in Canada at least three dozen applicable cases that were launched and were successful. He added that in Ontario lawsuits can be launched against multiple defendants. There is a principle of joint and several liability which indicates that if any of the defendants are unable to pay, those that are able to pay must pay for the others. A University will have "deeper pockets" than individuals and thus be at greater risk.

Mr. Gauthier argued that the Hunt case is not relevant to students off-campus because in the Hunt case, the employer provided the alcohol. Dr. Mercer stated that the Hunt case is in the forefront of the minds of everyone in the university community. It is relevant because the University can have a liability incorporated to it if anyone who acts on its behalf, with or without the University's authority, engages in behavior that is seen as causally related to an injury which results in incapacity or death. He stressed that the Code of Student Conduct should not take a different perspective on the extent to which the behavior of any of our members somehow redounds to the detriment of the University. The University should be wary of excluding from this Code conduct which could otherwise give rise to legal liability.

Professor A. Katz asked whether the establishment of a Code of Student Conduct by Western would have any impact on any decisions made by a court of law. Dr. Mercer said it might certainly be a piece of extrinsic evidence brought forward to indicate the University's attitude toward its responsibilities. For example, if the University took the considered position that by taking out the word "group" it had somehow limited its liability in a civil suit against it as an occupier, that would be brought forward as evidence that the University may have been careless or indifferent as to its legal position. He noted that Senate is preparing its recommendations to the Board on the matter of the Code of Student Conduct and the Board will ultimately determine what the Code will be. As General Counsel to the University, he will vote against the motion under consideration now for the reasons he has outlined, and if Senate approves it, he will be obliged speak against it at the level of the CCAC.

Mr. Sinal advised that the ad hoc Committee was well aware of the University's concern about liability and took that into account. The Committee considered the University's legal liability and the desire to have a wide net versus a Code of Student Conduct that asks students to espouse conduct that is expected of Western students. After a good deal of discussion, the group agreed on the proposal that is before Senate today. He characterized this motion as representing "middle ground".

Asked if the Board of Governors will be in any way bound by the recommendations of Senate today, the President confirmed that Senate's advice on this matter is not binding on the Board.

Dr. Davenport observed that there has been a good deal of discussion about legal liability, which is a big issue, but the other issue is student safety. Every year there are alcohol-related deaths of students the United States. A University has to be concerned about its responsibility to students and to families of students who are injured or killed as a result of alcohol-related student activities. It is an issue that goes beyond legal liability. The cases in the United States make it clear that the University is seen as responsible if it has not taken some kind of measure to limit these types of activities.

The main motion AS AMENDED was called and was DEFEATED.

S.01-62c Before stating the motion, Mr. Sinal noted that the word "intent" in the first line of V.9.c) as reflected in the Committee's report should be "object". It was then moved by C. Sinal, seconded by J. Morgan,

That Senate recommend to the Board of Governors that Section I.8. of the draft Code of Student Conduct be deleted and that Section V.9. be amended as shown.

8. An officer, leader or spokesperson of a student group or organization at the University may be held responsible for violations of the Code by a member of the group or organization if the member has received consent or encouragement from the officer, leader or spokesperson to engage in conduct prohibited under this Code.

V. Student Conduct - Rules

9. Other

a) Aiding or encouraging others in the commission of an act prohibited under this Code or attempting to commit an act prohibited under this Code.

b) In the case of an officer, leader or spokesperson of a student group or organization at the University, consenting to, encouraging, or aiding others in the commission of an act prohibited under this Code.

b) Failure to comply with any sanction imposed by the University for miscon duct under this Code.

c) Any other conduct that has, or might reasonably have, the object of producing an adverse effect on the proper functioning of the University, or the health, safety, rights or property of the University, its members or visitors.

Dr. Mercer stated that for reasons stated earlier, reference to "the object" in V.9.c) is undesirable and he suggested that this section be changed to reflect an adopted amendment to I.6.c).

S.01-62c-i It was therefore moved by M. Workentin, seconded by J. White,

That the motion be amended by striking the words "or might reasonably have, the object of producing" from Section V.9.c) and inserting in their place "or might reasonably be seen to have had", so that the section reads:

c) Any other conduct that has, or might reasonably be seen to have had, an adverse effect on the proper functioning of the University or the health, safety, rights or property of the University, its members or visitors.

AMENDMENT CARRIED

The main motion, AS AMENDED, was called and CARRIED.

S.01-62d It was moved by C. Sinal, seconded by R. Forbes,

That Senate recommend to the Board of Governors that Section III. of the draft Code of Student Conduct be amended as highlighted below.

III. Students of Affiliated Colleges

This Code applies to all students registered in the affiliated colleges while on University property, subject to the provisions of the Affiliation Agreement between the University and its affiliated colleges. Consequently, students at affiliated colleges must follow the rules set out in the Code of Student Conduct while on University property, but discipline for non-compliance is the responsibility of the Principals of the respective affiliated colleges.

Dr. Harris advised Senate that she has reviewed the Affiliation Agreement between the Affiliated Colleges and the Board of Governors at the University. According to the Affiliation Agreement, it is the responsibility of the Colleges to discipline their students. As a result of this review, Dr. Harris informed Senate that she will be recommending to CCAC that the definition of "student" be more narrowly defined as: "'Student' refers to an individual registered at the constituent University in a credit course or program of studies." If accepted this will result in changes to Section III. Not only does this settle the question of applicability of the Code to students of the Affiliated Colleges, but will limit its applicability to students who are enrolled in a credit course or program of studies. The change will also mean that the elaborate procedures set out in the Code will not apply to persons enrolled in non-credit courses at The Western Centre for Continuing Studies downtown, 75% of whom take seminars or weekend workshops that are quite different from credit courses on campus.

Dr. Mercer said that persons not covered by the Code of Student Conduct, such as students in non-credit courses or students of Affiliated Colleges, who engage in misconduct can be handled in other ways. While the Code will set out language of expectation for Affiliated College students when they are on University property, the actual discipline process will be the responsibility of the Colleges.

The question was called and CARRIED.

S.01-62e It was moved by C. Sinal, seconded by M. Witen,

That Senate recommend to the Board of Governors that Section IV.3. of the draft Code of Student Conduct be amended as indicated below.

IV. Relationship To Other University Policies and Codes

3. With the exception of the policies described in 1. and 2. above, no disciplinary action taken pursuant to any other policies, rules, codes, or regulations of the University (e.g., regulations relating to use of computing resources, regulations established by various units of the University including Intercollegiate Athletics, the University of Western Ontario Library System, the Division of Housing and Food Services [Residents' Understandings], and Western Campus Recreation ) shall bar or prevent the University from instituting disciplinary proceedings and imposing sanctions under this Code. Where such other disciplinary action is being taken, discussions must be held between the University and the unit head before disciplinary proceedings are instituted.

Mr. Kapoor offered the hope that the Board of Governors will consider integrating other disciplinary codes and policies into the Code of Student Conduct. The purpose would be to prevent an individual being sanctioned sequentially under a number of policies for a single incident of misconduct. Mr. Sinal supported this suggestion, noting a comment in the report of the ad hoc Committee: "The Committee believes the relationship between the draft Code and other existing University policies be clarified to ensure that the ... Code is applied only where an alleged offence might warrant instituting disciplinary proceedings or sanctions beyond those available under existing University policies."

The question was called and CARRIED.

S.01-62f It was moved by C. Sinal, seconded by A. Percival-Smith,

That Senate recommend to the Board of Governors that Section V. of the draft Code of Student Conduct be amended as shown below.

V. Student Conduct - Rules

Any conduct on the part of a student that has, or might reasonably have, an adverse effect on the proper functioning of the University, or the health, safety, rights or property of the University, its members or visitors, is subject to discipline under this Code. Without limiting the generality of the foregoing, The following list sets out specific examples area s of prohibited conduct. This list is illustrative only and is not intended to define misconduct in exhaustive or exclusive terms.

Examples

CARRIED

S.01-62g It was moved by C. Sinal, seconded by R. Forbes,

That Senate recommend to the Board of Governors that Section VI. of the draft Code of Student Conduct be amended as highlighted below.

VI. Sanctions

The University may impose one or more sanctions for misconduct, of which those listed below are examples.

1. Verbal Warning from the instructor or other person in authority.

2. Exclusion from a class, examination room, or other area. (Note: In this context, "class" refers to a period of instruction such as a lecture, seminar, tutorial, laboratory session, recital, concert or exhibition of visual arts or sports event).

3. Formal Reprimand.

4. Removal, either temporarily or permanently, from a course in which the student is registered.

5. Prohibition or limitation of access to any academic facility.

6. Prohibition or limitation of employment at the University.

7. Prohibition or limitation on entering University premises or specific parts thereof and/or restriction on contact with specified person(s).

8. Restitution. Compensation for loss, damage, or injury to the appropriate party in the form of service, money, or material replacement.

9. Forfeiture of University awards or financial assistance.

10. Disciplinary Probation. A designated period of time during which the student is not in good standing with the University. The terms of probation may involve restrictions of student privileges and/or set behavioural expectations, violation of which will result in the imposition of further sanctions.

11. Deregistration. Removal from some or all courses for one or two terms.

12. Suspension from the University for a specified time period.

13. Expulsion from the University.

The sanctions imposed shall be proportional to the type of misconduct. The mo st serious types of misconduct will merit the most serious sanctions: deregistration, suspension and expulsion.

CARRIED

S.01-62h At the request of Mr. Weese, and with the agreement of Senate, Recommendation 2.h. shown on pages 8 and 9 of the Committee's report was split into two parts.

It was moved by C. Sinal, seconded by C. Prabhakar,

That the final sentence of Section VIII.7. be deleted.

VIII. Procedures

7. At all meetings with the Dean (Vice-Provost), the student may be accompanied by a colleague of his or her choosing. Legal representation is not permitted.

Mr. Sinal pointed out that the deletion of the sentence in VII.7. relates as well to the addition of a new item 4. in Section X. Appeals -- "Legal representation at this stage is permitted." - which comes up in the next motion.

Dr. Mercer stated that legal representation at the stage of a meeting between the Dean (or Vice-Provost) and the student is not desirable. The reason is that it does not fit with the complexion of what happens. This involves the student retaining counsel, to speak and act on his or her behalf. That means, in turn, that the Dean or Vice-Provost will almost inevitably also have a lawyer present. This constitutes a legal forum at the first instance. Dr. Mercer pointed out that the student's legal costs will not be paid for by the University, and having legal representation at this stage will inevitably make the proceedings lengthier and more expensive. To delete the provision "Legal representation is not permitted" will raise the question of whether it is permitted; consequently it makes sense to leave the sentence in Section 7.

Professor White observed that the presence of a lawyer, particularly as representative of the student at the initial interaction, will make it much more difficult to get to the facts and will hurt the student's chances for informal closure of the issues. The responsible officer of the University will have no choice but to be very formal and will probably engage legal representation. This will rapidly lead to increased costs and decreased satisfaction for all concerned.

Ms. Nelson explained that the purpose of deleting the sentence is not to encourage students to involve legal counsel, but rather to reflect the experience and practice in academic appeals. Removal of the sentence is counterbalanced by the addition of a new section 4 under X. Appeals. Although this dual action would not explicitly prohibit legal representation at the early stage, it will discourage such representation by making it clear that legal representation is an option at the final appeal stage.

Mr. Sinal emphasized that mention of legal counsel at the appeal stage mirrors the rules of the Senate Review Board Academic: there is no mention of legal counsel in the early stages, but there is the following provision at the level of SRBA: "In matters of academic appeal, the right to be represented by counsel will be accorded only at the level of SRBA..." The ad hoc Committee debated as to whether the word "only" should be included in the proposed new section in the Code. The Committee consulted with Associate Deans and others and learned that while the SRBA rule appears to limit legal representation to the appeal stage, their experience has been that if a student insists on bringing a lawyer into a meeting with the Associate Dean, it is permitted. For that reason, the Committee decided to reflect practice rather than the ideal by not including the word "only", as will be seen in the next recommendation. Nevertheless, the Committee strongly discourages students from involving legal counsel at the early stage of the process.

Asked how the University could enforce the prohibition of legal representation if the sentence in question is left in Section VIII.7., Dr. Mercer suggested that the Dean or Vice-Provost could advise the student that he or she could be accompanied by a colleague but not represented by a lawyer -- that a lawyer cannot speak on behalf of the student. The meeting is between the Dean or Vice-Provost and the student, and a responsibility under the Code is that the student engage in a meeting with the Dean or Vice-Provost. He added that while he is sympathetic to the fact that students show up at a meeting with a lawyer, it is the matter of legal representation that should be carefully avoided.

The question was called and CARRIED.

S.01-62i It was moved by C. Sinal, seconded by N. Kapoor,

That Section X. be amended as detailed below, including the addition of a new Section X.4.

X. Appeals

1. A student may appeal to the University Discipline Appeals Committee (UDAC) on one or more of the following grounds:

(a) that the sanction was inappropriate if the sanction imposed was deregistration, suspension, or expulsion;

(b) that the sanction imposed was not proportional to the type of misconduct;

(c) that there was a serious procedural error(s) in the hearing of the complai nt by the Dean (Vice-Provost) which was prejudicial to the appellant;

(d) that new evidence, not available at the time of the earlier decision, has been discovered , which casts doubt on the correctness of the decision;

(e) that the Dean (Vice-Provost) did not have the authority under this Code to reach the decision or impose the sanctions he/she did.

2. Filing an Appeal Application will not stay the implementation of any sanctions imposed except where the Chair of UDAC otherwise orders upon application of the appellant.

3. UDAC may: deny the appeal, grant an appeal under 1(a) and vary the sanction, grant the appeal and/or vary the sanction under 1 (b), grant an appeal under 1 (c) or (d) and direct the previous decision maker to re-hear the matter or reconsider some pertinent aspect of its decision, or grant an appeal under 1(e). In the case of a direction to re-hear the matter, UDAC may also include recommendations relating to the conduct of the re-hearing.

4. Legal representation at this stage is permitted.

S.01-62i-i It was moved by J. Santos, seconded by N. Kapoor,

That the words "or warranted" be added to Section X.1.b), so that it reads:

b) that the sanction imposed was not proportional to the type of misconduct or warranted;

Professor Rosner observed that the proposed amendment would allow anyone to appeal, whereas usually the right to appeal is limited. In his view, it is not efficient to introduce clauses into the Code that would allow anyone to appeal any sanction imposed under the Code. Mr. Santos stated that if one did not commit an alleged act of misconduct, the individual should have the opportunity to appeal. In his view, without a specific provision of this sort, a student who was charged and sanctioned but who did not commit the offense, would have no opportunity to appeal.

Mr. Sinal stated that even without the phrase "or warranted", someone could appeal on the basis that the "sanction was not proportional to the type of misconduct", that is, if one did not commit the offense, there would be no sanction that would be proportional. The Committee's deliberations in this area were substantial and the Committee considered carefully the example of the Senate Review Board Academic (SRBA), a tribunal that hears academic appeals and appeals involving scholastic offenses. At one time SRBA heard virtually every appeal that was placed before it, and the system became gridlocked. Senate then changed the terms of reference of SRBA such that for scholastic offenses there is an automatic right of appeal, but for other academic matters, the right of appeal is granted only in some circumstances. In the latter situation, SRBA then determines whether there are grounds for the appeal to be heard. In the case of the draft Code of Student Conduct, there are no automatic appeals: in all cases the appellant can request that the appeal be heard. To strike a middle ground, the Committee decided to recommend a new ground of appeal -- "that the sanction imposed was not proportional to the type of misconduct". While this would allow nearly anyone to request an appeal when they have been disciplined, a hearing is not automatic. An appeal panel would determine whether the appeal would proceed. If an appeal is frivolous, the appeal will not be heard. The Committee was still sympathetic to the concern that there might be a flood of appeals, and for that reason the Committee recommends that a mandatory review be embedded in the Code.

Dr. Mercer stated that both the amendment suggested by the ad hoc Committee and the proposed amendment would give virtually everyone the automatic right of appeal because there is no objective limit to proportionality. If the individual says, "I don't think the sanction is proportional to the misconduct", then it will be appealed. While not every appeal will be successful, each will entail constituting a panel, arranging timetables, making arrangements for a room, reviewing the application for hearing, and in many cases hearing the appeal. The stated purpose of the amendment is to address a situation where the individual claims that he or she did not commit the offense. That highlights the problem of justifying the amendment. What this actually says is "not only will we give everyone the automatic right of appeal, but furthermore they want to adduce all the facts," because the only way you can say "I didn't do it" is to bring out all the facts that were set out in the first instance (at the lower level). That means the whole issue must be re-examined. He pointed out, as well, that Section X.1.a), as recommended by the ad hoc Committee, grants an automatic right of appeal if "the sanction imposed was deregistration, suspension, or expulsion", in other words if it is a serious penalty. If one accepts X.1.b) -- amended or as recommended by the ad hoc Committee, even the mildest reprimand will be subject to an appeal, whether or not there is any new evidence, alleged procedural error, or lack of authority, since those are separate grounds in Section X.

Mr. Santos observed that Section X.1.a) proposes, in effect, that a student who is deregistered, suspended, or expelled will have the right to appeal, but overlooks the fact that a requirement to forfeit University awards or financial assistance (as set out in Section VI, sanction 9.) can have the same effect as deregistration but does not warrant an automatic right of appeal. If a student did not commit the offense that gives rise to the sanction of forfeiture of financial support, he should have the right of appeal.

Ms. Nelson reinforced the notion that proportionality of sanctions, as introduced in the new section X.1.b) proposed by the Committee, would cover a situation where the student claims that he or she did not commit the offense. She pointed out, as well, that the appeal board (UDAC) would have the right to summarily dismiss an appeal that does not present sufficient grounds to be heard. The onus is on the student to demonstrate that the sanction is disproportionate to the offense.

The question on the AMENDMENT was called and was DEFEATED.

Debate on the main motion (Section X. Appeals) continued.

Mr. Sinal explained that whereas a student charged with an scholastic offense may appeal for relief from the sanction imposed by a Dean, there was no similar provision in the draft Code of Student Conduct. It was for that reason that the ad hoc Committee proposes that the new ground for an appeal be introduced: "that the sanction imposed was not proportional to the type of misconduct."

Dr. Mercer raised two clerical issues that arise from the proposed changes to Section X. Section 1.a) is not a ground of appeal: it is an automatic right of appeal. The inserted phrase in Section X.3. -- "grant the appeal and/or vary the sanction under 1(b)Section X.3. -- is not workable. If the appeal is granted under 1(b) [that the sanction imposed was not proportional to the type of misconduct], then the sanction must be varied. Therefore, this should read "grant the appeal and vary the sanction ...".

Mr. Morgan recalled an earlier discussion about the draft Code of Conduct where it was suggested that the Code would provide guidelines, but that it was not expected that there would be a large number of appeals. He therefore speculated that the system is unlikely to "bog down" with numerous appeals, and if it were to do so, that would suggest a much bigger underlying problem.

The question was called and CARRIED.

S.01-62j Before presenting the motion, Mr. Sinal pointed out that the word "after" in this recommendation as it appears in the Committee's report should be "within".

It was moved by C. Sinal, seconded by J. Morgan,

That Senate recommend to the Board of Governors that a new Section XI. be added to the draft Code of Student Conduct as follows.

XI. Review of Code

The Board of Governors shall review the Code within a period of three years.

CARRIED

S.01-63 ANNOUNCEMENTS & COMMUNICATIONS [Exhibit VIII]

Announcements and Communications detailed in Exhibit VIII, were received for information.

ENQUIRIES AND NEW BUSINESS

S.01-64 Annual Community Meeting

Professor White reported that in his view Western's Annual Community meeting was a success. Dr. Davenport concurred that the meeting between Western and the London community held yesterday met with success and agreed to convey this praise to the organizers of the event.

ADJOURNMENT

The meeting adjourned at 5:30 p.m.

Signed by:

P. Davenport, Chair
J.K. Van Fleet, Secretary