Final Report - Review of the UWO Act

REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS OF

THE JOINT BOARD/SENATE COMMITTEE

TO REVIEW THE UWO ACT

1. BACKGROUND

   The University of Western Ontario Act is a provincial statute.
   It establishes principles of general application and
   designates the areas of responsibility and categories of
   membership of the Board of Governors and Senate. It does not
   enumerate specific, detailed powers and responsibilities; that
   sort of elaboration is accomplished by or under Board and
   Senate By-Laws or other Board and/or Senate policies.

The University of Western Ontario Act, 1982, Section 39,
stipulates that:

        The Board and the Senate shall review this Act
        within fifteen years from the date of its
        enactment.

   In examining the purpose behind Section 39, one must conclude
   that the Legislature wished to ensure that the University
   would reflect on the governance structure established by the
   Act to determine whether it continued to be well served by it.
   This will explain why Section 39 gives no guidance concerning
   the scope and substance of the review it requires and why it
   does not imply that changes are expected to be sought. Two
   preliminary points should be noted: first, ours is apparently
   the only university statute that requires a review; and
   second, if not for this legislated requirement, there is no
   reason to believe that the University would have thought it
   necessary to undertake such a review at this time.

   The Joint Committee to Review the Act was established by the
   Board and Senate to carry out this review. The terms of
   reference of the committee are:

       To review the University of Western Ontario Act, 1982 (as
        amended in 1988) to determine if there are any changes
        the Board and the Senate wish to propose to the
        Legislative Assembly.

       To hold public hearings, take written submissions and
        invite contributions from committees of the Senate and
        Board.

To report to the Senate and Board of Governors no later
than December, 1996.

   The committee invited commentary from the University community
   through advertisements in Western News and the Gazette at the
   end of February, 1996. The committee also identified
   individuals and groups it thought might be interested in
   making submissions and sent letters inviting their
   participation. Several written submissions were received and
   open meetings were held, as advertised, on April 1 and May 1,
   1996. The committee also met with a number of individuals and
   groups at a closed meeting on May 22, 1996. As a result, the
   committee received a substantial number of written and oral
   submissions to review and consider. A list of those who
   participated, in writing and/or through an oral presentation
   (including those who responded to the Draft Final Report), is
   provided in Annex 1.

   The committee published its Interim Report on June 27, 1996,
   and annexed to that report was a list of issues raised in the
   submissions covering a wide range of topics, from basic
   principles to operational details; that list was circulated
   with the Committee's Interim and Draft Final Reports.

The Interim Report concluded with the following observation:

        These submissions also make clear that there
        are widely divergent views on the fundamental
        question of whether to suggest any amendments
        to the Act and on what those suggested
        amendments, if any, might be. It is worth
        noting that the merger of Faculties we are now
        engaged in is being accomplished without
        amending the Act. Indeed, prudence dictates
        that the committee consider the fact that any
        request for legislative amendment carries the
        risk that the Legislature itself could
        introduce amendments that would not be subject
        to review and approval by the Senate and the
        Board.

   The committee met on a number of occasions to review the
   submissions made to it, and has identified and discussed
   issues that can be addressed by means other than the amendment
   of the Act, such as through application of provisions in the
   Act itself and By-Laws of the Senate and/or Board.

   The majority of submissions focused on: the size and
   composition of the Senate and the Board, the addition or
   removal of certain ex officio positions on the governing
   bodies, accessibility to the Board and accountability.
   Submissions on these issues often conflicted. For example,
   some submitted that the Board of Governors would be more
   effective if it was significantly reduced in size, while other
   submissions, taken together, would result in the addition of
   several new seats to the Board.

   Of the recommendations that would require amendment of the
   Act, the committee can see merit in the suggestion that the
   Board of Governors could be reduced in size while retaining
   the same proportion of internal and external members.
   However, related submissions were also compelling. These
   focussed on accessibility to the Board by campus groups and
   organizations external to the University community, the means
   by which potential external Board members are identified, and
   general matters of openness and accountability - none of which
   would require statutory restructuring of the Board. The
   University's emphasis on collegial decision-making
   distinguishes it from the Boards of Directors of private
   corporations. Although it may seem attractive in times of
   great change and uncertainty to contemplate moving to a
   smaller unified Board whose members are named entirely through
   the Board's own nominating committee, that model is untenable
   in view of the University's character as a public, collegial
   enterprise.

   The Draft Final Report of the Committee was circulated widely
   on October 22, 1996. A number of oral submissions were made
   at an open hearing on October 31, 1996, and written responses
   were received up to November 4, 1996. Reaction to the Draft
   Final Report was predictably mixed.

2. FUTURE GOALS FOR ONTARIO COLLEGES & UNIVERSITIES: THE WHITE
PAPER

   One fact was recognized by all who appeared before us: the
   changes and challenges with which we are expected to cope are
   unprecedented. The strategy to be adopted for managing change
   is ultimately decided by our Senate and Board: they are our
   institutions of government and we have a special interest in
   preserving their role during a period of great uncertainty.
   We are clearly in such a period now. Many important issues
   are being advanced for debate with little indication of how
   they will be resolved. These include the appropriate role of
   tenure of faculty in Ontario's universities, the structure of
   the Province's student loan system, and the potential for
   deregulation of tuition fees. We do not know what funding
   will be provided to us for the next academic year; nor do we
   know what tuition fees we will be allowed to charge nor
   whether we will be able to charge them differentially.

   At a more general level, we also do not yet know the
   implications of the change that took place under the last
   government when the Ministry of Colleges and Universities was
   abolished and replaced by the Ministry of Education and
   Training. The current Minister has not indicated his position
   on the direction that post-secondary education is to take.
   Nor is that direction evident from the recently released White
   Paper on Higher Education, Future Goals for Ontario Colleges
   and Universities. The Advisory Panel on Future Directions for
   Postsecondary Education is to follow up the release of the
   White Paper by providing advice to the Minister on the
   following three issues by December 15, 1996:

   (i) Recommend the most appropriate sharing of costs among
        students, the private sector and the government, and the
        ways in which this might best be achieved;

   (ii) Identify ways to promote and support cooperation between
        colleges and universities and between them and the
        secondary school system in order to meet the changing
        needs of students;

   (iii)     Provide advice on what needs to be done to meet the
             expected levels of demand for post-secondary
             education, both with reference to existing public
             institutions and existing or proposed private
             institutions.

   The five broad objectives identified in the White Paper to
   guide policy development for post-secondary education -
   excellence, accessibility, a range of programs and
   institutions, accountability and responsiveness to evolving
   needs - are highly open-ended.

   The current experience of other members of the MUSH sector
   (municipalities, universities, schools and hospitals) strongly
   suggests that significant changes are likely. The Hospital
   Restructuring Commission is reviewing the structure and
   funding of health care across the Province and has already
   issued a number of decisions concerning closures and
   amalgamations of hospitals. At the primary and secondary
   school level, the government has established a new regulatory
   structure through the Ontario College of Teachers and has
   indicated that it is considering the elimination of boards of
   trustees and intends to make additional significant reductions
   in funding. Media speculation about the likely effects
   wrought by such measures takes place against the backdrop of
   the Federal Government's own determination to reduce transfer
   payments to the Province.

3. THE COMMITTEE'S RECOMMENDATION

   Several existing provisions of the Act allow the Senate and
   Board of Governors to address a significant number of issues
   internally through amendment of their By-Laws. The committee
   believes that there is much to be gained by concentrating on
   the avenues for change that are already available. Annex 2 to
   this report is a summary of matters that could be addressed by
   Senate or Board By-Laws or Resolutions as opposed to those
   which would require amendment of the Act.

   In addition to the fact that worthwhile and constructive
   changes can be achieved through amendment of the existing By-
   Laws of Senate and the Board of Governors, there are also
   compelling reasons why the pursuit of comprehensive
   restructuring or revision of the Act at this time would be
   imprudent. Having reviewed all submissions, including those
   made in response to the Draft Final Report, we again set these
   out in what we consider to be their order of significance.

       The Act is serving us well; the Senate and the Board of
        Governors are able to function effectively, both in their
        respective spheres and cooperatively.

        The development, approval and implementation of Western's
        Strategic Plan: Leadership in Learning, is the most
        striking example. The overwhelming approval of the plan
        by both Senate and the Board in the Fall of 1995
        recognized that the implementation of individual
        recommendations would depend on subsequent action by the
        Senate and/or Board as the University's procedures
        required. This has already occurred in respect of the
        approved plans to create new Faculties of Health
        Sciences, through merging the Faculties of Applied Health
        Sciences, Kinesiology and Nursing, and Communications and
        Open Learning by merging the Graduate School of
        Journalism, the Graduate School of Library and
        Information Science and the Faculty of Part-Time and
        Continuing Education.

        One of the recommendations in the Strategic Plan was that
        "while recognizing the importance of the collegial
        decision-making process and accountability, Western's
        Departmental, Faculty, and Senate committee mechanisms
        should be reviewed with an eye to eliminating unnecessary
        complexity and delay, with particular attention to the
        process of introducing and amending undergraduate courses
        and programs and amending the University Calendar to
        reflect changes in curriculum." The Senate responded
        quickly when, in March 1996, it approved a restructured
        system for amending academic programs and for approving
        and amending courses and scholarships. This resulted in
        the decommissioning of six Senate committees and
        subcommittees. In their place, Senate established one
        new committee, the Senate Committee on Academic Programs
        and Admissions (SCAPA), which focuses its work on policy
        matters. By delegating to the Deans, as agents of their
        Faculties, the authority to give final approval to new
        courses, course and scholarships changes, and program
        changes, the approval process was reduced from about
        eighteen months to two weeks.

       There is a marked division of opinion within the
        University and outside it on those issues that focus on
        comprehensive restructuring: for example, the role and
        the weighting of constituencies on the Senate and Board,
        the appropriate role of Deans in Senate and the desirable
        size of the Board.

       Increasing demands and workloads are being placed on
        faculty, staff and students and a protracted debate,
        particularly one unlikely to produce a broad consensus,
        promises to do little more than dissipate our energies.

       We would be prompting a Government facing enormous
        pressures of its own (several of which are already
        outlined above) to review our proposal without any
        assurance of which changes, if any, it would favour or
        itself add to the list.

Our recommendation, therefore, is as follows:

Recommendation to the Senate and Board of Governors:

       That the University advise the Government, through the
       Ministry of Education and Training and our local MPPs,
       that the Act has been reviewed by the Senate and Board of
       Governors, as required, and that the University proposes
       no changes to the Act at this time.

Subject to endorsement of this recommendation, once the
review requirement has been met, the Act will continue in
its same form, and may later be reviewed as the
University may decide.

A specific point about the Committee's responsibilities
needs to be emphasized here. The University Students'
Council, the Society of Graduate Students and some
individual respondents to the Draft Final Report took the
position that the Committee failed in its alleged
obligation to recommend changes to the Act and work
toward consensus on what those changes should be. That
is not the Committee's mandate. The first of our terms
of reference as a creature of the Senate and Board is to
review the Act "to determine if there are any changes the
Board and the Senate wish to propose to the Legislative
Assembly". Our recommendation is that there are not any
changes that the Board and Senate would wish to propose
primarily because the Act, as our fundamental
constitutional document, is working well. The fact that
we have developed and begun to implement a Strategic
Plan, and that there is no consensus view of the need for
changes after months of discussion simply testifies to
the Act's effectiveness.

4.SPECIFIC ISSUES

The strongest disappointment with the Committee's draft
recommendation was voiced by the University Students'
Council. Clearly our report does not meet their
expectations which are founded on a different conception
of the Committee's role and a different interpretation of
its terms of reference. The Committee remains of the
view that it has discharged its responsibilities in a way
intended by the language of the Act and according to the
terms prescribed by the Senate and Board.

The Committee is compelled to disagree with two dominant
and related themes in the submissions of the University
Students' Council. The first is that student
representation on the Senate and Board should bear a
direct relationship to the increasing amount students are
paying towards the cost of their education and the second
is that the University must provide for greater student
participation in decision-making by these bodies in the
name of accountability. In the Committee's view these
submissions are flawed.

The Senate and Board are not mere amalgams of
constituency interests whose membership fluctuates on
some formulaic or proprietary basis. Members of the
Senate and the Board are to discharge their
responsibilities in the best interests of the University.
Accordingly, the criteria for membership should relate to
the ability to identify and serve the University's best
interests. Students have valuable perspectives to bring
but these do not acquire greater force simply because the
cost of tuition is rising. Faculty, staff, alumni and
the public at large also have a stake in The University
of Western Ontario and their perspectives are often
informed by greater knowledge and experience than
students have yet had the opportunity of acquiring.

Having made the recommendation that no changes be
proposed to the Legislature for amendment to the Act
pursuant to our review, the committee wishes to state its
position on a number of the most significant issues
identified by those who made oral and written
submissions.

A.   The Composition and Size of the Board: The unique
       role played by the Board of Governors is revealed
       by the stipulation in Section 18 of the Act:

            Except in such matters as are
            assigned by this Act to the Senate
            or other bodies, the government,
            conduct, management and control of
            the University and of its property
            and affairs are vested in the Board
            and the Board may do such things as
            it considers to be for the good of
            the University and consistent with
            the public interest.

       In light of this fundamental responsibility, it is
       clear to the committee that the composition of the
       Board must be predominantly external to ensure a
       broad range of experience and perspective. The
       Board of Governors is not like the Board of
       Directors of a business corporation; our Board's
       primary goal is not to maximize earnings for its
       shareholders and it must constantly have the public
       interest in view. It is equally clear, however,
       that Board members must reject the notion of
       representing a particular constituency. The Board
       of Governors is not like a model parliament in
       which constituency representatives seek to advance
       their interests or those of a political party to
       which they are bound by membership and allegiance.

       Similarly, a number of those who made submissions
       to us spoke to the danger of focusing on narrow
       interests or relatively minor matters of
       administration at the Board level. At the very
       least, this is likely to distract Board members
       from the primary responsibility to represent the
       best interests of the University in a way that also
       serves the public interest. At present, for
       example, a primary responsibility of the Board is
       to monitor how the operations of the University are
       advancing our Strategic Plan.

       As indicated in the Interim Report, the committee
       has received many submissions, several from members
       of our Board or other Boards, which take the view
       that the Board should be significantly reduced in
       size if it is to be effective in the face of the
       challenges that now confront it. Other
       submissions, however, when taken together, call for
       the addition of several new seats on the Board.
       The committee agrees with the philosophy underlying
       the latter group of submissions, which is that
       greater communication must take place between the
       Board and the community-at-large if it is to fulfil
       its responsibility "in the public interest".
       However, the committee is of the view that this end
       must be achieved through other means such as are
       described in Section 5.B. of this report.

       The Broadhurst Report (University Accountability: A
       Strengthened Framework, Report of the Task Force on
       University Accountability, May, 1993) emphasized
       the role of a University Board of Governors at page
       38:

            It must be clearly understood that the
            governing body must not manage the
            institution. The officers of the central
            administration constitute the senior
            management of the University. They
            include both the senior officers of the
            central administration and the senior
            academic officers. Under the President,
            the chief executive officer, they are
            responsible for implementing the policies
            established by Board and by Senate and
            for overall management of the
            institution.

       The committee recognizes that the Board's
       responsibility is not administration per se.
       Accordingly, we propose, as the first of several
       recommended changes not requiring amendment of the
       Act, that the Provost, Vice-President
       (Administration) and the Vice-President (Research)
       no longer be members of the Board of Governors.

B.   The Role of the Deans in Senate: The committee
       heard several times that Faculty Deans should not
       continue to be ex officio voting members of Senate
       because their role has essentially become that of
       middle managers. According to this view, Deans are
       not primarily concerned with academic matters but
       with administration. However, the committee notes
       that the University's basic strategic objective,
       expressed in Leadership in Learning, is to achieve
       a place in the first rank of major Canadian
       universities by supporting academic distinction.
       The Deans play a major role in generating that
       support by leadership and example.

       The fundamental principles of excellence,
       selectivity and accountability are equally ones
       that call for the Deans to take full responsibility
       as academic leaders. Academic leadership is the
       primary criterion of their selection by broadly-
       based committees and they continue as full members
       of faculty during the time they also serve as
       Deans. Furthermore, the Strategic Plan also makes
       clear that the contribution which Deans should be
       expected to make in fact is in furtherance of the
       academic standing of the University as a whole
       without separate, much less primary, regard for
       their individual Faculties. To have the Deans
       participate as full voting members of Senate
       affirms for everyone their primary responsibility
       as academic leaders.

C.   The Role of the President and Vice-Chancellor as
       Chair of Senate: The Committee remains of the view
       that the President and Vice-Chancellor should
       continue to be Chair of Senate. Indeed,
       submissions to the contrary reveal the need to
       emphasize that the University's leader holds the
       dual position of President and Vice-Chancellor. It
       is in the capacity as President and chief executive
       officer that he participates in meetings of the
       Board, and in the capacity of Vice-Chancellor that
       he presides at Senate. Appreciation of this
       distinction means that the fundamental academic
       mission of the University, and of Senate as its
       governing body in academic matters, is reinforced
       when the President and Vice-Chancellor is its
       Chair. By making the President and Vice-Chancellor
       the spokesperson of its senior academic
       deliberative body, the University enhances the
       authority of Senate far more than would an elected
       Chair. Indeed, when the President brings to the
       Board of Governors resolutions that have been
       passed by the Senate, he does so as the Chair of
       Senate and as an advocate for the decisions that
       Senate has seen fit to make.

       In addition, it must again be emphasized that
       Senate does not operate on a parliamentary model.
       The President and Vice-Chancellor of the University
       is not in the same position as a Premier or a Prime
       Minister, holding the position by virtue of being
       the leader of the governing party. Instead, he is
       the leader of the entire University and this role
       is not compromised but enhanced when he sits in the
       Chair of Senate. Over the years, the demonstrated
       ability and willingness of incumbents to relinquish
       the Chair in order to enter substantive debate has
       ensured that Senate has had the benefit of the
       views of the President and Vice-Chancellor on
       important matters before it.

D.   Other Matters of Senate's Composition: As for
       other issues concerning the composition of Senate,
       the committee is guided by Section 29's
       identification of Senate's fundamental
       responsibility as "the academic policy of the
       University". It is therefore necessary that
       Senate's composition reflect a broad spectrum of
       academic and disciplinary experience and
       perspective among its members. We therefore accept
       that a clear majority of seats in the Senate should
       be filled by members holding academic appointments
       and that the next largest proportional
       representation should be drawn from the student
       body.

       The committee again wishes to emphasize that
       notions of narrow "constituency representation" or
       "block voting" are undesirable and should not be
       encouraged. Senate should enable the
       representation of a diversity of views but many of
       the requests that the committee heard for increased
       representation came from the groups themselves and
       seemed to have more to do with increasing the
       influence of the particular group. The committee
       does note that Section 24.(1)(a) and 24.(2) give to
       Senate, subject to the final approval of the
       Lieutenant-Governor-in-Council, authority to adjust
       the proportional representation.

       The committee notes that the composition of Senate
       will change when the two new merged Faculties
       become operational in 1997. First, the net number
       of Deans on Senate will be reduced by four. Senate
       will also have the opportunity to allocate an
       appropriate number of Senate seats to the new
       Faculties. The Act allows one elected
       representative per Faculty, by Senate resolution,
       but if it is agreed that there is to be more than
       one, according to the Act, the Senate will apply to
       the Lieutenant-Governor-in-Council for this
       variance.

5.RECOMMENDED CHANGES NOT REQUIRING AMENDMENT OF THE ACT

The committee has made only a single formal
recommendation to the Board of Governors and Senate.
However, we invite the Board and Senate to consider
independently the additional recommendations listed
below.

In original submissions and those made following the
release of the Draft Final Report, numerous suggestions
were made for detailed changes that are within the
Board's or Senate's ability to enact as either sees fit.
The Committee has selected only a few of these which it
believes should be given early consideration. The Board
and the Senate may, on their own initiative, choose to
pursue additional suggestions. This is already
happening; for example, the Board is looking for a new
location for its regular meetings to increase openness
and accessibility.

A. Composition of the Board of Governors

Recommendation to the Board of Governors:

            That the Board of Governors rescind its
            earlier resolutions to appoint three of the
            vice-presidents to membership on the Board of
            Governors and resolve that all vice-presidents
            will be invited to attend all Board meetings
            where they will participate at the request of
            the Board.

Impact:

       The vice-presidents will no longer count among the
       number of voting members of the Board. However,
       they will continue to attend all Board meetings,
       both open and closed, and will participate, except
       that they may not move or second motions, or vote.

       In effect, the vice-presidents will attend Board
       meetings as agents of the President, in recognition
       of their direct accountability to the Board and
       obvious resource function. It is not anticipated
       that they will function as Board members who are
       merely non-voting; rather, their role is to be
       responsive. This is a significant point in light
       of the request, made in response to the Draft Final
       Report, that the Presidents of the Faculty
       Association, the USC, SOGS and MBAA be granted
       participating, ex officio "voice but no vote"
       status at the Board. The Committee cannot support
       this request, for two reasons. First, the granting
       of such status would carry with it the expectation
       that the grantees would speak on behalf of the
       interests of their respective constituencies.
       Indeed, their presence at the Board table is
       predicated on their filling that very role which is
       directly at odds with the role of all Board members
       to fulfil their responsibilities in the best
       interests of the whole University. Second, the
       granting of such ex officio status would inevitably
       lead to an undesirable focus on matters of
       administrative detail rather than on matters of
       policy and strategic planning and direction.

       The overall size of the Board will be reduced from
       30 to 27 voting members without making any change
       to the statutes. Of the voting members, 17 (or
       63%) will be external and 10 (or 37%) will be
       internal. This satisfies Recommendation 3
       [4.4.2,p. 40] of the Broadhurst Report that Boards
       should consist of both external and internal
       members, with a majority of external members. The
       Broadhurst Report further suggested that in
       institutions with a bi-cameral structure, external
       members should comprise at least 60% and internal
       members at least 30%.

       If the Board ceases to exercise its option to
       appoint up to three vice-presidents, the number of
       voting members will fall from 30 to 27. Of the 27
       voting members remaining, four are ex officio, nine
       are elected by internal constituencies, and there
       are 14 external members, elected or appointed by
       various bodies: two by the Council of the City of
       London; four by the Alumni Association; four by the
       Lieutenant-Governor-in-Council and four by the
       Board of Governors itself. This appointment
       process contrasts with the impression, held by some
       who made submissions, that the Board of Governors
       is a self-selecting and therefore self-perpetuating
       body. Each of the external bodies - City Council,
       the Alumni Association and the Lieutenant-Governor-
       in-Council - has its own procedures for selecting
       its appointees and the Board of Governors may or
       may not be invited to offer suggestions. The Board
       of Governors therefore has only four seats to which
       it can make appointments. Members typically serve
       for eight years so opportunities for the Board to
       name members are infrequent.

B. Identification and Selection of External Appointees
to the Board of Governors

Recommendation to the Board of Governors:

            That the Board of Governors develop and
            implement procedures for the identification
            and selection of external appointees to the
            Board of Governors.

       The committee agrees with the view that the Board
       must clearly articulate to the broad community how
       its members are chosen. The procedures might
       contain a profile of the Board, including the
       principle responsibilities of the Board, the
       desirable mix of skills on the Board overall, the
       legal responsibilities of Board members, and an
       estimate of the amount of time members should
       expect to commit to serving on the Board and its
       committees. While the Board itself appoints only
       four members, the information contained in the
       profile should be useful to other bodies that
       appoint external members to the Board (e.g., the
       City, the Lieutenant-Governor-in-Council, and the
       Alumni Association).

C. Expanded Role for the Campus and Community Affairs
Committee of the Board

Recommendation to the Board of Governors:

            That the Board of Governors establish a
            schedule of meetings and procedures for the
            Campus and Community Affairs Committee to
            provide a regular forum for campus groups, and
            organizations external to the University
            community, to bring their concerns to the
            attention of the committee. The committee
            should report and, where appropriate, make
            recommendations to the Board on the
            submissions it has heard.

       A number of submissions to the committee centred on
       the relationship of the University to the
       community, and the inability of individuals or
       groups to address the Board of Governors directly.
       Although the committee was not convinced that Board
       meetings would be the appropriate venue for such
       representations, it was persuaded that there is a
       need to improve communication by providing a way in
       which members of the community might make their
       views known.

       The terms of reference of the Campus and Community
       Affairs Committee (CCAC) of the Board (Annex 3)
       reveal that it is particularly suited to responding
       to requests from various groups who wish greater
       access to the Board of Governors.

       The procedures called for by this motion would need
       to identify the mode of "application" to be heard
       and should be expected to provide that the meetings
       where such representations would be heard would
       normally be open to the public.

       It is important to stress that the CCAC, in its
       expanded role, is not expected to undertake a role
       as a "court of appeal" for individuals who may find
       themselves unsatisfied with a decision of the
       University's administration (e.g., parking
       tickets), if it is a routine matter which the
       administration is expected and mandated to resolve.
       The CCAC normally would deal with such general
       issues and concerns as would be appropriate for
       eventual consideration by the Board of Governors.

D. The Openness of Board Deliberations

The Board's By-Laws state:

            Subject to limitations of space, meetings of
            the Board shall be open to attendance by the
            public except during a closed session so
            designated for the consideration of
            confidential business, such as matters
            concerning personnel, finance, acquisition or
            disposal of property, and other confidential
            matters of the University, the disclosure of
            which might be prejudicial to an individual or
            to the best interests of the University.

       Naturally, this requires that the Board conduct
       some substantial business in closed session.
       However, to counter the perception that the Board's
       meetings are somehow secretive and inaccessible,
       the committee makes the following recommendation:

Recommendation to the Board of Governors:

            That one Board meeting each year be held at an
            off-campus location and a second meeting each
            year be held at a different on-campus
            location, and that both of these venues be
            advertised to the public.

Recommendation to the Board of Governors:

            That the Board of Governors review its policy
            and practice concerning in camera sessions of
            the Board and its committees with a view to
            providing openness with due respect for
            confidentiality.

E. Terminating the Membership of Members Who Become
Inactive

Recommendation to the Board of Governors:

            That the Board of Governors, pursuant to
            Sections 12 (3) and (4) of the Act, develop a
            by-law for the termination of appointed or
            elected members who become inactive on the
            Board.

Recommendation to the Senate:

            That the Senate, pursuant to Sections 26 (3)
            and (4) of the Act, develop a by-law for the
            termination of appointed or elected members
            who become inactive on the Senate.

       In each case, the governing body will have to set
       attendance standards and a procedure for declaring
       the member's seat vacant.

F. Presidential Selection Committee

       [This follows on a 1993 recommendation of the Board
       of Governors that the selection committee for
       President include at least one student.]

Recommendation to the Senate:

            That the Senate, with due regard to the
            composition and rules of procedure for a
            presidential selection committee as set out in
            Section 19(a) of the UWO Act, recommend to the
            Board of Governors a way to ensure that there
            is at least one student on a presidential
            selection committee.

This will involve development of a new section of
Appointments Procedures.

Respectfully submitted,

Peter Mercer (Chair)
Gillian Anderson
Lillian Bramwell
Bob Colcleugh
Bill Darling
Paul Davenport
Jim Etherington
Libby Fowler
Jim Good
Les Murison
Bill Peel
Brian Timney

November 11, 1996

Attachments:

Annex 1 - List of those who made written and/or oral submissions to the
Committee
Annex 2 - Summary of issues (mechanisms for change)
Annex 3 - Terms of Reference - Campus & Community Affairs Committee