Report of the Senate Committee on University Planning

Senate Agenda - EXHIBIT IV- June 19, 1998


1. First-Year Enrolment and Admissions Policy

[S.1045 (1971); S.1996.1 (1975); S.2961.1 (1980); S.93-89 (1993); S.96-43 (1996)]


(a) That the minimum admission average for 1998-99 be 75% for entry into any first year program in the Constituent University (except those in which a performance based assessment is required), and in no case in the future shall the minimum admission average be set below 75%.

(b) That in 1999-2000 the minimum admission average be set at 75% or higher to achieve the maximum enrolment target of 3,950 full-time first-year students.

(c) That in 2000-2001 the minimum admission average be set at 75% or higher to achieve the Senate-approved maximum enrolment target of 3,750 full-time first-year students.


Senate first adopted a policy of limiting first-year enrolment to 4000 in 1971 (S.1045); this target was reaffirmed in 1975, 1980, and 1986.

In 1993, the University Research Board recommended reduction of the first-year full-time enrolment to 3,750. The Senior Planning Group, in a report to the University in March 1993, endorsed the recommendation and proposed to reduce first-year intake to 3,750 over three years. This plan was initially approved by Senate and the Board in the context of the 1993-94 budget and again in Leadership in Learning, Western's Strategic Plan (Recommendation 1.5). A falling BIU count required the University to expand temporarily the first-year intake, and in 1996 Senate authorized a temporary reversion to the 4000 first-year admission target. BIU counts have now stabilized and are above the corridor floor. [See Appendix 1. This graph was not available for the World Wide Web.]

The intention behind the strategic direction to limit enrolment to 3,750 was to improve the University's ability to attract and retain students with very good academic records -- students who will improve the overall quality of the educational experience and who are most likely to complete their degrees. This objective was strengthened in 1996 when Senate set the minimum average for admission to first year programs at 75% (S.96-43). Given the relatively small population of the region, and the intention of maintaining a high admission average, 3,750 is a realistic recruitment target for the University.

2. Update of the Campus Master Plan (1998)

Recommended: That the Senate approve in principle the attached draft "Update of the Campus Master Plan (1998)" (Appendix 2, shown below) and the concepts contained therein on the understanding that the Administration will undertake consultations with affected groups or individuals with the prospect of a public meeting to discuss the Update of the Campus Master Plan (1998) in the fall of 1998 under the direction of the Chair of the Board. A final document will be proposed for approval by the Senate and Board of Governors thereafter.

3. 125th Anniversary Campaign Financing

Recommended: That the Senate approve and recommend to the Board of Governors, through the Vice-Chancellor, the proposed budget for the 125th Anniversary Campaign, including the 1% levy on endowments and the 5% levy on all tax receiptable gifts beginning on May 1, 1998, detailed in Appendix 3.

Mr. Garrard will elaborate on the proposal at the Senate meeting.

4. Terms of Reference of the Academic Development Fund

Recommended: That Category B of the Academic Development Fund be discontinued, as indicated in the 1998-99 University budget, and that the terms of reference for the Academic Development Fund be amended as shown in Appendix 4 (below).


As indicated in the 1998-99 University Budget, there is no longer a need for ADF Category B. For the last several years, 0.25% of the annual operating budget was set aside to provide bridge-funding for new faculty appointments. The elimination of the turnover savings recovery policy and the introduction of the Special Faculty Renewal Initiative (SFRI) make the ADF-B redundant.

What was ADF Category A -- now to be known simply as the Academic Development Fund (ADF) -- will continue to be funded at the rate of not less than 0.5% of the distributable operating revenue of the University's budget. Should there be any upward adjustment to ADF funding, this would appear as a recommendation within the University's Operating Budget as recommended by SCUP to the Senate.

5. Tuition Fees for Medical Residents

Recommended: That Senate approve and recommend to the Board of Governors that:

(i) A tuition fee of $1,500 be levied for students entering Medical Residency programs in 1999-2000;

(ii) Students currently enrolled and enrolling in 1998-99 will not pay fees for the duration of their Residencies;

(iii) The Board will set the fee each year, effective July 1 the following year. The standard "grandparenting" clause will apply: for students continuing in a Medical Residency program, the maximum increase in fees will be no greater than 20% in any one year.


Medical Residents are full-time post-graduate students whose enrolment counts for 2.5 BIUs in the funding formula. They are the only students who have not been charged fees, because universities in Ontario have not permitted by government to charge fees in years past. The situation has changed: control over fees for Medical Residents has been granted to university Boards of Governors by the Ontario Ministry of Education and Training. Medical Residents currently pay fees in the provinces of Quebec, Nova Scotia and Alberta; correspondent "registration fees" are collected from Medical Residents in Manitoba, Alberta, Newfoundland, and at some universities in Ontario.

In addition to their status as students, Medical Residents provide valuable services within the hospitals and serve in certain contexts as instructors. For these services, they are paid by the Ministry of Health, according to provincial guidelines, annual salaries ranging from $37,974 (PGY1) to $53,738 (PGY5) The $1,500 fee is considerably less than the average fee charged to graduate students (about $4,800 in 1998-99) and is intended to be a contribution to the cost of the education these students receive from clinical faculty in the Faculty of Medicine & Dentistry. The University pays approximately 25% of the compensation (salary and benefits) of the clinical faculty.

In addition to access to clinical education, services provided to Medical Residents by the University include a number of administrative services through the Office of Postgraduate Medical Education in the Faculty of Medicine &Dentistry, including:


1. Integrated Research Institute

A comprehensive report on the Integrated Research Institute is attached as Appendix 5. Copies are available from the University Secretariat, Room 290, Stevenson-Lawson Building.

2. Report on new Graduate Scholarships/Awards/Bursaries

SCUP has approved on behalf of Senate the terms of reference for new scholarships, bursaries, prizes and awards shown below. These will be recommended to the Board of Governors, through the Vice-Chancellor, for approval.

Eve Harp and Judith Wiley Classical Studies Travel Award (Faculty of Graduate Studies, Arts Division [Classical Studies])

Awarded annually based on academic achievement to a graduate or undergraduate student in Classical Studies, to assist with travel costs for research at libraries or sites anywhere in the world, but especially Greece or Italy. Preference will be given to graduate students. The recipient will be selected by the Faculty of Arts Scholarship Committee in consultation with the Graduate Chair of Classical Studies. This award was established through Foundation Western by Eve Harp (BA '92) and Judith Wiley.

Value: $500
Effective: May 1997

Martin J. Bass - P.S.I. Foundation OSOTF Awards (3) (Faculty of Graduate Studies, Biosciences Division, [Family Medicine])

Awarded annually to part-time graduate students in the Master of Clinical Science Program offered by the Department of Family Medicine who have their Family Practice Certification (or equivalent certification from another country), have a minimum B average or equivalent, and demonstrate the greatest financial need. Application forms can be obtained from the Department of Family Medicine, Graduate Studies Program, and must be completed and returned by August 15. Selection will be made by the Director of Graduate Studies in Family Medicine in consultation with a committee. These awards have been made possible by a generous contribution from The Physicians' Services Incorporated Foundation in honor of the late Dr. Martin J. Bass (MSc '76).

Value: $2,000
Effective: May 1998

These awards will receive matched funding from the Ontario Government through the Ontario Student Opportunity Trust Fund program.

Leola E. Neal Memorial Award (Faculty of Graduate Studies, Biosciences Division [Psychology])

Awarded each Fall for the most outstanding MA thesis in any of the following subject areas in the Graduate Psychology Program: clinical, developmental, education, industrial/organizational, measurement, personality or social psychology. Students who are graduating in the Fall or who graduated in the Spring of the same calendar year will be eligible for consideration. After graduation the recipient must be immediately continuing as a full-time student in a doctoral program in Psychology at any university. The Graduate Studies Committee in the Department of Psychology will select the recipient. This award was established through Foundation Western by family and friends of the late Leola E. Neal, a former faculty member and Dean of Women.

Value: $450
Effective: May 1998

Ross and Jean Clark Scholarships (2) (Faculty of Graduate Studies, Physical Sciences Division [Engineering])

Awarded to graduate students specializing in Environmental Engineering who have achieved the highest academic average. The recipients will be selected by the Graduate Committee of the Faculty of Engineering Science on the recommendation of the Associate Dean, Research and Graduate Studies. This Scholarship was made possible by the generosity of Ross and Jean Clark to assist graduate students specializing in Environmental Engineering in the Faculty of Engineering Science at Western.

Value: $1,000
Effective: May 1998

Local Government Program Alumni Bursary (Faculty of Graduate Studies, Social Sciences Division [Public Administration])

Awarded to a graduate student who is registered part-time or full-time in the Faculty of Graduate Studies and is enrolled in the Master of Public Administration program, who demonstrates the greatest financial need. Selection of the recipient will be made by the Admissions Committee for the MPA program. This bursary was made possible by the generosity of Local Government Program alumni and supporters through Foundation Western.

Value: $250
Effective: May 1998

This bursary will receive matched funding from the Ontario Government through the Ontario Student Opportunity Trust Fund program.

Paul de Mayo Award for Excellence in Chemical Research (Faculty of Graduate Studies, Physical Sciences Division [Chemistry] )

This award is to recognize achievement and potential in research work in Chemistry among graduate students at UWO. Candidates must have satisfactorily completed all requirements for the PhD degree including oral examination during a twelve-month period prior to the annual competition. Normally candidates would be enrolled in the graduate program in Chemistry, however, students enrolled in a cognate discipline such as Physics or Biochemistry may be eligible if their research director is a regular faculty member in the Chemistry Department. Details of the nomination procedure are available from the Department of Chemistry. This award was established through Foundation Western by the family and friends of Paul de Mayo.

Value: Medal, certificate and a cash amount (determined annually by the Chemistry Endowment Committee in conjunction with Foundation Western).
Effective: 1996

Senate Agenda - EXHIBIT IV - June 19, 1998 - Appendix 2


[The figures and plans referred to in this document are unavailable on the World Wide Web.]

The current Campus Master Plan was initiated in 1989 by the Ad Hoc Campus Master Planning Committee; this document is an update to that Master Plan and, upon approval, will be appended to it. The Committee's purpose was to produce a document that would:

Consonant with the academic mission of the University, the Master Plan urged fundamental commitment to a physical environment that would enrich the quality of campus life: the attraction of the University's physical environment was recognized as an important element in positioning The University of Western Ontario as a desirable destination for post-secondary students. To this end, the authors created a conceptual framework for land use planning and capital development and oriented their report around the following planning principles:

In overview, the Campus Master Plan seeks to:

These principles were supported by recommendations for land use, capital development, and traffic flow (pedestrian and vehicular), followed by a series of Design Guidelines which define Western's architectural identity. Suggestions about specific projects illustrated the effect that application of the strategies would have on the overall integrity of the campus.

The fluidity apparent in the Master Plan thus established a framework for University planning that made allowance for changes in operational requirements and reassessment of land use priorities: decision makers confronting changing conditions could rely on the Plan's principles in advancing or rejecting development proposals.

The 1997-98 Year

In 1997, an unusual amalgam of obstacles and opportunities propelled the Campus Master Plan into prominence for just these reasons: changing conditions required assessment and rejection of development options. Significantly, The University of Western Ontario is now the principal venue for an Athlete's Village and multi-use stadium which will accommodate participants in the next century's first Canada Games. In our own realm, Western's popularity as a preferred destination for University studies has been evident in this year's increases in applications and enrolment. (So many first year students took up the offer of residence accommodation in 1997-98 that on-campus housing was filled to capacity.) Admission data for 1998-99 indicate that this situation will continue until the new University Drive residence is opened in September 1999. Classroom, multi-purpose and storage space are in short supply, and there is need for technological enhancement of most scholastic settings. The need for funding of deferred maintenance and reconfiguration of existing facilities continues to outpace the ability or willingness of the provincial government to provide it.

It is in the context of these challenges that the University reaffirms its commitment to the themes espoused in the 1994 Campus Master Plan. The Board of Governors intends to honor its obligations to ensure responsible management of capital planning and overall growth of the University.

But today's snapshot of suggested campus development projects differs from the images presented in 1994. Alternate strategies are now necessary to enable the University to adjust to changing conditions.

A brief synopsis of the forces that have triggered the need for change, is set out below.

Economic Pressures

Enrolment Trends and Academic Challenges

Land Management Practices

Reconciling Principles With Pressures

Construction of the Canada Games Stadium is the most ambitious capital development project confronting the University in the next five years. Alongside our desire to furnish the stage for the best Games ever, the University is committed to construction of a long-term facility which will provide extended use for both the University and residents of the City of London.

In 1994, the Althouse College site was recommended as a desirable location for construction of such a stadium; in 1998, the preferred site is an acreage of marginal value property south of the Huron Flats Parking Lot.

Relocation of the Stadium would recognize the academic value of the land now occupied by the J.W. Little Stadium and afford an opportunity to reconfigure other facets of the campus community. (The existing stadium occupies a 10 acre parcel of land in a central campus location.) This will become prime space for academic buildings with badly needed large classrooms that will draw students to the centre of the campus.

The growth anticipated within Engineering Science and the Ivey School of Business may support relocation of these Faculties through expansion or new construction. Relocation by either of these Faculties or an alternate would create an opening to move the Faculty of Education to the core campus. A shift of this nature would align the majority of UWO buildings located to the west of Western Road in the northern half of the campus, contiguous with Huron College and the largest student residences.

The Fram Lands, situated west of Brescia College, were initially acquired as a buffering zone between residential properties and the University's Western Road holdings. These lands continue to lie dormant but offer potential for sale or development. Any such decision would be taken only after consultation with the City of London and our neighbors.

A smaller parcel of dormant land lies to the south, surrounding Grosvenor Lodge. (Some years ago, the University transferred ownership of Grosvenor Lodge to the City of London but retained ownership of surrounding lands fronting on Platt's Lane and Western Road.) This site is considered suitable for housing families and/or graduate students given its proximity to the housing complex known as Platt's Lane Estates. Again, such use would be contemplated only after consultation with the City and the community.

To the east, stadium construction on the Huron Flats would reduce greenspace and the number of playing fields in the vicinity. The University proposes to offset the resulting shortfall with a revised configuration of open space and more intensive use of the Stadium infield. The University does not presently intend to develop access to the area known as the Baldwin Flats and there is no current proposal to develop athletic playing fields east of the Thames River. Any future consideration for use of the Baldwin Flats for light recreational purposes would also occur only after consultation with the City of London and the surrounding neighborhood. In the face of all present factors, the University intends to accommodate the requirements of Campus Recreation and other field athletics needs on lands located on the western side of the river.

Announcement of the Canada Foundation for Innovation (CFI) and the Ontario Research and Development Challenge Fund (ORDCF) by the federal and provincial governments respectively has created an opportunity for the University to seek funds for research-related initiatives. Construction of a 70,000 square ft building for use as an Advanced Research Institute may be possible on the site of the existing Bio-Engineering Building if adequate funding is available.

Statement of Intention

The 1994 Campus Master Plan was adopted by the University's Board of Governors on January 26, 1995. Considered a pivotal policy, the Master Plan has been a reference point for administrative decision making since that time -- a living document, as its authors intended. In the intervening years, the Master Plan has indeed provided a "framework for future development of The University of Western Ontario".

This Master Plan identifies the planning principles which will guide future decision making at the University. These are supported by recommendations for land use, building, architectural, transportation, circulation and landscape strategies, along with detailed Design Guidelines for implementation. The principles are illustrated by a range of project-specific developments and initiatives. The latter represent articulations of the effect of the applications of the strategies outlined in the Master Plan, rather than an obligation by the University Administration to implement individual projects in a particular way. [Campus Master Plan @ 1-1]

This amendment to the Campus Master Plan is consistent with its predecessor and is drafted to record the academic and operational changes which are influencing campus development.

First and foremost, the University endorses the principles set out in the 1994 Campus Master Plan and affirms their continuing validity. The University confirms its preparedness to apply the principles in matters of capital development and to strive for optimal balance when reconciling competing pressures. As before, the siting of buildings portrayed in this amendment is illustrative only. The University asserts its intention to govern effectively, and to do so in a fashion which advances the academic and professional needs of its students and employees. These perspectives will prevail, but they will not operate to the exclusion of information appraisal of the impact of development on those who reside in neighborhoods adjacent to the campus.

The Subcommittee on Capital Allocations (SUCA) has been reconstituted and assumes responsibility for examination of capital development projects which require the approval of the University's Senate and Board of Governors. Revised Terms of Reference are appended.


Consultation on the potential development of major projects involving land use, or amendment to the Campus Master Plan, will initially be the responsibility of the Administration which will discuss proposals informally with the community and the City of London. Formal broad consultation under the direction of the Chair of the Board of Governors will then take place.


Terms of Reference

To provide critical appraisal and recommendation of the capital plan to SCUP

To recommend to SCUP budget allocations for the capital plan and on an annual basis to establish the distribution of available funds between rehabilitation and facility adaptation

To be responsible for adherence to or amendment of the Campus Master Plan

To receive detailed reports from architects, consultants and others relative to any capital project affecting the Campus Master Plan

To review any capital building addition or external modification exceeding expenditures of $500,000; any landscape project in the core campus exceeding 5,000 square ft in area or expenditures of $100,000; any other project considered by the Administration or the Subcommittee to have significance for the campus as a whole

Four members appointed by SCUP, at least two of whom are members of SCUP

Ex officio:
Chair of SCUP
Vice-President (Administration)
Senior Director, Physical Plant and Capital Planning Services
Planning Analyst, Institutional Planning and Budget
Manager, Occupational Health and Safety

Executive Officer, SCUP (non-voting)

Resource: Associate Director of Physical Plant
Supervisor, Special and Capital Funds

Membership Cycle: July 1 - June 30
Officers: Chair and Vice-Chair elected at the first meeting following election of new members
Meetings: Once monthly, or as required
(Subject to approval by Senate, June 19, 1998)

Senate Agenda - EXHIBIT IV - June 19, 1998 - Appendix 3

Campaign Office - Memorandum

To: Members of Senate

From: Ted Garrard, Vice-President (External)

Kevin Goldthorp, Campaign Director

Date: June 11, 1998

RE: Campaign Financing Proposal

The University is nearing completion of planning for its first institution-wide fundraising campaign since the Renaissance Campaign in 1994. This memo summarizes campaign progress to date, outlines plans for the campaign, and proposes a self-financing model that is responsible and effective.

Activity to Date

Planning began in April 1997 and encompasses an unparalleled level of consultation with faculty members from all units of the University. All faculty members have had an opportunity to identify projects that meet the strategic direction of departments, Faculties, or units, and which require private-sector support to generate required financial resources. Projects have been assessed at Faculty-wide meetings, and then taken to external groups of volunteers for additional review and suggestions. Once completed, these steps have provided sufficient input to form a first-round list of campaign projects and preliminary estimate of a fundraising goal for each Faculty/unit. This process is complete for Engineering Science and Law; it is in various states of progress for all other units of the University.

Policy and planning work is also ongoing to provide the staffing model, volunteer support, procedural blueprint and policy recommendations that will guide us through the Campaign.

Significant success has already been realized:

$2 million endowment from the Richard and Jean Ivey Fund for a Chair in Molecular Toxicology;
US$1 million for the Joseph Weider Chair in Exercise Nutrition;
Approximately $1 million pledged to date to fund the Weldon Library renovation project;
the first $100,000 personal gift secured to our Canada Foundation for Innovation bid;
three volunteer chairs recruited to lead our campaign efforts:
Claude Pensa, Chair, Library Campaign;
Virginia Dybenko, Chair, Engineering Science Campaign;
Peter Lockyer, Co-Chair, Law Campaign.
The campaign will encompass all of the University's fundraising initiatives, including our $15 million fundraising partnership with the Host Society, Canada 2001 Games for the Stadium/Games initiative and the $75 million Richard Ivey School of Business campaign. Preliminary estimates of our campaign projects total $179 million, which when combined with the Ivey and Stadium/Games projects, suggest a final campaign goal of $269 million, or more accurately, a goal between $250 and $300 million. While this is not the final campaign target (extensive work must still be done before this is determined), an objective of this size represents a very significant target that will be substantially greater than the Renaissance Campaign achievement. Moreover, this target represents tax receiptable gifts only, and excludes government matching funds and contract research funds.

Financing Proposal

To effectively resource an undertaking of this scope and magnitude, it is imperative that the University invest in its fundraising infrastructure. This investment must be predicated on a model that provides a cost-efficient yet effective and stable means of supporting the campaign. The following model addresses this need.

Three forms of financial support are requested:

An increase of the levy on University-held endowments from 0.5% to 1.0%;
Commencement of a 5% fundraising levy on all tax receiptable gifts to the University, effective May 1, 1998;
The use of interest on all fund balances held by advancement services before transfer of funds to specific projects.

The 1% endowment levy is comparable with that in place at Foundation Western and at many other universities in Canada. The 5% fundraising level is comparable with the first-year charge levied by Foundation Western, and is reasonable in light of much higher fundraising costs at other Canadian non-profit institutions.

It is anticipated that these fundraising levies will generate, approximately, between one and two million dollars annually, depending upon cash flows, to support fundraising requirements (see Appendix 1. Copies are available from the University Secretariat ).

Principal expenses associated with the Campaign will be salaries and benefits, totaling 71% of projected costs. Built into the funding model is a margin of comfort to accommodate variations in revenue and cash flows. Overall, the model is designed to ensure that there is no impact on the operating budget of the University, and that after all pledges are collected, the campaign will be completely self-financing. Finally, all positions associated with the campaign are slated to wind down at the end of fiscal year 2003/04. At that time, the University has the option of exploring ways to continue the campaign level of development and alumni relations support to its Faculties.

We look forward to your support, and a successful campaign.

Senate Agenda - EXHIBIT IV - June 19, 1998 - Appendix 4

Changes are shown in brackets below for World Wide Web Users.




The purpose of the funds is to promote the academic development of the University by assisting with the start-up and transition costs associated with [ADD: innovative} academic development projects. [DELETE: when sufficient funding is not otherwise available.] [ADD: The Academic Development Fund is not intended for the support or maintenance of existing or ongoing programs.]


[DELETE THIS PARAGRAPH: In the administration of the fund, projects are divided into two categories: A: Special Projects, and B: Faculty Development. The relative funding of the two categories is normally up to 1/2 of 1% of the distributable operating revenue for Category A and up to 1/4 of 1% for Category B, but may be varied by the Senate Committee on University Planning (SCUP) on an annual basis provided the total of 3/4 of 1% of the Operating Budget is maintained. ]

[ADD THIS PARAGRAPH: Not less than one-half of one percent (0.5%) of the distributable operating revenue of the University's budget is made available to the Academic Development Fund to support Special Projects under the guidelines set out below.]

SCUP has authority over the Academic Development Fund under the following terms:

1. To report allocations to the Board of Governors, through the Vice-Chancellor, on behalf of Senate, on advice of its Subcommittee on Priorities in Academic Development (SUPAD)

2. To prepare, in consultation with SUPAD, a rolling five-year budget for the Academic Development Fund, which shall include all allocations already made or projected.

3. To adhere to the guidelines detailed below in preparing recommendations for allocations.

4. To report to the Senate, at least annually.


1.0 Projects [DELETE: in this category] eligible for Academic Development Fund support include:

1.1 The initiation of outstanding scholarly endeavours or frontier research. Projects of this sort are expected to be innovative in the discipline in which they arise and to represent a significant departure from existing research lines at UWO.

1.2 The support of scholarly acquisitions.

1.3 The extension, enrichment or modification of undergraduate or graduate teaching programs.

1.4 The reorganization of an academic department or program.

1.5 The establishment of a collaborative or other special teaching facility.

2.0 Applications may be made by individuals, disciplinary teams, and cross-and-interdisciplinary teams, including those with external matching funds, with the proviso that the principal applicants be regular, full-time employees of the University. [Special consideration may be given to those applications where careful integration and campus-wide planning is evident.]

3.0 Funds may be requested for equipment, supplies, [ADD: travel] or services, or for the salaries of research personnel, but not for the salaries of faculty members or equivalent. The ADF will rarely provide support for persons involved in academic collaboration with the applicant (for example, postdoctoral fellows or graduate students). Applicant(s) requesting such support must present specific justification with respect to the project and to the particular individuals.

4.0 The purchase of equipment, supplies or services intended only to maintain existing programs or projects will not normally be supported by the ADF. If such funds are requested, the continued academic importance of these programs or projects must be justified.

5.0 Instruction related computer and other information technology proposals are NOT eligible for funding under the ADF. Such projects should be submitted for support as part of the annual planning process in Faculties, with appropriate consultation with SCITS. Applications involving computers where such involvement is part of innovative academic activity will be considered for funding under the ADF.

6.0 Projects are expected to continue beyond the period of ADF funding and to become self-supporting, either from outside funds or from the regular budget of the Faculty or Department concerned; all ADF allocations are made on a "once only" or a "phasing-out" basis.

6.1 Funding will not normally be provided for more than three years, and never for more than five.

6.2 Plans for the long-term funding of the project must be outlined in the application.

7.0 Projects below $15,000 will be adjudicated by SUPAD, which may then make funding recommendations without the assistance of external referees. [ALL projects must be accompanied by the names of referees.] Projects with budgets less than $5,000 will not normally be considered.

8.0 SUPAD shall determine whether to seek advice from external referees on applications to the ADF, and may make funding recommendations without assistance from referees. [All applications must include the names of 5 potential referees and their area(s) of expertise.]

9.0 ADF funds may be combined with funds from other sources in supporting a project, and where appropriate, outside funding must be applied for. The advice of the University Research Office must be sought on the question of the appropriateness of soliciting outside funds, and that office will help in the identification of likely sources. An account of the search for outside funds, or an explanation of its inappropriateness, must be included in the application.

10.0 The application must describe any space requirements of the project. When there are space requirements, SUPAD shall consult with the [DELETE: SCUP Subcommittee on Capital Allocations (SUCA)][ADD: Physical Plant & Capital Planning Services] before reporting to SCUP.

11.0 [ITEM WAS #13] The application must be accompanied by a statement from the Dean or Deans concerned dealing with any space requirements and with plans for the long-term funding of the project.

12.0 [ITEM WAS #11] Where the proposal has computing requirements, SUPAD shall consult with the Senate Committee on Information Technology and Services (SCITS) before reporting to SCUP.

13.0 [ITEM WAS #12] Where the proposal affects the academic programs of other academic units, SUPAD shall consult with the Senate Committee on Academic Policy and Admissions (SCAPA) before reporting to SCUP.

14.0 The examination of an application will normally include the assistance or advice of appraisers from outside the University. The appraisers will be selected by SUPAD, and must be "at arm's length" from the project and the applicant.

15.0 Proposals for Special Projects are evaluated by SUPAD, which makes funding recommendations to SCUP.

16.0 The Director of each project shall submit a Final Report to SUPAD within six months of the expiration of the grant. Directors of continuing projects shall submit interim reports annually. Their reports shall include sections outlining the objectives of the project, its budget, and an evaluation of the results.