From: Marc Richard
Sent: Monday, September 21, 2009 10:04 AM
Cc: Marc Richard
Subject: Senate Meeting Report, 2009-09-16
Colleagues,
The following is a summary of the Senate meeting which took place on Wednesday, September 16, 2009.
The meeting began with Dean Grant presenting a resolution on the death of Professor Keith Worsley.
Senate adopted the minutes of the last Senate meeting (http://www.mcgill.ca/files/senate/SenateMinutesMay202009.pdf), the report of the Steering Committee (http://www.mcgill.ca/files/senate/09-10-01SenateSeeringReport.pdf) and the agenda (http://www.mcgill.ca/files/senate/SenateAgendaSeptember162009.pdf).
Senate also ratified the results of the recent election to the Senate Steering Committee; this ratification was required owing to a procedural error which occurred when the ballots were sent out, as is explained in more detail here: http://www.mcgill.ca/files/senate/D09-03SteeringCtteeElection.pdf.
Further to item 4 of the Steering report, Provost Masi presented an update on the Report on Non-Tenure Track Academic Staff. This report was approved in principle by Senate last spring, on the understanding that input would be provided by the Faculty of Medicine over the summer. This input has now been received. The next step will be for the Non-Tenure Track Task Force to meet in the next few weeks and reach agreement on the points which remain outstanding, notably the selection of a better term than "non-tenure track" to designate staff in this category. Work is progressing on drafting new regulations for NTT staff, as well as on revisions to other employment regulations which may be needed to reflect the new terminology. Possible improvements in NTT representation in Senate will also be considered. Provost Masi hopes that most of these changes will be ready for implementation by the end of the calendar year.
In her remarks from the Chair, Principal Munroe-Blum noted the extensive infrastructure repair and deferred maintenance work being conducted at various locations around the University. On the subject of government relations, the Principal provided an update on Bill 38, the current version of the new proposed legislation on university governance which was first introduced last year. Although great strides have been made in improving this bill, which was completely unacceptable in its original form, CREPUQ remains opposed to it. Commission hearings on the bill are underway, and CREPUQ will be making representation on the subject; the date on which CREPUQ will appear before the Commission has not yet been finalized. The principals, presidents and rectors of Quebec's universities have agreed that they will not make separate submissions to the Commission; rather, they will all be at the Commission hearing to show solidarity when CREPUQ's brief is presented by Principal Munroe-Blum (President of CREPUQ) and Daniel Zizian (Director-General of CREPUQ). Although the details of CREPUQ's brief are being embargoed until that time, so that they can be made public with accompanying press releases for maximum effect, the Principal indicated that CREPUQ continues to be in favour of accountability but opposed to legislative control. If the government insists on a legislative approach, the fall-back position would be a preference for legislation which would focus on high principles and which would be followed by separate institutional compacts which would recognize the individual character of Quebec's universities.
Also on the subject of government relations, the Principal mentioned that Quebec's Minister of Justice is thinking of introducing new legislation which would define the role played by Quebec universities in assessing the qualifications of individuals who wish to immigrate to Canada but whose professional certifications are not recognized in this country. The Administration is agreeable to the concept of working on this issue in some form of partnership with the government and with professional accrediting bodies, but it opposes having this role set by legislation and it would view such a law as an attack on university autonomy.
Principal Munroe-Blum next turned to her September 3rd message to the McGill community (http://reporter.mcgill.ca/2009/09/coherent-vision-for-quebec-and-canada/) concerning a recent article reporting on a meeting of Maclean's journalists with the heads of the University of British Columbia, the University of Alberta, the University of Toronto, Université de Montréal and McGill University. The Principal expressed the view that the authors of the Maclean's article had come to the meeting with an agenda, and she indicated that some of the points headlined in their article were not said at the meeting. She added that matters were further complicated by the fact that two of the university heads in question have indeed advocated some of these views for several years; although these views are not shared by the other three heads, they were nevertheless attributed by Maclean's to the entire group. The Principal is concerned that the article gives the impression that she is not in favour of peer review being a determinant of who gets research funding, which is not the case.
In the period for formal questions, Senator Saroyan posed a question regarding course-pack services (http://www.mcgill.ca/files/senate/QCoursepackServices.pdf). Associate V.-P. Nicell answered that the decision to internalize course-pack services was taken for a number of reasons. The law governing the awarding of contracts by public bodies requires a call for tenders, which means that McGill faced the potential for a transition in its course-pack services every three years. Furthermore, it was felt that an internal operation would be easier to streamline and that course-pack services could be offered in this way at a significantly reduced cost. Regarding the contractual problems which affected this summer's transition to the new arrangements, V.-P. Nicell was not at liberty to go into specifics but indicated that two printing service contracts came to an end at the end of June and that some legal challenges had to be resolved before new contracts could be signed. This situation created a four-week delay which was not anticipated and which was beyond McGill's control. Staff worked overtime to compensate as best as possible for this delay, but V.-P. Nicell acknowledged that in the end it was not possible to deliver everything which had been expected. There were additional problems encountered, including situations in which some course-packs were lost or mishandled. V.-P. Nicell is confident that the improved procedures and communication methods which have now been put in place will enable quality course-pack services to be delivered in a timely manner henceforth.
In the follow-up discussion to this point, Senator Saroyan asked whether, in light of the course-pack problems which occurred, any consideration should be given to reinstating the recently-abolished Senate Committee on Ancillary Services. V.-P. Nicell answered that he is presently assembling a group of people to help him address such issues, but that he is not sure that reconstituting the Senate Committee on Ancillary Services would be the best solution. Senator Gulamhussein asked why students were not given email notification that their course-packs were not yet ready. V.-P. Nicell answered that the Bookstore does not have access to lists of which students are registered in what courses, and that the Administration is relying on professors to notify their students of course-pack delays affecting specific courses.
The next question, from Senator Moore, concerned the medical steps McGill might be taking to prepare for the H1N1 pandemic (http://www.mcgill.ca/files/senate/QH1N1.pdf). Associate V.-P. Nicell answered that the University should not be seen as a substitute for the public health system as a source of advice. McGill has nonetheless been emailing the University community to provide a link to a periodically updated webpage giving health information on H1N1; this page will soon feature FAQs that will provide further guidance to individuals, and it will also advise people about the availability of the H1N1 vaccine once its distribution has begun. On the subject of hand sanitizer, V.-P. Nicell indicated that supplies will be rolled out but he cautioned that sanitizer is not a substitute for hand washing. He noted that the best way to ensure that sanitizer is always available wherever one happens to be is to carry one's own supply; sanitizer located at a building entrance is limited in terms of who can make use of it conveniently. Hospitals deploy sanitizer at multiple locations, but V.-P. Nicell pointed out that hospitals are very different environments from universities, notably because of the presence of patients with compromised immune systems.
The final question, from Senator Dooley, concerned the selection of a new Secretary General (http://www.mcgill.ca/files/senate/QSecretaryGeneral.pdf); the question was submitted to Senate Steering prior to September 10th announcement that Mr. Stephen Strople will take office as McGill’s Secretary-General on November 1. Principal Munroe-Blum indicated that Mr. Strople was selected according to the process which is usually followed for the appointment of a Secretary-General. The selection was made by the Chair of the Board of Governors (Mr. Robert Rabinovitch) and the Chair of Senate (Principal Munroe-Blum); the Principal sought the advice of a leading Canadian consultant, and also consulted with two members of Senate (one elected, one ex-officio). The position was posted at the national level. A candidate was sought who had a strong track record as a university Secretary and who would collaborate well with the different constituencies at McGill. The consultant advised the Principal that Mr. Strople was the most experienced University Secretary in Canada and would be an excellent candidate if he could be persuaded to come to McGill. The Principal noted that Mr. Strople is known for his impartiality and collegiality, and she brought to Senate's attention the 2009 Distinguished Service Award he has received from the University of New Brunswick (http://www.unb.ca/faculty/awards/StephenStrople.html).
Referring to McGill's organization chart (http://www.mcgill.ca/orgchart/), Senator Saroyan asked if the Secretary-General's reporting relationship to the Board, to the Principal and to Senate could be clarified. The Principal answered that this was an excellent suggestion. Senator Gulamhussein asked whether a broader consultation process could be followed the next time a new Secretary-General is selected. The Principal answered that she was not prepared to commit herself to this, but that she was willing to discuss the idea with the Chair of the Board.
Once discussion of this agenda item had concluded, Mr. Strople joined the meeting as an observer and was welcomed by the Principal. Mr. Strople has also begun attending meetings of the Board of Governors as part of his preparations to assume his new duties.
Senate next considered the Principal's Report for 2008-2009 (http://www.mcgill.ca/files/principals-report-09/principals-report-09-en.pdf). The Principal remarked that, when she presented her report to the Board of Governors yesterday, one Board member noted that McGill spends more (about 2.5%) on staff development than the 1% which is required by law. The Principal indicated that she is committed to staff development and is proud of the resources which are allocated to this activity.
The next agenda item was a PowerPoint presentation on Campaign McGill (not yet posted online) given by V.-P. Weinstein, Senator Nielson, Professor Morty Yalovsky and Ms. Robyn Wiltshire. The amount of funding raised by the Campaign is close to passing the $500 million mark, and the campus community phase of the Campaign is now getting underway. In the period for discussion which followed, Senator Richard inquired about the "People" slide which showed boxes for the various professorial ranks and a box for library assistants, who are non-academic members of the Library staff, but no box for librarians, who are members of the academic staff. Senator Richard asked whether the box for librarians was accidentally left out or whether librarians were being counted in one of the other categories for which boxes were provided. Professor Yalovsky answered that he believed that librarians were being counted in the professorial category.
Provost Masi next presented the 413th Report of the Academic Policy Committee (http://www.mcgill.ca/files/senate/D09-05APC.pdf), which was approved. Regarding the creation of the Centre for International Peace and Security Studies (CIPSS), Senator Janda asked for clarification on the relationship between the CIPSS and the Security and Defence Forum (SDS) of the Department of National Defence (DND). It was indicated in response that the SDS is an academic program which support security studies; the program is affiliated to the DND, but the DND exercises no control over it.
Under the final agenda item, Senate received the report of the Ombudsperson for Students (http://www.mcgill.ca/files/senate/D09-08OMBS.pdf). The report was presented by Professor Linda Jacobs Starkey, who indicated that the new terms of reference of the Ombudsperson for Students have been posted on the web. Senator Janda thanked Professor Starkey for her work as Ombudsperson and inquired about the apparent overrepresentation of graduate students in the statistics for the number of students who used the services of the Ombudsperson. Professor Starkey answered that undergraduates seem to make use of other channels (such as their advisors) as a first recourse. Graduate students, conversely, tend to go to the Ombudsperson first because it offers a confidential initial mechanism that they find preferable to speaking to their thesis supervisor or to their graduate program director.
The next Senate meeting will be held on Wednesday, October 14, 2009. If you have any questions, please get in touch with us.
Regards,
Your librarian Senate reps,
Jodie Hebert
Joan Hobbins
Marc Richard