Senate Meeting Report, 2012-12-05

From: Marc Richard
Sent: Wednesday, December 12, 2012 1:20 PM
Cc: Marc Richard
Subject: Senate Meeting Report, 2012-12-05

Senate Meeting Report, 2012-12-05

Colleagues,

The following is a summary of the Senate meeting which took place on Wednesday, December 5, 2012.

The meeting began with Dean Todd presenting a resolution on the death of Dean Emeritus Laurent Picard. Senate adopted the minutes of the last Senate meeting (http://www.mcgill.ca/senate/sites/mcgill.ca.senate/files/minutes_november_14_2012.pdf), the report of the Steering Committee (http://www.mcgill.ca/senate/sites/mcgill.ca.senate/files/report_of_the_senate_steering_committee_5.pdf) and the agenda (http://www.mcgill.ca/senate/sites/mcgill.ca.senate/files/agenda_-_december.pdf).

In her remarks from the Chair, Principal Munroe-Blum indicated that on November 23 she had emailed to the McGill community her response to the Report of the Open Forum on Free Expression and Peaceful Assembly (the Manfredi Report); members of the community are invited to send their comments to her. Work continues on the development of a revised Protocol Regarding Demonstrations, Protests and Occupations on McGill University Campuses, a draft of which was emailed to the McGill community on November 30 with a request for feedback. The revised Protocol will be discussed at the January 2013 meeting of Senate. April 2013 is the target date for Associate Provost White to bring to Senate a set of revisions to the Code of Student Conduct and Disciplinary Procedures.

The Principal briefly discussed the education summit which will be held in Montreal in mid-February; it will revolve around four themes, as detailed in the email sent by V.-P. Marcil on November 29. She then turned to the December 4 meeting of Quebec's rectors and principals with Pierre Duchesne, the Minister of Higher Education, Research, Science and Technology, at which it was learned that the operating grants to Quebec’s universities will be cut by $124 million (5.2%). These cuts will take effect over the period between now and April 30, 2013. It is not yet clear what the exact financial impact of these cuts will be on each university, but the assumptions on which McGill's budget was built last year have now been altered by the government. The cuts the government will impose may take one of two forms: they could be across the board, or they could be targeted at various special envelopes.

V.-P. Di Grappa presented the annual report on the financial state of the University (http://www.mcgill.ca/senate/sites/mcgill.ca.senate/files/d12-25_annual_report_on_financial_state_.pdf and http://www.mcgill.ca/senate/sites/mcgill.ca.senate/files/d12-25_appendix_a_financial_report_to_the_board_of_govenors_2012.pdf). This was followed by a presentation by Provost Masi (http://www.mcgill.ca/senate/sites/mcgill.ca.senate/files/d12-26_budget_planning.pdf) on budget planning for 2013-2014 (PowerPoint not yet posted). In the subsequent discussion of both items, Senator Mooney asked whether the financial hit described by the Principal in her remarks would translate into cuts or a higher deficit. Provost Masi answered that the Administration had learned about the government's decision only yesterday, and thus that it was too early to tell what the effects would be.

Senator Galaty wondered at what point CREPUQ should shift from quiet backroom diplomacy to a more public discussion of the financial situation of Quebec universities. Principal Munroe-Blum indicated that CREPUQ is already reflecting on this subject. Senator Ferrie asked whether there were any thoughts about McGill moving away from a publicly funded model. The Principal rejected the notion of privatizing McGill; she noted that even "private" universities in the United States would be much diminished if public money was taken out of them. She considers that the questions we should be asking ourselves are: What is the right relationship which McGill should have with the Quebec government? What should our compact with the government be, given our special status? What should be the status of the universities in Quebec which have medical faculties? To what extent should tuition fees reflect the costs of programs?

Under the agenda item for formal questions, Senator Gutman posed a question on the relationship between McGill and the McGill University Health Centre (http://www.mcgill.ca/senate/sites/mcgill.ca.senate/files/question_regarding_mcgill_and_muhc.pdf). Dean Eidelman answered that the MUHC is a McGill University teaching hospital, but that it is a separate legal entity. Owing to the MUHC's status as a Centre Hospitalier Universitaire (CHU), McGill has a contract of affiliation with it. All physicians who work at the MUHC have some sort of University appointment, as do various other categories of MUHC personnel (such as certain administrators). On the part of the question concerning Dr. Porter, Dean Eidelman indicated that Dr. Porter did not hold a tenure-track appointment; his status (under the terminology which existed at that time) was that of an Associate Professor GFT-H. His promotion to the rank of Full Professor was done in accordance with standard procedure, and he met all the criteria for promotion.

The second and final question, asked by Senator Mooney, concerned the newly-established Work Group on the Code of Student Conduct and Disciplinary Procedures (http://www.mcgill.ca/senate/sites/mcgill.ca.senate/files/question_regarding_work_group.pdf). Associate Provost White began her answer by summarizing the Code revision process which has been under way since late 2008, when former Dean Everett set up an advisory group on Code revisions. This advisory group, which consulted widely during the course of its work, decided not to address certain parts of the Code until Dean Manfredi had issued the Report of the Open Forum on Free Expression and Peaceful Assembly. Dean Everett reported to Senate on the work of the advisory group in March 2012. In the spring of 2012, as Dean Everett's mandate came to an end, she established a Steering Group to work on the parts of the Code which had not been addressed by the earlier advisory group. In November 2012, the Principal set up a separate Work Group on the Report of the Open Forum on Free Expression and Peaceful Assembly Relating to the Code of Student Conduct, which would have the task of considering Recommendation 1 of the Manfredi Report.

On the first part of Senator Mooney's question, Professor White answered that Senate had not had a role in establishing the new Work Group, but that Senate Nominating had been asked to recommend to Senate the names of some potential members. She noted that proposals which come to Senate for approval in any given year do not all originate from ad hoc committees of Senate. On the question of timelines, Professor White aims to finish her consultations by March 2013. Regarding the harmonization of the activities of the Work Group with those of the Steering Group, she indicated that the Principal had asked her to look after this; Professor White hopes for some joint meetings, and envisions bringing to Senate a single package of coordinated recommendations rather than separate ones from each group. Finally, on the subject of Senate's role in reviewing and approving eventual changes to the Code, Professor White answered that any such changes will go through the relevant bodies, including Senate and the Board.

Following up on Associate Provost White's answer, Senator Mooney remarked that, in view of Article 6.3.12 of the Statutes, it might be better for Senate to strike the new Work Group. He also suggested that limiting the membership of the Work Group to Senators might not be the best approach. Professor White responded that the Work Group might be allowed to co-opt a few additional members. Principal Munroe-Blum supported the idea of the Chair of the Work Group having the option of choosing one or two special advisors. Dean Costopoulos added that anyone who wishes to provide input into the Code revision process is welcome to do so. Senator Nasr expressed the view that there should be more student representation on the Work Group. The Principal responded that the Chair of the Work Group could keep this consideration in mind if it is decided to seek special advisors.

Senate entered into confidential session to consider the report of the Honorary Degrees and Convocations Committee. Upon the return to open session, Deputy Provost Mendelson presented the annual report of the Academic Policy Committee (http://www.mcgill.ca/senate/sites/mcgill.ca.senate/files/d12-28_apc_annual_report.pdf) and the 442nd report of the Academic Policy Committee (http://www.mcgill.ca/senate/sites/mcgill.ca.senate/files/d12-29_442nd_apc_report.pdf), of which sections 1A and 1C were approved by Senate in this part of the agenda. Section 1B, dealing with proposed revisions to the Policy on the Conduct of Research Involving Human Subjects, was handled as a separate agenda item presented by Associate V.-P. Rozen (http://www.mcgill.ca/senate/sites/mcgill.ca.senate/files/d12-30_ethical_conduct_of_research_involving_human_subjects.pdf). During the discussion of this item, Senator Wolfson asked Dr. Rozen to elaborate on the revised part of Section 4.2 which states that, "The extent of the scholarly review that is required for biomedical research that does not involve more than minimal risk will vary according to the research being carried out". Dr. Rozen responded that the principle being stated is that the degree of risk involved in an experiment is what determines the level of review that will be required. Senate adopted the proposed revisions.

Dean Kirk next presented the report of the Senate Nominating Committee (http://www.mcgill.ca/senate/sites/mcgill.ca.senate/files/d12-31_nominating_report_0.pdf). During discussion of the nominations to the Work Group on the Report of the Open Forum on Free Expression and Peaceful Assembly Relating to the Code of Student Conduct, Senator Mooney asked what would happen if a student representative from the School of Continuing Studies could not be found. Dean Kirk answered that a proposal to fill this vacancy would be made separately at a later date. Senator Mooney also asked whether it would not have been better for Senate to know that the Senate Nominating Committee was seeking names to recommend for service on the Work Group. Principal Munroe-Blum and Dean Kirk both indicated that Senate Nominating had followed its normal procedures when assembling the list of nominees for the Work Group.

Associate Provost White presented for adoption the new Regulations on Maternity Leave, Parental Leave and Extended Parental Leave for Members of the Academic Staff (http://www.mcgill.ca/senate/sites/mcgill.ca.senate/files/d12-32_regulations_relating_to_maternity_parental_and_extended_parental_leave.pdf). This new single document combines and replaces three separate sets of Regulations: one pertaining to maternity leave, one to parental leave, and one to extended leaves of both types. The title of the new document makes it clear that all members of the academic staff are eligible for these leaves (unless they are governed by a collective agreement). Other revisions bring the Regulations up to date (for example, by referring to what is now called the Quebec Parental Insurance Plan), and clarify the situation regarding leaves for adoption. Professor White called attention to one required editorial change: article 1.4 (ii) should read "by delivery" rather than "by hand". Subject to approval by the Board, the new set of Regulations would take effect on January 1, 2013. Senate approved the proposal, and also granted Professor White leave to update any related documents affected by these changes.

As its final items of business, Senate received for information the annual report of the Joint Board-Senate Committee on Equity (http://www.mcgill.ca/senate/sites/mcgill.ca.senate/files/d12-33_annual_report_of_the_jbsce_0.pdf), the annual report of the Committee on Libraries (http://www.mcgill.ca/senate/sites/mcgill.ca.senate/files/d12-34_committee_on_libraries_annual_reprot.pdf), and the report on the annual Joint Board-Senate Meeting (http://www.mcgill.ca/senate/sites/mcgill.ca.senate/files/d12-35_joint_board-senate_report_0.pdf).

The next Senate meeting will be held on Wednesday, January 23, 2013. If you have any questions, please get in touch with us.

Regards,

Your librarian Senate reps,

Daniel Boyer

Maya Kucij

Marc Richard