As approved at the June 18, 1999, meeting of Senate. Copies of Exhibits and Appendices not included in the World Wide Web information are available from the University Secretariat, Room 290, Stevenson-Lawson Building.
The meeting was held at 1:00 p.m. in A. Brandon Conron Hall, University College.
SENATORS: 64
J. Adams, D. Banting, P. Barker, A. Belcastro, D. Bentley, D. Bevan, D. Braun, B. Bridger, R. Bryan, P. Canham, D. Cunningham, R. Darnell, J. Davies, D. Fairbairn, B. Frohmann, W. Gibson, J. Good, R. Green, R. Harris, R. Holt, B. Hovius, D. Jorgensen, A. Katz, G. Killan, M. Kissel, D. Kuntz, S. Lupker, J. MacKinnon, T. Macuda, A. Malowitz, I. Martin, M. Mathur, J. McKay, K. McKellar, D. McLachlin, M. McNay, K. McQuillan, P. Mercer, G. Moran, J. Ndayiragije, J. Nicholas, A. Norris, K. Okruhlik, A. Oosterhoff, A. Pearson, D. Phillipson, H. Polatajko, A. Prabhakar, S. Provost, E. Singer, E. Skarakis-Doyle, D. Small, D. Spencer, J. Stokes, D. Taub, R. Telfer, B. Timney, R. Toft, T. Topic, J. Van Fleet, A. Vandervoort, G. Weese, L. Whittaker, R. Young.
Observers: D. Jameson, S. Tan, R. Tiffin
By Invitation: L. Geddie, S. Singh
The Minutes of the April 16, 1999, were approved as circulated.
Dr. Moran advised Senate that during the period when he will be Acting President, he will chair the early portions of Senate meetings. However, in order that he may address matters within his portfolio as Provost & Vice-President (Academic), he will ask the Vice-Chair of Senate to preside following the report of the Operations/Agenda Committee.
Dr. Moran outlined the pre-election Ontario budget from the perspective of the university sector. Universities are mentioned in the budget in specific ways, which is a positive sign. Research will be assisted by the establishment of a $250 million Ontario Innovation Fund as a matching for CFI projects. Student assistance will be enhanced through the creation of the "Aiming for the Top" program. Funds for the program will total $35 million, will be distributed to some 10,000 students in amounts up to $3500 maximum based on need, and will be phased in over four years. The other aspect of improved student assistance is the harmonization of OSAP with the Canadian Student Loan Plan and with the Canadian Millennium Scholarship Fund. The result should be a more transparent single-step process for students which should make it easier for them to get assistance and to repay it. Although the universities do not yet have full details, the ATOP program was announced as being fully funded at $328 million.
An issue that emerged after the announcement of the budget relates to expanded enrolment in Education. The government has advised universities that it will provide full BIU funding for additional students in Faculty of Education programs.
Capital funding is the major element of the budget that deals with the broader issue of the increased enrolment cohort, estimated to be an increase from 25% to 40% in the next 10 years. Discussions between COU and the Ministry of Education and Training over the last six months have been aimed at getting a commitment from the government for additional capital and operating funding to assist universities to accommodate the increased cohort. The budget includes $742 million for capital projects for the post-secondary system. Although not made explicit in the budget, the interpretation of this allocation is that it is a first step by government to acknowledge the need for a major investment in Ontario's universities in recognition of the anticipated growth in enrolment. From °ÄÃÅÁùºÏ²Ê¿ª½±Ô¤²â's perspective, this announcement raises more questions than answers. The budget included a number of illustrative examples of projects that might be supported by this capital program. They were new buildings, at a number of universities, that clearly could be related to the need to meet the increased enrolment demand. There was, however, nothing to explain the process of allocation, nor any comment about a balance between new building construction and the dramatic need to address deferred maintenance. There was no explicit reference as to how this project is related to the increased cohort or to negotiations that are likely to begin in the near future as to how each university will respond to the increased cohort. Dr. Moran advised that °ÄÃÅÁùºÏ²Ê¿ª½±Ô¤²â will be urging that MET develop a systematic process for the allocation of the capital funds: the ground rules need to be stated and all universities need to have the opportunity to respond.
Dr. Moran stated that the most disquieting aspect of the budget was the absence of a clear signal about how the government will respond to the double cohort in the university sector. Ideally, universities should know what the funding ground rules are in the fall of 1999 and have about six months to respond. As a community, °ÄÃÅÁùºÏ²Ê¿ª½±Ô¤²â needs to begin thinking very soon about how it will respond. There are some big questions to be answered. Should °ÄÃÅÁùºÏ²Ê¿ª½±Ô¤²â take its full "share" of an increased cohort? Once we determine how much larger we want to become -- if at all -- the question then becomes: Should the increase be across all programs, or only in some programs? The big issue is operating funds: the University cannot tolerate unfunded expansion, but rather, any expansion must be fully funded. Even before the University engages in discussion about expansion, we must push for Quality Improvement Funding based on current enrolment.
Dr. Moran invited questions about the Update on Leadership in Learning document, distributed with the agenda.
Professor Frohmann questioned two references to 'continuing discussions' about a new Masters-level program in the Faculty of Information and Media Studies (FIMS). To his knowledge, the program is not being pursued and there are no formal procedures for doing so. He suggested that to leave this statement in the report as it stands may mean that the Faculty will be required to produce the program in the future. Dr. Moran stated that this was not the intention, and he will follow up on this concern with Dean Pendakur.
Professor Holt asked for clarification of the second bullet of the section on Graduate Studies (page 3), which states that there may be "some realignment of Teaching Assistantships administered by the Faculty of Graduate Studies". Dr. Moran advised that there is an ongoing examination of the patterns of undergraduate enrolment and the need for Teaching Assistants, and often adjustments have to be made to try to assist the Faculties to meet undergraduate needs for Teaching Assistants. He conjectured that the statement is not intended to imply major changes, but he will pursue the issue with Dean Weedon and, if it appears that there is an important point to be raised for the information of Senate, he will report back.
On the same point, Professor Frohmann noted that at present there are too few Teaching Assistants for the Media, Information and Technology (MIT) program. The Faculty of Information and Media Studies is disadvantaged because the Faculty of Graduate Studies provides TA funding only for graduate students who are enrolled in Category 1 (thesis-based) programs of study, which would not include graduate students in the Journalism or MLIS programs. The only TA funding for these students, therefore, must come from the FIMS budget. He asked if this problem will be addressed by the Faculty of Graduate Studies. Dr. Moran stated that the issue is more complex than restriction to Category 1 students. He will ask Dean Weedon to comment on this at the next meeting, however.
Mr. Kissel asked about the status of the registration process changes raised at the last meeting of Senate. Dr. Harris advised that a series of proposals will be considered at the next meeting of SCAPA for recommendation to Senate in June.
In response to questions about the availability of lists produced by the Registrar's Office and used for prerequisite checking, Dr. Harris confirmed that these will be available for Departments in time for fall registration. Under the current system, the Department is provided a list by the Office of the Registrar and consultation between both areas takes place to clarify problems with prerequisite checking. Often problems are addressed by the use of blanket special permission forms submitted by Departments. Dr. Harris explained that the PeopleSoft system did not initially include prerequisite checking. Consideration was given to not adding this feature if the community could live without it. Based on a strong reaction against this idea, staff from the Registrar's Office have been assigned to developing prerequisite checking for the system so it will be ready by August. What has changed is that it will be a local decision as to how the lists will be used.
With reference to the recent dissolution of the Saugeen-Maitland Hall Residents' Council, Mr. Tan asked whether there is a formal process for such action, such as approval by the University Council on Student Housing (UCOSH) or Senate.
Dr. Mercer advised Senate that in October 1998 he met with the Saugeen-Maitland Residents' Council, in his capacity as General Counsel, to discuss legal liability issues relating to a tour of fourteen pubs planned by the Council, and to urge that the plans be abandoned. He counselled them that the next time he met with the Council under similar circumstances, it would be to advise that the Council could not continue.
Dr. Mercer explained that there are protocols in place that govern, among other things, the production of yearbooks. In the case of the Saugeen-Maitland yearbook, those protocols were not observed by the Residents' Council. The publication is highly objectionable: it featured behavior that is not representative of Saugeen-Maitland's population generally nor of °ÄÃÅÁùºÏ²Ê¿ª½±Ô¤²â students at large. Dr. Mercer therefore met with the President of the Saugeen-Maitland Residents' Council, Jason Squires, two weeks ago. At that meeting he advised him that the Saugeen-Maitland Residents' Council was disbanded, that members of Council who otherwise would be entitled to places in residence ex officio would not be entitled to those places, and that the store operated by Council would be closed because it was not being operated properly.
In response to the question as to whether there is a formal process for dissolving a Residents' Council, Dr. Mercer advised that there is not. In fact, Residents' Council do not have formal status under any Senate or Board policy. The action was taken to address the ongoing concerns about Councils' responsibility on campus. While to some extent a franchise has been taken away, the mechanisms for students to report their concerns and ideas and for Saugeen-Maitland's involvement in orientation are not expected to be adversely affected.
Mr. Phillipson asked if UCOSH should be involved and if there is a requirement that a Council be appointed for each residence, as stated in the constitution for each. Dr. Mercer said that although it may be desirable for every residence to have a Council, not every residence has had one, such as King's Inn last year. While UCOSH may have initially approved the constitution of each residents' council, there is no formal procedure for the dissolution of a residents' council. Ms. Malowitz asked if it would be possible to have a formal mechanism considered by UCOSH and was informed that one is being developed within the Division of Housing and Food Services. Dr. Mercer advised that he has been in contact with the Residents' Council President and regrets the need for measures such as this to ensure the actions of the Council were aligned with those of the University.
It was moved by A. Pearson, seconded by R. Bryan,
That the Senate seat held by Kathleen Okruhlik, elected representative to Senate for the Faculty of Arts constituency, be declared vacant since she will be attending Senate meetings in her new capacity of Dean or Arts, and
That Angela Esterhammer (Modern Languages and Literatures), be elected to complete Professor Okruhlik's term (July 1, 1999, to October 31, 2000).
CARRIED
It was moved by A. Pearson, seconded by B. Timney,
That the Senate seat held by John Snyder, elected representative to Senate for the King's College constituency, be declared vacant as a result of his resignation, and
That John Orange (Modern Languages) be elected to complete Professor Snyder's term (July 1 to October 31, 1999).
CARRIED
[The item regarding an alternate for the Undergraduate Social Science/Information and Media Studies Constituency was withdrawn.]
It was moved by A. Pearson, seconded by D. Small,
That the Senate seat held by SzeJack Tan, elected representative to Senate for the Undergraduate At Large Student constituency, be declared vacant as a result of his resignation: he elects to attend Senate in his ex officio observer status as President of the University Students' Council, and
That Dan Phillipson (Honors Business Administration III), runner-up in the last Senate election, be elected to replace him (term from May 1 to October 31, 1999).
CARRIED
It was moved by A. Pearson, seconded by B. Frohmann,
That Jeffrey Clayman, elected representative to Senate for the Undergraduate At Large Student constituency, be granted a leave of absence, and
That Nabil Sultan (Honors Mathematics II) , a runner-up in the last Senate election, be elected to serve as Mr. Clayman's alternate (term from May 1 to August 31, 1999).
CARRIED
Senate was advised that the Board of Governors considered the 1999-2000 Operating and Capital Budgets, tuition and fees, at a meeting held on April 22. In light of Senate's recommendation that medical tuition fees be frozen at $10,000 for 2000-01 and 2001-02, the Board approved the 1999-2000 Operating Budget, exclusive of tuition fees, on the understanding that the reinvestment in Medicine for 1999-2000 will be determined by the Provost in consultation with the incoming Dean of Medicine & Dentistry. With the exception of medical tuition fees beyond 1999-2000, Senate approved tuition fees as reported in the budget model provided to Senate in April. Senate's recommendation that medical student fees be frozen at $10,000 for 2000-01 and 2001-02 has been referred back to Senate by the Board "with a request that SCUP consult with the incoming Dean of Medicine & Dentistry and consider explicitly the implications of the foregone revenue for the academic and student-support programs in the Faculty."
Professor Singh, Chair of SCUP, advised Senate that a small working group of SCUP will soon be established to collect data on a wide range of relevant issues, such as patterns of student finances across Faculties, student debt, loan levels, OSAP default rates, graduate employment and income. Therefore, any specific recommendation for tuition in professional areas will be seen in the context of the broader community. The working group will collect and analyze data over a period of time, and will likely not be ready to report until the fall. Dr. Herbert's appointment as Dean of Medicine & Dentistry begins on September 1, and therefore issues arising from consultations between the Provost and Dean to develop the long-range reinvestment strategy for the Faculty will not be available to SCUP until the fall, at the earliest.
Dean Pearson informed Senate that the Subcommittee will report to Operations/Agenda and Senate in June.
The Alumni Association has announced the appointment of Sally Siegner to Senate as a representative of the Alumni Association (term September 1, 1999, to October 31, 2000). Wally Gibson will continue as the designate of the President of the Alumni Association, to May 2001.
On behalf of Senate, the Operations/Agenda Committee approved the following list of candidates who received the Master of Divinity degree at the 1999 Spring Convocation at Huron College (May 6, 1999).
Tom Bonnema*
Margaret Greenhow *
Katherine Loynd *
Len Myers
Karen Nelles *
Rachael Walker *
Tom Wilson *
* = graduated "with distinction"
On behalf of Senate, the Operations/Agenda Committee approved the following candidates who received the Master of Theological Studies degree at the 1999 Spring Convocation at Huron College (May, 6, 1999).
Djuwe Blom *
Natalie Dickert
Tom Dobie
Alfred Jewlal
Pat Milliken *
Adelina Pecchia
Patrick Sweeney*
Jancy Winmill *
* = graduated "with distinction"
The Vice-Chair of Senate assumed the chair.
Elected to the Senate Review Board Academic were C. Sinal (term to November 1999) and P. Allen (term from July 1 to November 2001).
P. Haase was elected to the Senate Committee on Appeals (term to November 2000).
J. Bend and D. Jamieson were elected to the University Research Board for three-year terms (July 1, 1999, to June 30, 2002) and K. Rowe was elected for a one-year term (July 1, 1999, to June 30, 2000).
N.C. Baird and J. Zezulka were re-elected to the Teacher Education Advisory Committee for three-year terms (June 1999 to June 2002).
C. Callaghan was elected to the Honorary Degrees Committee (term July 1 to November 1999).
S. Farnell was re-elected as an Honorary Scrutineer (term to September 2001). R. Williamson will serve as an Alternate for D. Jameson who will be on leave during the fall elections (term from September to December 1999).
G. Weese was elected as the representative from the General Community to the Council of the Faculty of Information and Media Studies (term July 1, 1999, to June 30, 2001).
Donna Peterson has been appointed by the Nominating Committee to serve on SCAPA as Alternate for S. Osborn who is on a leave of absence (July 1, 1999, to June 30, 2000).
Professor Timney reviewed the history of the Policy on Academic Accommodation for Students with Disabilities and presented data on the number and types of disabilities that have been reported to SSD (Services for Students with Disabilities) over a four year period. Contention about the policy focuses on learning disabilities. Over the four year period, the number of students reporting learning disabilities has been approximately 250, less than half of the total number of students reporting disabilities of all types. In 1997-98, of the 249 students reporting learning disabilities, 117 were given academic accommodation. The remaining 132 either had insufficient evidence of a learning disability or it was determined that accommodation was not necessary. Professor Timney stressed that the number of students with learning disabilities who are given academic accommodation is small: 117 in 1997-98 represents 0.5% of °ÄÃÅÁùºÏ²Ê¿ª½±Ô¤²â's student population.
Prior to presenting the motion to approve the revised policy and Handbook, Professor Timney presented a number of amendments to the text that appeared in Appendix 1 to Exhibit III. These are detailed in Appendix 1 to these Minutes.
S.99-124a It was moved by B. Timney, seconded by T. Macuda,
That Senate approve the revised Policy on Academic Accommodation for Students with Disabilities [including above-noted amendments] and the Faculty Handbook on the Implementation of the Policy on Academic Accommodation for Students with Disabilities, as shown in Exhibit III, Appendix 1.
S.99-124b It was moved by S. Lupker, seconded by A. Katz,
That the first paragraph on page 2 of Appendix 1 be amended by the addition of a parenthetical phrase to the end of the second sentence, as shown in italics below:
The Responsibility of the Instructor, Chair, Dean: The decision whether to accept an accommodation suggested by SSD rests with the instructor in the first instance. The instructor, Chair or Dean may reject a suggested accommodation only if it would compromise the academic integrity of the course or program (e.g., it would alter the essential academic requirements of the course or program, it would be inappropriate given the essential academic requirements of the course or program, it would not be fair to all the students in the course, etc.). All those involved in making the decision must recognize their obligation to accommodate where possible, and their obligation to respect both the privacy and dignity of the student, as well as the academic integrity of the programs.
Professor Lupker explained that the examples are intended to provide some sort of definition of "academic integrity". They are drawn from language used in the draft policy and/or handbook. It is not intended that these examples be restrictive, however; thus the use of "e.g." and "etc.".
Those speaking against the amendment raised the following points:
• The additional words do not add clarity, they simply add more words about which to have a debate. "Compromising the academic integrity of the course or program" is at the core of the major concerns expressed about the policy in the past. To suggest that altering the essential academic requirements of the course or program equates to compromising the academic integrity of the course or program throws up a multitude of questions as a matter of textual interpretation. Does any alteration of a requirement automatically mean that the academic integrity of the course or program is thrown into question? "Would be inappropriate given the essential academic requirements of the course or program" -- inappropriateness is an objective standard. The question of inappropriateness should grow out of the policy as a whole. Similarly, fairness to other students in the course should be the result of the policy that is established.
• Concern about the common interpretation that "fairness" means treating everyone the same. By definition, accommodation for a disability means not treating everyone the same in order to achieve fairness. The proposed amendment will re-establish problems experienced with the existing policy and that the new policy seeks to remedy.
• The fairness at issue here is fairness to students with disabilities. The phrase "it would not be fair to all the students in the course" suggests that accommodation of a student with a disability might be unfair to all others in the course. Fairness to those students is jeopardized only if the academic accommodation for the student with a disability goes too far.
• While illustrations sometimes help to clarify, they can also have the effect of limiting debate. "Academic integrity" will be defined differently across campus; the instructor of a particular course is best qualified to say what would impair the academic integrity of his/her course. The phrase should not be circumscribed by the examples suggested.
• Contrary to the intention of the mover, the additional words do not clarify "academic integrity".
On the issue of fairness, Professor Lupker clarified that his concern is that when determining the appropriate accommodation for a student with a disability, those making the decision should consider whether the accommodation is fair for the disabled student and fair to the rest of the class. As pointed out by Professor Jorgensen, the fairness issue is of concern where time is an important factor in evaluation of students.
Professor Lupker stressed that the words in the proposed amendment are drawn from the draft policy and handbook.
The AMENDMENT was called and was DEFEATED.
Debate on the main motion resumed.
Professor Katz referred to the May 4 memorandum from Professor Thorp, Chair of SCAPA, which was attached to the draft policy and handbook and to the presentation by Professor Timney at today's meeting. He stated that although the number of learning disabled students who are offered academic accommodation is relatively small -- 150 or 0.5% of the student population -- the significance of this number should not be minimized. He expressed concern, particularly, that faculty members' academic rights and responsibilities not be compromised as a result of academic accommodations for some students.
Professor Lupker also referred to the May 4 memorandum from Professor Thorp where he wrote: "In the many discussions I have had with colleagues about this matter in recent months, it has sometimes been suggested that any student who wants a learning disability diagnosis and an exam accommodation can get one: the numbers show that this is just not true." Professor Lupker stated that the numbers contained in the document do not address the issue of how easy or difficult it is to obtain a learning disability diagnosis. He referred to the group of 69 students who were reported as having "insufficient evidence of learning disability" and asked how many of those sought a second diagnosis which might ultimately gain them academic accommodation. The numbers do not indicate how many students with diagnosed learning disabilities were refused academic accommodation by the SSD; he speculated that the numbers would be very small.
Professor Timney advised Senate that he was not able to obtain those numbers from SSD in time for this meeting. He objected strongly to the suggestion that students with disabilities go "shopping" for diagnoses. Professor Polatajko added that a Senate meeting is not the appropriate place to discuss the legitimacy of learning disabilities or the legitimacy or type of accommodation that is appropriate, nor the expertise of those who diagnose learning disabilities.
Professor Jorgensen referred to the following sentence that appears in the first paragraph of the proposed policy: "The provisions of this Policy do not apply if the University determines that the necessary pedagogical, human, physical or financial resources are not and cannot be made available to accommodate a particular disability." He asked how such a determination is made, and by whom. Dr. Mercer stated that the standard is accommodation up to the point of undue hardship. The definition of "undue hardship" is circumstantial. For example, one might imagine a situation in which a large number of hearing impaired students, all in one year requested that individual interpretive services be provided in the classroom, where the cost of doing so, or even the ability to find the personnel to do the interpretation, would be beyond the means of the university. The test for undue hardship is relatively high: it is not merely a question of inconvenience. The cost has to be at a level that it somehow threatens the functioning of the institution. Who would make that determination would depend on the circumstances. It could begin at the SSD, which reports to the Vice-President (Administration), but typically academic determinations are ultimately made by the Provost. Where there might be reason to expect that a determination would be challenged, the Board of Governors might be involved in the final decision.
Asked if Deans and Chairs would be involved in the process of determining the availability of suitable and available resources, the Provost stated that it would depend on the circumstances of the case, but potentially it would be very appropriate that they be involved. This would be a judgment call, and any decision would be appealable. Professor Timney added that in the example provided by Dr. Mercer, the interpreters would be paid by the corporate university, and therefore the Chair or Dean would not be involved in that decision.
In response to a question from Mr. Adams, Professor Timney said that in future students with disabilities may have to pay more attention to course outlines in determining whether or not they will take certain courses. There may be situations where the express requirements of the course are such that the student would be better advised not to take the course than to attempt to get an academic accommodation. Mr. Adams observed that the policy assumes that students have access to course outlines prior to beginning a course, but that is not always the case. Professor Timney stated that since students with disabilities are asked to contact SSD very early in order to be considered for accommodation, the hope is that instructors will be delivering their course outlines on request from SSD so that discussion about accommodation can begin prior to the start of classes. The intent is that more information be shared between the instructor, the student, and SSD so that everyone has a say from the start as to what the accommodation might be.
The MAIN MOTION was called and CARRIED.
It was moved by B. Timney, seconded by M. Mathur,
That, effective September 1, 1999, a five-year limited enrolment, concurrent degree program leading to degrees in BESc (Electrical and Computer Engineering) and HBA be introduced by the Faculty of Engineering Science, Department of Electrical and Computer Engineering, and the Ivey School of Business; and,
That a second option, Option C: Electrical Engineering and Management, be established in the Electrical Engineering Program, effective September 1, 1999.
NEW CALENDAR COPY
C. Electrical Engineering and Management Option
Admission
In order to be eligible for entrance into the concurrent BESc/HBA degree program, students must have completed the first two years of the Electrical Engineering program at °ÄÃÅÁùºÏ²Ê¿ª½±Ô¤²â (or equivalent) and meet the eligibility requirements for the Ivey School of Business. In addition to applying for the concurrent degree program through the Office of the Associate Dean - Academic, students must also make a separate application to the Ivey School of Business for admission into the HBA program.
Admission Criteria:
1. A high school student may qualify for the HBA program through the Academic Excellence Program offered by the Ivey School of Business. Please consult the Ivey School of Business for further details.
2. A student may qualify for the HBA program on the basis of his/her performance in the first two years of a university academic program as outlined in The University of °ÄÃÅÁùºÏ²Ê¿ª½±Ô¤²â Ontario Academic Calendar.
3. To be eligible for the concurrent degree program, students must have completed all the requirements of the first year curriculum in the Faculty of Engineering Science, and the second year program, Option C, in the Electrical Engineering Program offered by the Department of Electrical and Computer Engineering with a minimum year weighted average (YWA) of 78% in each year. Students must also have demonstrated participation in extra curricular and/or community activities, leadership and work experience.
4. Students who apply and are admitted to the Ivey School of Business while they are registered in the Faculty of Engineering Science will not be eligible for the concurrent degree program unless they meet all the criteria as specified above.
5. Entrance into the concurrent degree is competitive and limited.
Admission Procedures:
Normally, students will apply for the concurrent degree program during their second year in the Faculty of Engineering Science. Applications must be made in writing to the Office of the Associate Dean - Academic, of the Faculty of Engineering Science by the published deadlines of the Ivey School of Business for the HBA program. It is the student's responsibility to ensure that a separate application is submitted to the Ivey School of Business.
Progression Requirements:
A student enrolled in the concurrent HBA/BESc degree program must satisfy the progression requirements as determined by each Faculty. In addition, each student is required to be in the top quarter of the class in each program each year while enrolled in the concurrent degree program, to progress to the subsequent year.
If a student fails to meet the above progression requirements or fails to meet the progression requirements in either Faculty, the student will be required to withdraw from the degree program in which the requirements have not been met. A student may appeal this decision to the appropriate Office of the Associate Dean of the Faculty in which the progression requirements have not been met. This appeal must be initiated within the University-specified deadlines.
First Year Program
Common
Second Year Program (effective September 1999)
Term 3 Course Title
AM 276 Applied Mathematical and Numerical Methods for Electrical Engineers II
Bus 257 Accounting & Business Analysis
CS 027a Computer Science Fundamentals II
ECE 205a Electric Circuit Analysis II
ECE 231a Electronics I
ECE 230y Electrical Laboratory
Term 4 Course Title
AM 276 Applied Mathematical and Numerical Methods for Electrical Engineers II
Bus 257 Accounting & Business Analysis
ECE 236b Engineering Electromagnetics I
ECE 235b Electronics II
ECE 233b Electric Circuit Analysis II
ECE 230y Electrical Laboratory
Third Year Program (effective September 2000)
Term 5 Course Title
Bus 300 General Management
Bus 301 Marketing
Bus 302y Management Communications
Bus 303 Finance
Bus 304 Operations Management
Bus 307 Managerial Accounting and Control
Bus 308 Management Behavior
Bus 316a Management Science
Term 6 Course Title
Bus 300 General Management
Bus 301 Marketing
Bus 302y Management Communications
Bus 303 Finance
Bus 304 Operations Management
Bus 307 Managerial Accounting and Control
Bus 308 Management Behavior
Bus 326b Information Systems
Bus 305b Global Environment of Business
Fourth Year Program (effective September 2001)
Term 7 Course Title
Bus* Elective
AM 376a Applied Mathematics for Electrical Engineers III
ECE 331a Signal Processing I
ECE 339a Digital Logic Systems
ECE 370a Communication Electronics I
Term 8 Course Title
Bus* Elective
ECE 330b Control Systems
ECE 336b Electromagnetic Theory
ECE 374b Electromechanics
ECE 375b Microprocessors and Microcomputers
SS 241b Applied Statistics
Fifth Year Program (effective September 2002)
Term 9 Course Title
Bus* Elective
Bus* Elective
Bus* Elective
ECE 416 Electrical Engineering Project
ECE 470a Microcomputer Engineering
ECE 469a Digital Control
Term 10 Course Title
Bus* Elective
Bus* Elective
Bus* Elective
ECE 416 Electrical Engineering Project
ES 498b Engineering Ethics, Sustainable Development and the Law
ECE 451b Communications Electronics II
*All Business must be selected from the 400-level courses in the HBA program.
CARRIED
In introducing the motion, Professor Timney recalled that there has been much discussion about the use of the term "software engineering". He asked Dr. Mercer for an update on the situation at Memorial University. Dr. Mercer reported that the provincial association of engineers had advised Memorial University of Newfoundland that they were putting a hold on the accreditation of the engineering programs at Memorial. Those programs were under review at the time, so this action was of considerable concern. No reasons were given for the withdrawal of the accreditation which had been in place for several years. Memorial therefore went to the Newfoundland Supreme Court to seek a declaration that the action to withhold accreditation was in fact beyond the jurisdiction of the provincial association, and they were successful. That has no direct bearing on the current controversy before the federal court in which the Canadian Association of Professional Engineers is claiming certain proprietary interests in the phrase "software engineering". The fact the provincial association's attempt to get at the issue sideways was unsuccessful suggests, however, that a resolution of the software engineering issue may soon reach resolution.
It was moved by B. Timney, seconded by M. Mathur,
That a Software Engineering Program be introduced in the Faculty of Engineering Science, Department of Electrical and Computer Engineering, effective September 1, 1998.
REVISED CALENDAR COPY
(page 66 of the 1999 Academic Calendar)
ELECTRICAL AND COMPUTER ENGINEERING
The Electrical Engineering curriculum is designed to balance theory and practice in design, analysis, and development of a wide variety of electrical devices and systems. Within the program, the core material includes courses in the basic sciences and mathematics together with electrical engineering fundamentals. The Electrical Engineering program includes elective courses which may be chosen to meet the student's interests. Some of these courses are in the areas of communications, control systems, digital electronics, electromagnetics, microprocessor systems, and power systems. In addition, two formal programs, Computer Engineering and Software Engineering, are offered, which include specific engineering courses related to the fields as well as appropriate courses in Computer Science.
Second Year Program in Electrical Engineering and Computer Engineering Programs
No change to current calendar copy
Second Year Program Software Engineering
ECE 238a/b, ECE 239a/b, ES 211F/G, SE 203a/b, SE 250y, SE 251a/b, Applied Mathematics 276, Statistical Sciences 241a/b, Computer Science 027a/b, Computer Science 210a/b
NEW CALENDAR COPY
C. Software Engineering Program
Admission Requirements for the Software Engineering Program
Students entering the Software Engineering Program will have successfully completed the common first year Engineering program in Engineering, with a minimum 60% in both Computer Science 025a/b (or 026a/b) and Applied Mathematics 026.
Second Year Program (Transition Year 1998-1999 Only)
Applied Mathematics 276, Computer Science 027a/b, ES 205a/b, ES 230y, ES 231a/b, ES 211F/G, ES 235a/b, ES 201b (SE 201b), ES 215b (SE 202b), ES 217b (SE 203b)
Second Year Program (Effective 1999-2000)
ECE 238a/b, ECE 239a/b, ES 211F/G, SE 203a/b, SE 250y, SE 251a/b, Applied Mathematics 276, Statistical Sciences 241a/b, Computer Science 027a/b, Computer Science 210a/b
Third Year Program (Transition Year 1999-2000)
ECE 331a/b, ECE 339a/b, ECE 375a/b, SE 251a/b, SE 350y, SE 351a/b, SE 352a/b, SE 353a/b, Computer Science 305a/b, Computer Science 357a/b, Computer Science 340a/b
Third Year Program (Effective 2000-2001)
ECE 331a/b, ECE 339a/b, ECE 375a/b, SE 350y, SE 351a/b, SE 352a/b, SE 353a/b, Computer Science 305a/b, Computer Science 331a/b, Computer Science 357a/b, Computer Science 340a/b
Fourth Year Program (Transition Year 2000-2001)
SE 450, SE 452a/b, SE 453a/b, SE 454a/b, Business Administration 299, Non-Technical Elective, Computer Science 457a/b, Computer Science 331a/b, Statistical Sciences 241a/b and one Software Engineering Technical Elective from the approved list below.
Fourth Year Program (Effective 2001-2002)
SE 450, SE 452a/b, SE 453a/b, SE 454a/b, Business Administration 299, Non-Technical Elective, Computer Science 457a/b, and three Software Engineering Technical Electives from the approved list below.
Technical Electives for the Software Engineering Program
ECE 470a/b, ECE 480a/b, ECE 489a/b, ECE 495a/b, SE 455a/b, SE 456a/b, SE 466a/b, Computer Science 346a/b, Computer Science 388a/b, Computer Science 403a/b, Computer Science 442a/b, Computer Science 488a/b
Approval of the program included a series of new courses listed on Exhibit III, page 6.
The motion was called and CARRIED.
It was moved by B. Timney, seconded by J. Ndayiragije,
That a four-year general Bachelor of Arts program in French be introduced in the Faculty of Arts, effective September 1, 1999.
CALENDAR COPY
On page 44 of the 1999 Academic Calendar:
Replace the title "Area of Concentration" with "Three-Year BA".
Following the program description for the three-year program:
FOUR-YEAR GENERAL BA IN FRENCH
Admission Requirements
A mark of at least 60% in French 020E or French 021 or permission of the Department.
Programs
Requirements for a minor area of concentration in the four-year BA are the same as those for an area of concentration in the Three-Year BA (see above).
For a major area of concentration in the four-year BA, students must complete a minimum of 7½ senior Honors courses, including at least 2½ at the 300- or 400-level. Students are required to take French 271, 290 and 381.
CARRIED
In response to a question by regarding the status of the SCAPA ad hoc committee reviewing Baccalaureate program reform, Professor Timney said that the committee is expected to report to SCAPA in September and Senate sometime in the fall. This would ensure that any general guidelines with respect to three-year and four-year programs would come into effect in 2000-01.
It was moved by B. Timney, seconded by D. Jorgensen,
That a Four-Year BSc in Honors Chemistry and Economics be introduced in the Faculty of Science, effective September 1, 1999.
NEW CALENDAR COPY
To be inserted under the Faculty of Science, Department of Chemistry
FOUR-YEAR BSc HONORS CHEMISTRY AND ECONOMICS
Important note: This is a four-year Honors program with no three-year equivalent.
Admission Requirements
A complete first year that includes Chemistry 020 or 023, Economics 020 or 021, Calculus 050a and 051b or 081b and Physics 020, 022, 024 or 025. A minimum mark of 60% is required in the Chemistry course, Economics course and both of the Math half-courses.
Second Year
Principal Courses
Chemistry 251, 253, 254
Economics 152a, 153b (both with a minimum mark of 70%)
Economics 260a, 261b
Third Year
Principal Courses
Chemistry 358a
Three of Chemistry 351a, 352a, 353a, 374a, 226a/b, 354b, 362b (including at least one of Chemistry 351a, 353a,
374a, 354b)
Economics 210a*, 222a, 223G
One half-course in Economics at the 300-level
*Economics 320a, normally an option in the Fourth Year, may be taken in place of Economics 210a in Year 3.
Subsidiary Course(s)
One full-course option or equivalent
(Chemistry 374a and 354b have a pre/corequisite of Applied Math 290a; in this program only, this Applied Math requirement can be replaced by Economics 210a.)
Fourth Year
Principal Courses
Three half-courses in Chemistry at the 300-400 level, with not more than one at the 300 level
Economics 210a if not already taken, or one of Economics 320a, 382a/b, 388a
Three half-courses in Economics at the 300 level
Either Chemistry 490 or Economics 400E
Subsidiary Course
Half-course option
NEW CALENDAR COPY
To be inserted under the Faculty of Social Science, Department of Economics
FOUR-YEAR BSc HONORS ECONOMICS AND CHEMISTRY
See Chemistry in the FACULTY OF SCIENCE section.
Note: This is a four-year Honors program with no three-year equivalent. Students interested in transferring into a three-year BA or an honors BA in Economics from this joint program should consult the Department of Economics.
CARRIED
It was moved by B. Timney, seconded by M. Mathur,
That the criteria for nomination for The Edward G. Pleva Award for Excellence in Teaching be revised to indicate that Clinical Academics are eligible for nomination for these awards.
1. The Edward G. Pleva Award for Excellence in Teaching
In 1980-81, the first award for excellence in teaching was established at °ÄÃÅÁùºÏ²Ê¿ª½±Ô¤²â, to be awarded based on evidence of continued outstanding contributions to the academic development of students.
All full-time* members of the faculty of the University and the Affiliated Colleges are eligible for nomination. Previous recipients of the award are ineligible for renomination.
Up to four awards will be made annually. The award recipient will receive a medal and commemorative scroll which will normally be presented at the appropriate Spring Convocation. In addition, his/her name will be inscribed on a plaque which will be displayed in a prominent location in the University.
In 1987, the award was named in honor of Edward Gustav Pleva, °ÄÃÅÁùºÏ²Ê¿ª½±Ô¤²â's first geography teacher in 1938. Dr. Pleva was Head of the Department of Geography from the time it was established in 1948 until 1968. He has received a number of teaching awards for his contribution to the development of modern geographical education in Canada at all levels. His special area of interest is the Great Lakes region.
Dr. Pleva has acknowledged that, "Teaching has always been central to my career. My only claim to recognition rests in the relationship I have with the thousands of geography students in the classes I taught. I appreciate the many awards, including the Massey Medal, I have received as a teacher. In my opinion teaching is one of the highest callings."
* For the purposes of this award, Clinical Academics appointed under Conditions of Appointment: Physicians Appointed in Clinical Departments and Clinical Divisions of Basic Science Departments (1999) are eligible for nomination.
CARRIED
It was moved by B. Timney, seconded by D. Bentley,
That effective September 1, 1999, the following changes be made by the Faculty of Theology at Huron College:
1) Systematic Theology 236a/b: Feminist Theology be withdrawn from course offerings and replaced by Systematic Theology 201a/b: Contextual Theology (including Feminist, Indigenous, and Liberation Theology).
2) Church History 234a/b: History of Christian Social Thought and Practice will be introduced as a new elective course
3) Pastoral Theology 230a/b: Congregational Development and Leadership will be introduced and will be a required course (replacing an elective course) in the Master of Divinity program.
NEW CALENDAR COPY
Systematic Theology 201a/b: Contextual Theology (including Feminist, Indigenous, and Liberation Theology) An exploration of the place of context in the formulation of meaningful and authentic theological discourse.
Prerequisite: Systematic Theology 103a
2 hours.
Church History 234a/b: History of Christian Social Thought and Practice This course will expose the student to the rich and diverse traditions of Christian social teaching and practice, with particular consideration given to implications for contemporary outreach and evangelism.
Prerequisite: Church History 101a
2 hours.
Pastoral Theology 230a/b: Congregational Development and Leadership This course will help students grow in their understanding of the relationship between lay and ordained ministry; it will discuss how to build healthy and vital congregations, how to assist and motivate individual members to strengthen and expand their ministries, and introduce them to the principles of group dynamics.
Prerequisite: Field Education 101a, or permission of instructor
2 hours.
CARRIED
SCAPA has approved on behalf of the Senate the terms of reference for the following new scholarships and bursaries, for recommendation to the Board of Governors through the Vice-Chancellor:
S.99-132 Sessional Dates
for
Medicine
The Sessional Dates for the MD program for 1999-2000 were received by Senate for information.
Senate was informed of a revision to the list of first-year courses to identify a 020-level Childhood and Family Relations course as either an Arts or a Social Science course credit.
SCUP has approved on behalf of the Senate the terms of reference for the following new scholarships and bursaries, for recommendation to the Board of Governors through the Vice-Chancellor:
The Annual Report of the Senate Sabbatical Leave Committee for 1998-99 (Exhibit V) was received by Senate for information.
The Annual Report of the Senate Sabbatical Leave Appeal Committee for 1998-99 (Exhibit VI) was received by Senate for information.
Announcements and Communications, detailed in Exhibit VII, were provided for information.
The Report of D.M.R. Bentley, Academic Colleague, was received by Senate for information.
Professor Jorgensen asked if Council had any response to preliminary paper on intellectual property produced by a committee chaired by Pierre Fortier. Professor Bentley explained that the committee is the Expert Panel on the Commercialization of University Research for the Prime Minister's Advisory Council on Science and Technology. The proposal that the results of projects funded by federal granting agencies should accrue to the university or universities in which a project is housed caused considerable consternation in Council. Professor Bentley speculated that it will generate vigorous representations to have the proposal changed.
Professor Bentley reported that Professor Heather Munroe-Blum of the University of Toronto is heading up a task force to look at how to make Ontario more innovative. Her request is that individuals and groups within the universities of Ontario send her suggestions about "how effectively to harness Ontario's system of universities in contributing in large part to the equipping of Ontario to play a significant role nationally and in the global economy." Submissions should be made within the next two months. Further details may be obtained from Professor Bentley.
The meeting adjourned at 3:10 p.m.
(Signed by)
A. Pearson, Chair
J.K. Van Fleet, Secretary
Chair Secretary
Amendments to the Proposed Academic Accommodation for Students with Disabilities: Policy and Handbook
Senate Agenda Exhibit III, Appendix 1, May 21, 1999
Page 1, paragraph 1 (introduction):
"The University of °ÄÃÅÁùºÏ²Ê¿ª½±Ô¤²â Ontario ..." The University, therefore, recognizes its obligation to provide reasonable academic accommodation to students with disabilities where the accommodation can be implemented without compromising the academic integrity of theacademiccourse or program. ...
Page 2, paragraph 1- 2: The Responsibility of the Instructor, Chair, Dean:
The decision whether to accept an accommodation suggested by SSD rests with the instructor in the first instance. The instructor, Chair or Dean may reject a suggested accommodation only if it would compromise the academic integrity of theacademiccourse or program. All those involved in making the decision must recognize their obligation to accommodate where possible, and their obligation to respect both the privacy and dignity of the student, as well as the academicintegrity of theacademicprograms.
It is the responsibility of the instructor to identify the essential academic requirements of the particular course or program so that the discussions are properly informed. Where possible, it is recommended that instructors provide SSD with a summary of these essential academic requirements prior to or at the beginning of classes. The instructor is responsible for working with SSD to determine the manner and extent to which the student's needs, arising out of the diagnosed disability, can and should be accommodated. It is equally the responsibility of the instructor to question a suggested accommodation if the instructor believes it would compromise the academic integrity of the course or program.it is inappropriate given the essential academic requirements of the course or program, or if it would alter the essential academic requirements of the course or program. In such circumstances, instructors are encouraged to suggest alternative accommodations, where appropriate.
Page 3
PROVISION OF INFORMATION
All material released by SSD shall be equally available to the student, instructor, Chair and Dean.
PROCEDURES
In applying the policy, the following procedures will normally be followed:...
3. If SSD, after determining that a student has a disability requiring accommodation, proposes to recommend a form of accommodation to the instructor, it will make best efforts to contact the instructor (at minimum, by electronic mail) to discuss essential course or program requirements and possible accommodations, and to give the instructor the opportunity to discusscomment onthe appropriateness of the proposed accommodation. Where possible, SSD shall attempt to contact the instructor by the third week of classes in the fall and winter terms and by the end of the first week of classes in Intersession, distance studies, summer day and summer evening sessions. Following discussion with the instructor, or within two weeks of first attempting to contact the instructor where no discussion has yet occurred, SSD, if it remains of the view that accommodation is required, will send a letter to the instructor. The letter should contain (1) a statement as to the documentation on file with SSD; (2) a brief description of the nature of the student's diagnosed disability and consequent needs; (3) a suggested accommodation. A copy of this letter will be sent to the Dean of the student's home Faculty for information and SSD will make a copy available to the student.
Page 4
8. The Dean shall review the material and if the Dean does not agree that the suggested accommodation will compromise the academic integrity of the course or program in light of their essential requirements, the Dean shall notify SSD in writing within one week that the accommodation is to be granted, with a copy to the student, the instructor, the Chair, and the Dean of the student's home Faculty. If the Dean agrees that the suggested accommodation will compromise the academic integrity of the course or program in light of their essential requirements, the Dean shall notify SSD in writing within one week that the accommodation is not to be granted, with a copy to the student, the instructor, and the Chair. The student may apply ....(etc.)
Pages 4-5
9. The Senate Review Board Academic shall follow the procedures set out under Senate policies "Student Academic Appeals" and "Appeals to SRBA", provided that in the case of a conflict between the regulations and procedures set out under those policies and this Policy, the regulations and procedures under this Policy shall prevail. To uphold a decanal refusal, the Senate Review Board Academic must be persuaded that the suggested accommodation or accommodations would compromise the academic integrity of the academic course or program in light of the essential requirements of that course or program.
If the Dean accepts the accommodation proposed by SSD, the instructor may appeal the decanal decision to the Provost, (or to the Principal in the case of an Affiliated College). The Provost's (or Principal's) decision is final and not appealable to SRBA.
A copy of the final decision of the University shall be forwarded to the Dean of the student's home Faculty...
11. Where a student has been accommodated pending the final disposition of all appeals, and such disposition is that accommodation should not be granted, the grade received on any examination, test or assignment completed under the conditions of interim accommodation is to be nullified. Any such examination, test or assignment must then be re-administered without the interim accommodation. If re-administration of such examination, test or assignmentunder conditions which do not provide accommodation or, where thatis not possible, an alternative means of fairly determining the student's course mark must be devised by the instructor and communicated to the student.
Page 6
2. It is University Policy.
°ÄÃÅÁùºÏ²Ê¿ª½±Ô¤²â's Policy on Academic Accommodation for Students with Disabilities states: "The University . . . recognizes its obligation to provide reasonable academic accommodation to students with disabilities where the accommodation can be implemented without compromising the academic integrity of the
academiccourse or program." °ÄÃÅÁùºÏ²Ê¿ª½±Ô¤²â's policy is ....(etc.)
Page 10
The Responsibilities of a School, Department or Faculty
The School, Department or Faculty has the primary responsibility for adapting its services to the needs of students with disabilities who require accommodation. Where a School, Department or Faculty cannot provide the required accommodation without additional financial or physical resources, it may request assistance from the Provost's office. In exercising this responsibility, all those involved must recognize the University's obligation to provide reasonable academic accommodation that respects both the privacy and dignity of the student, as well as the academic integrity of theacademicprograms.