Senate

Friday, November 3, 2006

4:30 p.m. - Senate Chambers

Dr. F. Gilbert, Chair

Dr. F. Allaire

Ms. S. Badio

Dr. A. Bartley

Ms. T. Beck

Dr. A. Carastathis

Dr. Q.L. Dang

Mr. F. Dawood

Dr. A. Dean

Dr. R. Dilley

Dr. T. Dufresne

Dr. J. Epp

Mr. S. Esarik

Dr. J. Farrell

Dr. P. Fralick

Dr. M. Gallagher

Dr. E. Gardner

Dr. L. Geng

Dr. A. Gillies

Dr. S. Hamilton

Dr. L. Hayes

Dr. G. Hayman

Mr. N. Hewitson

Dr. M.L. Hill

Dr. D. Hunt

Dr. S. Islam

Dr. P. Jasen

Mr. B. Johnson

Dr. A. Kajander

Professor T. King

Dr. J. Leggatt

Dr. L. Lovett-Doust

Dr. H. Malik

Dr. S. Mansour

Dr. M. McPherson

Professor A. Nabarra

Dr. K. Natarajan

Dr. Professor M. Nisenholt

Ms. M. Norton

Dr. J. O'Sullivan

Mr. A. Pan

Dr. R. Payne

Professor G. Phillips

Mr. T. Pile

Professor K. Poole

Dr. T. Puk

Dr. R. Robson

Dr. U. Runesson

Dr. H. Saliba

Dr. N. Sayed

Dr. M. Shannon

Dr. S. Siddiqui

Mrs. B. Stefureak, Secretary

Dr. S. Stone

Dr. B. Strang

Dr. P. Wakewich

Dr. R. Wang

Dr. R. Warburton

Dr. D. West

Dr. K. Yu

Dr. M. Zahaf

Dr. P. Allingham

Dr. J. Birkholz

Dr. G. Boire

Dr. M. Boyd

Dr. K. Brown

Dr. M. C. Courtland

Mr. K. Dahl

Mrs. A. Deighton

Dr. A. Gilbert

Mr. C. Goodwin

Dr. M.L. Kelley

Dr. S. Kinrade

Dr. P. Lee

Dr. M. Leitch

Dr. R. Maundrell

Dr. L. Meyer

Dr. I. Newhouse

Dr. J. O'Meara

Dr. R. Pulkki

Dr. D. Smith

Dr. C. Southcott

Dr. R. Strasser

Dr. D. Tranter

Mrs. K.L. Clarke

Ms. H. Doyle

Ms. A. Foshay

Mr. M. Pawlowski

Mr. J. Smith

The meeting was called to order at 4:30 p.m. Dr. Dang introduced Mr. Don Campbell, Chair of the Board of Governors. Mr. Campbell referred to the handout in front of Senators, which outlined the award criteria and the objective of the Fellow of the University Award, indicating his hope that members of Senate would participate in identifying worthy recipients of this award. Though the nomination period was to close in early November, it had been extended.

Mr. Campbell spoke of his personal experience with post-secondary education, his strong views of how a university could stay financially healthy and academically strong, and his perception of how much Lakehead University had achieved in the past five years. He urged all members of the University community to continue to remember that the primary purpose of the institution was to meet the needs of its students. He applauded the position taken by Lakehead to focus on Government, but not to depend on it, not to be satisfied with the status quo, and to embrace change where appropriate and necessary. He recognized that the University's most important value was the health and safety of its students, faculty and employees, and its refusal to accept anything but the highest standards and behaviour. He closed with the thought that Lakehead was now a healthy institution, capable of anything it wanted to do and he hoped that all members of the university community would continue in their attitude of always striving for excellence.

A member expressed hope that the Board of Governors would not see students as clients or customers; Mr. Campbell assured him that the analogy was only in the Board's firm understanding that students are the raison d'etre of any University. Without them, just as in the business model without customers, the University would fail.

A member hoped that Mr. Campbell recognized the hard work continuously underway and invited members of the Board to visit academic units to see first-hand the support toward Lakehead's continued growth.

1. Approval of Agenda

Dr. Gilbert asked that the agenda be amended to have item 9 changed to a request for Senate approval that the Course Evaluation policy be referred to the Senate Committee on Teaching and Learning for review. Dr. West asked that a Report from the Senate Academic Committee be added to the Agenda.

MOVED by Dr. Saliba, SECONDED by Dr. Hayman that the Agenda be approved as amended. CARRIED.

2. Minutes of Senate Meeting #2006-7 held on October 6, 2006

Dr. McPherson corrected the second last sentence of the first paragraph of item 9, page 5 of the Senate Minutes to read "timely to enable students to make informed decisions related to their programs."

Mr. Dawood asked to be recognized as seconder to the motion by Mr. Johnson under item 4, page 3.

MOVED by Dr. West, SECONDED by Mr. Hewitson that the Minutes be approved as amended. CARRIED.

3. Business Arising from the Minutes

A member had heard that Lakehead had been recognized as the top undergraduate research institution in the country and noted that, in its appointments of students to standing committees, Senate had not appointed an undergraduate student to the Senate Research Committee. The Chair responded that Lakehead's recognition had been as the top among primarily undergraduate institutions. Further, the terms of reference for the Committee required the appointment of a graduate student and that had been done.

Referring to page 8 of the Minutes, a member asked for a response to the question that had arisen with respect to hiring strategies for graduate supervisors. Dr. Hayes reported that the deans had been working on a proposal which she expected to receive on Monday, hopefully to be considered by the AEC next week so that recruitment could get underway soon.

4. Late Additions to Graduands' List, May 2006

Ms. Foshay reported on the Late Additions to the May, 2006 Graduands' List and referred members to the full posting on the Senate website.

5. Proposed 2007/08 Calendar Changes for Referral

Proposed calendar changes for all faculties had been posted to the Senate website.

5.1 Faculty of Science and Environmental Studies

MOVED by Dr. Dean, SECONDED by Dr. Fralick that the proposed calendar changes in Geology, Mathematical Sciences and Water Resource Science Program be referred to the appropriate Senate Committees as indicated on the Agenda. CARRIED.

5.2 Faculty of Social Sciences and Humanities

MOVED by Dr. Strang, SECONDED by Dr. Islam that the proposed calendar changes in Visual Arts, English, History and Indigenous Learning be referred to the appropriate Senate Committees as indicated on the Agenda. CARRIED.

5.3Faculty of Business Administration

MOVED by Dr. Geng, SECONDED by Mr. Johnson that the proposed calendar changes in the Master of Science, Management Program be referred to the Graduate Studies Council and the Senate Budget Committee. CARRIED.

5.4Faculty of Education - HBEd (Aboriginal Education)

MOVED by Dr. Gardner, SECONDED by Dr. O'Sullivan that the proposed new H.B.Ed. (Aboriginal Education) program be referred to the Undergraduate Studies Committee and the Budget Committee. CARRIED.

5.5Faculty of Professional Schools - MPH

Dr. McPherson requested that this item be deferred to the next meeting, pending confirmation that it had been approved by Faculty Council.

5.6Faculty of Engineering - Mechanical Engineering

MOVED by Dr. Saliba, SECONDED by Dr. Siddiqui that the proposed calendar change in Mechanical Engineering be referred to the Undergraduate Studies Committee and the Budget Committee. CARRIED.

5.7Faculty of Forestry and the Forest Environment

MOVED by Dr. Dang, SECONDED by Dr. Saliba that the proposed undergraduate and graduate calendar changes in Forestry and the Forest Environment be referred to the appropriate Senate Committees as indicated on the Agenda. CARRIED.

6.Recommendations on Proposed Calendar Changes

6.1 Referred by Senate on October 6, 2006 - Undergraduate

MOVED by Dr. Sayed, SECONDED by Dr. Islam that the proposed Calendar changes in Engineering and Sociology, referred by Senate on October 6, be approved as recommended in the reports of the Undergraduate Studies Committee and the Senate Budget Committee. CARRIED.

6.2 Referred by Senate on May 15, 2006 - Graduate

MOVED by Dr. Strang, SECONDED by Professor Nisenholt that the proposed graduate Calendar change in Psychology, referred by Senate on May 15, 2006 be approved as recommended in the reports of the Graduate Studies Council and the Senate Budget Committee. CARRIED.

7. Recommendation of LUSU for additional Graduate and Undergraduate Student Representation on Senate and Senate Standing Committees for referral to Senate Organization Committee

MOVED by Mr. Johnson, SECONDED by Mr. Dawood that Senate refer to the Senate Organization Committee for further study the recommendation of LUSU that one new graduate student position be added to the Senate Information Systems Committee; that one graduate student be added to the Senate Organization Committee; that one student position be added to the Senate Honorary Degree Committee; and that two new student positions (one undergraduate and one graduate) be added to Senate. CARRIED.

8. Report of the Senate Information Systems Committee

Dr. Puk, Chair of the Committee, noted that there had been another meeting of the Senate Information Systems Committee since its Report had been submitted to Senate. While the Report had indicated that e-mail accounts would be divided and transferred to two servers, the plan now was to house all accounts on one server. The University could not be informed of where the server would be located. That situation led to concerns among some members of the Committee that the University's e-mail accounts could be subject to scrutiny under the United States Patriot Act.

MOVED by Dr. Puk, SECONDED by Dr. Hayes that Senate support the proposed E-mail Policy as recommended by the Senate Information Systems Committee.

Members questioned and spoke to issues of privacy for LUSU's internal corporate communications; concerns about privacy of personal accounts; the legality of the policy with respect to allowing authorized access; the absence of students at the meetings where the policy was discussed and approved; the circumstances under which access might be authorized; which laws might support authorized access, the checks and balances to ensure that the policy would not be abused; and the absence of direction to another policy that addressed what happened in the event that there were unauthorized access to e-mail accounts.

Mr. Pawlowski was invited to speak to issues raised. He noted that the nature of e-mail communication, here and with all internet service providers, was not compatible with an expectation of privacy. Accordingly, he strongly advised that e-mails should not be used for private or confidential communication. If LUSU had serious concerns about access to its corporate e-mail communications, the corporation might want to consider installing its own server. He assured Senators that the proposed policy had evolved out of long and well-informed discussions, and he believed the solution proposed for authorized access, when necessary, was practical and appropriate for this institution. With respect to its legality, he indicated that, although the policy had not been referred to the University lawyer, it was modeled on the principles in approved policies at other institutions, Yahoo, Google, Hotmail and other ISP's. He concluded with the note that the University could be obliged to produce e-mail correspondence requested under access of information policies and legislation and his best advice was not to put anything in e-mail about which one had any privacy or confidentiality concerns.

Dr. Puk said that LUFA had received legal feedback on e-mail policy. He believed that, though he personally did not like it, this policy was consistent with those at other institutions He explained further that should members of the community have concerns in the future that the policy had been abused these could be raised through a number of avenues, including the Vice-President, Senate or LUSU.

In response to specific questions about the laws under which the University could access e-mail accounts, Dr. Puk and Mr. Pawlowski said there could be many. However, Mr. Pawlowski noted there were only four very specific conditions under which access was permitted and these were outlined in this policy. He foresaw, with respect to this point, that in most cases access would be triggered by a police request. Lakehead University would not be undertaking any responsibility in this area that would be any different from any other internet service provider.

It was recognized that there were phenomenal challenges surrounding e-mail usage and that the work done in this area should be applauded. However, with the number of concerns that had been raised, perhaps the policy should be deferred to allow time for more input.

MOVED by Dr. Hill, SECONDED by Mr. Dawood that the policy be referred back to the Information Systems Committee to allow for student participation in Committee discussions and to receive further input from the University community. CARRIED.

In the presentation of the Report, Dr. Puk had noted a concern about the location of the e-mail server after the upcoming transfer of accounts. The Chair asked Mr. Pawlowski to comment.

Mr. Pawlowski informed Senate that the physical location of the server provided no assurances with respect to whether or not access might occur. The United States could invoke the Patriot Act and access e-mail storage in many countries, under a wide variety of conditions. However, our contract with Google would stipulate that Lakehead e-mail storage could only be accessed through subpoena and only after Lakehead had been informed. Mr. Pawlowski further noted that the University would have had the same access concerns had it proceeded with any other solution, including those outlined in the Committee's report. The only way to avoid this concern would be to have an e-mail server resident at Lakehead with accounts active only within the institution. He repeated advice to users that, regardless of the server they were using, wisdom dictated e-mail should be considered as no more private than a postcard.

Mr. Pawlowski noted that the choice to contract with Google had been based on a tremendous cost savings over other providers, the significantly increased capacity for all users and the seamless way in which the transfer could occur.

9. Proposal to Refer Course Evaluation Policy to the Senate Committee on Teaching and Learning

MOVED by Dr. Strang, SECONDED by Mr. Dawood that the Course Evaluations Policy be referred to the Committee on Teaching and Learning for review.

Dr. Hayes explained how this matter had come to Senate. The procedure outlined in the Course Evaluation Policy had presented problems. Deans' Council had considered twice how the procedure could be more effective, while respecting the principles of the policy. In September, the Council had endorsed an on-line procedure for this semester. The Chair of the Teaching and Learning Committee had been notified as discussions were ongoing. The proposed change in procedure was not seen as a violation of the existing Senate policy.

Dr. McPherson, Chair of Teaching and Learning, confirmed that she had been notified of the possibility of a pilot project in July and again in late August when the question was under consideration by the Deans. If it were Senate's wish now, the Committee was prepared to review the policy.

The Director of Institutional Analysis and Government Relations recalled discussions about using an on-line procedure approximately five years ago but it was felt not to be feasible at that time. However, based on problems with the paper procedure last spring and technological advances that made an electronic procedure for evaluations now both feasible and preferable, discussions had been revived. Undertaking this exercise electronically increased significantly the assurance of confidentiality of the materials and anonymity of the students; it negated the need for paper evaluations to pass through several sets of hands, which was always a concern, and it assured direct communication between student and teacher without possibility, for example, of access by anyone else to the comments. Based on other electronic surveys conducted recently, there was the expectation of a satisfactory participation rate. Finally, in view of the decision at Deans' Council, paper forms had not been ordered, and a supply now could not be secured in time to meet the policy's timelines. Therefore, the University was either locked into the electronic procedure for this semester, or students and faculty would not have the benefit of course evaluations at all.

Dr. Gilbert indicated that the electronic course evaluation procedure was already underway electronically and that this needed to be treated as a pilot procedure. Input from the Committee on Teaching and Learning and students' reaction would determine what would be appropriate procedure for the future. Mrs. Clarke informed Senate that during the first 48 hours of the evaluation period 10% of students had already responded.

Members speaking in favor of the project pointed out: faculty and students would be assured of a significantly higher degree of confidentiality generally; specifically, students' concern about their handwritten comments on a paper form was eliminated; there was greater security of the data given that it would not be handled by intermediaries; higher rates of participation by students could be expected; accurate rates of participation could be collated with the on-line format; costs to the University for administering the evaluation would be significantly reduced; this could correct the concerns and problems with the recent paper-administered evaluations; and, given that paper evaluations were not possible this semester, faculty members who would like this information either for PTR within this University or for applications to other universities (in the case of contract faculty members) would not be deprived of these data in their curriculum vitae this semester. Likewise, students would not be deprived of the opportunity for evaluating courses this semester. Given the importance students have historically attributed to their opportunity to evaluate courses, this was an important consideration.

Issues raised against the project included: concerns with the timing of on-line administration of the course evaluations (too late for some courses; too early for others); the policy implied a paper-format procedure; a perception that the adapted procedure was an abrogation of the policy principles; the concern that normally pilot projects were undertaken in parallel to the usual procedure; concerns that when this was considered five years ago it was rejected; the absence of prior notification to faculty that the evaluation would be conducted on-line; the thought that only students with a strong motivation to provide feedback would do so on-line; and a concern that this provided students who never attended classes, and thus would not have been present when the paper evaluation was distributed, to evaluate the course.

In response to a question, Dr. Gilbert said to respect timelines in the policy currently in place, the procedure was already underway. He hoped that it could proceed to its successful completion. He acknowledged the concerns and thought it was important that the Committee on Teaching and Learning enter into the discussion with the objective of addressing those concerns when the Committee's recommendation was brought back to Senate.

Dr. Phillips MOVED to amend the motion to refer by adding that the on-line process be stopped immediately. The Chair ruled the amendment out of order. Dr. Phillips appealed (seconded by Dr. Puk) from the decision of the Chair. Other members of Senate addressed the appeal. Before the question to sustain the action of the Chair could be called a member suggested the mover and seconder might agree to withdraw the appeal if assured that a motion to stop the on-line process would be allowed. The appeal from the decision of the Chair was withdrawn.

STRANG/DAWOOD MOTION was CARRIED.

MOVED by Professor Phillips, SECONDED by Dr. Puk that the current process of on-line course evaluations be discontinued immediately.

Speaking to the motion, Professor Phillips explained his concern that allowing the on-line process to continue could create a bad precedent.

Dr. Hayes expressed concern about the rights of those students and faculty members who believed, as required by policy, that course evaluations would be undertaken. It was not possible to convert to paper procedure this term and both students and faculty would be unable to realize the benefits of the policy. To a further comment that the on-line evaluation was an abrogation of policy, Dr. Hayes repeated her view that it was not. It was a change of procedure in the administration of the policy.

Dr. Strang had presented, on behalf of his Faculty Council, the Notice of Motion originally on the agenda. He spoke to the importance of allowing colleagues the opportunity to have the current evaluation completed. Though he recognized some concerns about the letter of the policy, he believed it would be beneficial to allow individual faculty members to choose whether or not they wished to use the information collected. A problem with this policy was that it touched on descriptions of procedure; these were separate issues. He closed with the concern that if faculty members were not allowed to have evaluations completed there could be damage to careers, particularly for those on contract.

A member suggested that the administration could supply individuals currently in the PTR processwith a letter indicating why evaluations would not be part of their file for this term.

A member thought it unreasonable that students' wishes to evaluate courses would not be allowed to be accommodated. In response to the mover's comment that faculty members could conduct their own evaluations in class, she indicated that those would not likely be consistent in format to the former ones (which was important for comparative purposes) and it was unlikely that in-class evaluations conducted by faculty members would be as effective.

PHILLIPS/PUK motion was CARRIED.

10.1 Report of the Senate Academic Committee

Dr. West reviewed the Report of the Senate Academic Committee which had been posted to the Senate website. He noted the establishment of a new Academic Regulations sub-committee to respond to referrals on changes to regulations from the Enrolment Management Committee. In response to a question, Dr. West believed this would be a standing committee of the Academic Committee.

MOVED by Dr. West, SECONDED by Dr. Islam that Senate Organization Committee be asked to recommend terms of reference for the Academic Regulations sub-committee. CARRIED.

10.2 Report of the Senate Research Committee - Strategic Research Plan 2006-2011 - Notice of Motion for Approval in December

Dr. Southcott referred Senators to the draft Strategic Research Plan, 2006-2011, which had been posted on the Senate website. The Plan would be presented for approval in December.

11. Report of the Joint Committee for NOSM

Dr. Farrell, Chair of the Committee, reported that a meeting, arranged for that morning, had been unable to achieve quorum and, so, no business had been conducted. She urged members of standing committees to remember the importance of appearing at meetings which they had indicated they would attend, or informing the Chair in advance if a situation prevented their attendance.

12. Report of the Senate Honorary Degrees Committee

Dr. Warburton informed Senators that Mr. Goyce Kakagemic had agreed to accept an honorary degree.

13. President's Report

Dr. Gilbert noted that Lakehead University had been successful in being rated as the #1 research university in the primarily undergraduate category. He applauded the faculty for their central role in this outcome.

The Globe and Mail and MacLean's had both reported on university rankings. MacLean's had proceeded with old data and new data accessed in a different way, and Lakehead had moved up one in their rankings. The Globe and Mail publication, which was based on direct input from students, was positive but also highlighted areas of concern. Some of the information was parallel to what Lakehead was learning from the NSSE survey. At COU, university presidents had decided to proceed with the posting of information that would be of interest and relevant to prospective students. Lakehead's information would be submitted sometime next week.

A draft of the Multi-Year Agreement has been submitted to the Ministry for review. Feedback from the Ministry was expected by next Friday.

14. Report of the Vice-President (Academic) and Provost

Dr. Hayes acknowledged the presence of and congratulated Dr. Ulf Runesson who, based on student satisfaction and peer evaluation, had been named the Distinguished Instructor for this year. Dr. Runesson would be honoured with the presentation of his award on November 29. Dr. Siddall, Director of the Office of Instructional Development, added her congratulations and specified that the award presentation and Dr. Runesson's lecture would be on Wednesday, November 29, at 4:00 p.m. in the Faculty Lounge. Dr. Hayes noted that the criteria for the award were based not only on numerical ratings from students, but comments from students in supporting letters and accolades for the instructional activities that Dr. Runesson employed in his classroom.

Dr. Hayes further reported: that she had participated in a recruiting fair in the United States last week; that Lakehead University had hosted an accreditation team for clinical Psychology and an OCGS team for the PhD in Forestry and the Forest Environment, and she congratulated colleagues who had so effectively looked after these visitors; that the search for a Dean of Social Sciences and Humanities would be at the short-list phase in a few weeks, with reference-checking currently underway; that the Academic Plan had been reprinted to correct the repetition of one page and colleagues who wished to replace their copy could secure a new one from her office; and that several Senate standing committees were heavily engaged in working through the implementation of the recommendations in the Academic Plan.

15.Report of NOSM

Given the length of the meeting, Dr. Hunt kept his report very brief, indicating only that both the program and students were progressing very well.

16.Report of the COU Colleague

Dr. Hill reported that Council had decided to meet only twice a year and its next meeting was scheduled for May, 2007. Few executive heads were at the meeting and no decisions were taken. The rest of Dr. Hill's report would be on the Senate website following the meeting.

17.Renewal of Adjuncts Professors/Professional Associate in the Faculty of Science and Environmental Studies

Dr. Lovett-Doust reported the renewal by the Faculty of Science and Environmental Studies of the following for the terms and to the positions indicated: Dr. Karen Adams, Dr. Miguel Bombin, Dr. Patrick Julig, Dr. Paula Reimer, Dr. Vera Tiesler as Adjunct Professors in the Department of Anthropology for July 1, 2006 to June 30, 2010 and Ms. Jill Taylor-Holings as a Professional Associate also in the Department of Anthropology

July 1, 2006 to June 30, 2009; and Dr. Helga Duivenvoorden, Dr. Brian Ross and Dr. Zacharias E. Suntres as Adjunct Professors in the Department of Chemistry for July 1, 2007 to June 30, 2011.

The meeting was adjourned by the Chair at 6:40 p.m.

___________________________ __________________________________

B. Stefureak, Interim Secretary Dr. F. Gilbert, Chair