Volume 29 - Number 10 - Thursday, February 13, 1997


Senate highlights

[ The complete list of recommendations ]

by Karl Jarosiewicz

During the Wednesday, January 29 Senate question period, Professor Gerald Ratzer asked if the recent sale of software by McGill University and PolarSoft Inc. (see Reporter January 31) was in keeping with University policy.

"Also, is it a good model to follow? What is McGill doing to encourage such development?" he continued. Vice-Principal (Research) Pierre Bélanger, having drawn the short straw during the Senate Steering committee meeting, rose to answer.

"There is at present no policy for [developments by] non-academics," he said, adding that there is in fact no working policy for intellectual property. "This is a good example of commercial exploitation of a McGill development, but it was done on an ad hoc basis.

"There was a happy ending for both McGill and the developer." (Under the terms of the deal, McGill retains $5 million of the $8.5 million sale.) Bélanger promised that an intellectual property policy will be brought before Senate for debate and approval within "one or two months."

Deep freeze

Vice-Principal (Administration and Finance) Phyllis Heaphy released the latest statistics (as of August 31, 1996) on administrative and support staff numbers, which showed a continuing decline overall.

A total of 111 people, representing 4% of all staff, left the University during the quarter ended August 31, 1996. A total of 101 employees accepted the Special Early Retirement Plan, contributing to the large drop, although some of the 101 people retired after the fiscal quarter under discussion.

The report presented by Heaphy claimed that "since the hiring freeze was instituted in the first quarter of 1995, there has been a drop of almost 11% in administrative and support staff numbers." Heaphy said the freeze will likely remain in force in view of the "drastic cuts in the operating grant which are still to come."

A five-year plan

The Academic Policy and Planning Committee (APPC) released with its 286th Report a paper called "Academic Directions and Budget Strategies for the Next Five Years." Since its beginnings as a discussion paper called "Towards a New McGill," the current document has evolved from various recommendations made by the Macdonald Task Force Report, the Planning and Priorities Subcommittee (P & P), and members of Senate at meetings on May 15 and May 29, 1996.

Having met a road block on some issues at the last Senate meeting in May 1996, P & P revised the document last summer, essentially boiling the 40-odd recommendations down to 24. The list was assessed at a Joint Meeting of the Board and Senate on September 30, 1996, and each recommendation received a rating of "critical," "important" or "unessential."

The whole document was then debated and subsequently endorsed by APPC, with specific comments and amendments added. And it was this document that came before Senate for one more consideration.

The 24 recommendations were presented to Senate by three members: Leanore Lieblein, Don McGowan and Nicholas de Takacsy.

Many of the recommendations were accepted without additional debate, but certain ones produced lengthy commentaries and amendments.

There were two main sources of contention. First, the format of the paper occasionally made unclear whether the presenters were reading the original P & P recommendations or the amended versions from APPC.

Second, some of the recommendations were so poorly worded as to produce unnecessary ambiguities, prompting some senators to request that APPC withdraw the document and try rewriting whole sections.

While it's impossible to recap the discussions in their entirety, the rest of this Senate Report catalogues the main points and arguments.

Recommendation #4 called for academic units to increase the proportion of graduate students relative to undergraduates "wherever this is justified on academic and fiscal grounds." APPC's comment states that it "cannot defend this recommendation as it is written because it is not well justified."

Several senators, beginning with Dean of Education Ted Wall, rejected the text as vague and unclear. Professor Bruce Shore, a member of P & P, defended the passage, saying that any ambiguity resulted from its being "pulled out of the original supporting text." He added that it comes from the 1991 Report of the Task Force on Priorities.

Dean of Engineering John Dealy called that report "misguided and ill-informed. This is the most expensive recommendation by far, and impossible to [implement] without doing so at the expense of undergraduates." The recommendation was withdrawn.

Targeting recruitment, teaching

Recommendation #5 called for faculties to devise recruitment strategies "that will take into account the results of student surveys and market studies and estimated economic impact." It also called for particular efforts to be made to recruit "francophone students from all parts of Canada and world-wide."

APPC endorsed the idea but dropped reference to francophone students.

Graduate student Anna Kruzynski asked that Senate reinstate the word francophone. She noted that the purpose was to diversify the francophone student population at McGill in much the same way as anglophone students at McGill come from all parts of the world. David Cohen, the Board representative on Senate, objected, much as he had done at the Senate meeting of May 15, to any special efforts aimed at francophones.

"There are still some anglo-phone students left in this province. This sends a clear message that we are abandoning them. We shouldn't be so specific."

Bélanger stated that he was "in favour of the amendment" to reinstate the word francophone. "It does not say 'only' Quebec francophones, but it recognizes that we're in Quebec and a part of it. It's not a slap at English Montreal." Dean of Law Stephen Toope also sided with the amendment, saying that it provides a necessary target.

Dean of Music Richard Lawton quelled the flames of controversy when he proposed that the wording include "qualified students around the world, in particular francophone students here and elsewhere." The amendment and the motion were accepted.

Recommendation #7 called for all academic staff to enhance their skills in undergraduate teaching. APPC wanted to drop the word "undergraduate." Professor Lydia White supported this, saying that "graduate teaching is important, too."

Shore replied that "it removes the punch. We (P & P) were supposed to remove the ambiguous tone and wording. There's nothing against graduates here. It's just intended to honour undergraduate concerns." This position was supported by Dean Wall.

The recommendation was approved with the word undergraduate reinstated.

Recommendation #9, which called for the implementation of a regular third trimester, was dropped.

Calling for the University to refocus its efforts in continuing education on university graduates, Recommendation #11 was swiftly opposed and voted down. Leanore Lieblein made a motion to establish a workgroup to look at continuing education and its relation to the University's mission. The motion carried.

Verbiage on virtual library

Recommendation #15, which called on the senior administrators of the four Montreal universities to "develop the necessary communications infrastructure to implement the virtual library," caused quite a stir, largely because it continues with commentary on the role and future vision of librarians. It even calls for the introduction of a common student identification card for all Quebec universities.

Principal Bernard Shapiro asked the presenter, Don McGowan, to "make clear what you want to include, because some of this is editorial comment," not recommendations Senate has the power to make.

Ensuing calls from Senators for changes to the wording caused Shapiro to remark that "this shows us that more care should be taken in drafting these recommendations at the committee level."

Dean Toope even went so far as to ask that Senate refer the remainder of the recommendations back to APPC "to get rid of the unnecessary committee verbiage." He ascribed the confusing text to a turf battle between APPC and P & P.

Vice-Principal (Academic) Bill Chan refuted this, saying that there was no disagreement between the two committees on this recommendation in particular. Professor Pat Farrell said that the document should come back with simplified recommendations, not a lot of appended and hybrid commentary.

Professor Nicholas de Takacsy stated that "APPC did not want to produce a completely new 30-page report, but rather make only appropriate comments."

"I'm not trying to stop debate," said Toope, "but to clarify the debate." "The debate will continue," said Kruzynski. "We could probably get through it today."

The motion was eventually approved with some adjustments to the text.

Evaluating academic performance

Controversy again reared its head with recommendation #22 which, among other points, called for "a formal system of assessment for academic staff whose performance has manifestly fallen below the standard for which tenure was granted." (The original P & P wording used the word "perceived" in place of "has manifestly.")

Dealy said that "a system of assessment only for some is confusing and unacceptable."

Both the APPC and the P & P wordings had their fans and opponents. Professor Anthony Masi called for a universal system of assessment, in other words for all tenured academics.

"APPC has been unable to imagine a mechanism that could deal with 1,500 staff members," said de Takacsy. Dean of Science Alan Shaver opposed the broad assessment scheme, saying, "Many performance appraisals are already in place. Variance between faculties makes a University-wide system impractical."

The motion by Masi was defeated and the APPC recommendation was voted on and carried.

In the end, the document was accepted. Now remains the task of fitting the recommendations within a wider framework and then implementing them in the coming months. Shapiro has promised to report to Senate on their progress.




URO Central



Front Page



Contact us



Back issues