In his introduction, Vice-Principal (Academic) Bill Chan said that 50 percent of McGill students "are from out of town." Although this period can be exciting and challenging, for students away from home for the first time in their lives, it can also be "a discouraging and potentially disastrous experience." The purpose of the First Year Experience Workgroup was to turn the experience into a positive one.

Amsel explained that the First Year Experience Workgroup had made several recommendations, including the creation of the position of First Year Coordinator. She said that the position provides a central office from which to coordinate orientation, outreach to prospective students, recruitment activities and counselling for first- year students.

Other initiatives include establishing a Critical Incidents Committee to provide help and information to students in the event of a crisis situation. Professor Leon Glass, who has taught first-year seminars, reported that some of his students were "disappointed with class sizes, quality of food in the residences, and courses listed in the calendar, but not offered."

Student representative Andrew Kovacs stated his approval of the First Year Experience Workgroup.

"Unlike other committees, everything they do results in immediate and tangible changes."

The University Admissions Committee presented a motion to Senate calling for the minimum GPA requirement for admission to graduate studies to "be increased to 3.0 (cumulative), or alternatively, 3.2 (cumulative for the last two full-time academic years)."

Vice-Principal (Research) Pierre Bélanger said that this wasn't "a bold move. We're behind other universities on this issue. In fact, it's not much of a departure from current practice."

However, some senators felt the motion might create a benchmark that would prove too high for some potentially good graduate studies candidates. They noted that some students are late bloomers who prove to be good at research even when their grade averages are lower than the norm.

"Just because we raise the bar," said Bélanger, "it doesn't mean that we can't be flexible." He said that exceptions are made in cases where evidence suggests that a student deserves to go on to graduate studies. He also said that some departments have different admission requirements. "But they're all higher than ours."

Professor Sam Noumoff noted that the GPA requirement was only one of several criteria, including letters of reference, by which candidates are evaluated.

The question was called and the motion carried.

Vice-Principal (Administration and Finance) Phyllis Heaphy presented the document "Budget Considerations for 1998-99." Anxiously awaited by the McGill community, this budget offered some bad news, few surprises and a little solace.

The biggest news is that McGill's 1998-99 budget may include a $5 million deficit. A balanced budget was not an option "without dangerously impairing the quality of our academic programs," stated the document. Government grant cuts continue to undermine Quebec universities' best efforts to deal with them.

Heaphy focused her presentation on the major changes in store for the next budget. A projected decrease in the operating grant across the University was slated to be $11.4 million.

A four percent decrease in the full-time equivalent student enrolment will cause an operating grant decrease of $2 million. Funds set aside by McGill for contingencies will be reduced from $2 million to $1.5 million. Other expenses include a $750,000 academic salary correction.

Another change was to the operating funds available for student aid and scholarships. Two years ago, no operating money was available for student aid. About $3 million was allocated following the government's decision to raise tuition for international and out-of-province Canadian students. This will be reduced by $1 million.

All in all, this could have resulted in a deficit of $11.2 million. However, a number of steps will be taken to keep this deficit to the $5 million level. Some measures, for example, removing surplus money from the old Long-Term Disability (LTD) Plan, energy conservation, decreased subsidies to Solin Residences and the Faculty Club, and an energy cost recovery from student associations, will total $2,850,000. Furthermore, revenue from a new student charge for the new financial Information system will generate $800,000. It is also possible that the cut to Quebec's university system will be less than the expected $80 million. Although the actual amount is unknown, Heaphy estimates it may be as much as $20 million less. If this happens, McGill would recover another $2.8 million to help keep the deficit at $5 million.

Heaphy noted that McGill will not be the only Quebec university with a deficit next year. Laval is "planning for a huge deficit" while Université de Montréal expects a deficit roughly the same size as our own.

During the question and comments period that followed Heaphy's presentation, Professor Ted Meighen noted that an agreement exists which could make it difficult for the University to recover the surplus from the old LTD plan. Heaphy said that if such a document exists, the recovery will have to be reexamined.

Students' Society representative Elizabeth Gomery warned that the decrease in funds for student aid and scholarships could undermine McGill's "mission as a national and international university." She also worried about how the energy conservation measures, which would reduce ventilation in buildings during evenings and weekends, might affect the health of students and staff. She noted that increased employee sick leave might wipe out any potential financial savings.

Tara Newell, Students' Society president, was pleased to see no mention of the Facilities Use Recovery (FUR) payment reduction of $350,000 over a three-year period to Student Services discussed at the March 4 Senate meeting. However, she asked the Vice-Principal to withdraw the $450,000 energy cost recovery item, "to give us time to consider and discuss this with our associations."

The strongest criticism came from Professor Richard Janda. "We're talking about digging ourselves deeper into the hole. All we're coming up with are nickel and dime solutions. It's not VP Heaphy's fault. We're just not willing to make tough decisions about cuts to programs."

Principal Bernard Shapiro took the opportunity to make a few points. "I agree we can't keep spending more money than we've got. But the partnership on which Canadian universities are built is falling apart. It's not feasible to run a balanced budget next year."

He said, however, that he was confident that the Board would approve this $5 million deficit, but "not a dollar larger and not another one next year."

He noted that many measures to make money were being considered, including selling off certain real estate.

"We have properties, but to call them investment properties is overstating things."

He said that other more drastic solutions were considered, but that the University decided to provide a breather by keeping cuts to two percent.

"I felt that the social fabric of the community could not stand a bigger cut."