Glenn, the committee's chair, spoke approvingly of one dean's description of the appeals process -- that the burden of proof rests with the appellant, but the burden of fairness is on the University. "It's a good formula to bear in mind."

In two of the cases, the report noted that, in evaluating someone for tenure, the committee concluded that a candidate's research must be judged "principally on performance, rather than promise."

For instance, although one candidate had earned several peer-reviewed grants and fellowships from respected funding agencies -- an accomplishment clearly pointing to the individual's potential as a researcher -- the subcommittee considering the case did "not find much evidence in the appellant's dossier of results of the research for which the funding was received."

The committee's report also suggested that the "role and responsibilities" of departmental tenure committees be spelled out "more explicitly" in the future. These committees "play a more important role in the tenure process than appears from" McGill's tenure regulations. Adds the report, "It does not seem desirable that departmental practice should vary from faculty to faculty across the University" as is often the case currently.

East Asian studies professor Robin Yates asked Glenn about one tenure case outlined in the report which involved, among other things, a candidate's contributions to the University community, one of the three areas, including teaching and research, on which candidates are assessed.

The report suggests that for a candidate to be judged as superior in this regard, her efforts on University committees and other areas "must be a contribution which makes a demonstrable difference."

Yates wondered how junior faculty could make a demonstrable difference.

Getting scolded

Glenn replied that the committee was trying to make the point that it wasn't enough for a candidate "to simply list a number of committees" on their résumés, they had to indicate that they attended the meetings of those committees regularly and took active part in their efforts.

Glenn stated that she was stepping down from the committee and that former dean of law Yves-Marie Morissette would be replacing her. She seized the opportunity to announce that she would be playing a more active role in the efforts to build up the collections of her faculty's library -- and to scold McGill for its recent budget cuts in this area.

She stated that the law library was losing some essential subscriptions and documents as a result of these cuts -- including items concerning recent cases of the Supreme Court of Canada and the statutes of New Zealand and Australia.

She said such cuts imperil "the bread and butter of a university." She added that it was "less than reasonable" to expect candidates for tenure to perform well in the areas of teaching and research if the library resources they had access to were in a state of decline.

Principal Bernard Shapiro said he "didn't disagree" with Glenn's views. He added that McGill currently faced many pressing demands -- better compensation for staff, faculty renewal, an improved system for supporting graduate students -- that were all legitimate.

He stated that the focus of next month's joint meeting of Senate and the Board of Governors would be McGill's funding priorities.

He also indicated that he is considering a markedly different approach for McGill's next budget. Instead of parcelling out the majority of the money on a faculty by faculty basis, then using the leftover cash for a discretionary fund to deal with special needs, Shapiro is considering "reversing" the process.

"We could decide that some needs are so pressing, we should take [the money] off the top. The rest of the University would cope with what's left."

Shapiro added that the next budget would almost surely result in a deficit. "It remains to be seen how high a deficit the Board of Governors will tolerate."

English professor Kerry McSweeney, chair of the University Bookstore Committee, returned to Senate to discuss the bookstore's operations.

McSweeney noted ruefully that he had received an earful from irate professors the last time he appeared before Senate earlier this semester.

Describing it as the "September debacle," McSweeney spoke about how dozens of professors complained to his committee that the bookstore had performed poorly this fall in terms of stocking texts that were essential reading material for McGill courses.

McSweeney said that Jamie Swift, the president of Chapters Campus Bookstores, which oversees the operation of the McGill bookstore, chalked up the failure to a major supplier's warehouse problems and to the late installation of a new textbook management computer system.

McSweeney, in a letter to Swift that he shared with Senate, charged that Chapters had demonstrated "an indifference to educational considerations and a failure to grasp the essential difference between a university bookstore and other bookstores."

Bookstore woes

McSweeney raised questions about Chapters' ability to retain bookstore staff and suggested that this could have been a contributing factor to the bookstore's unsatisfactory performance leading up to the fall. He suggested that, according to knowledgeable sources, the bookstore might be "one resignation away from another textbook crisis." He added that professors complained about some bookstore staff being "ill-informed and rude."

He stated that Chapters has produced an "action plan" to deal with the January rush and that the company pledged to perform better in the future.

But McSweeney raised concerns about his committee's ability to adequately address the concerns of teachers vis-à-vis the bookstore.

Since Chapters took over the management of McGill's store, there are now two separate McGill committees that deal with bookstore matters -- McSweeney's, which represents the interests of Senate, and a bookstore oversight committee that reports to the vice-principal (administration and finance) and deals with the operation, management and administration of the bookstore.

He said that even when the impending textbook problems in the fall became apparent to Chapters and the oversight committee, the Senate committee "was kept out of the loop." McSweeney declared that his committee wound up as Senate's "whipping boy," even though, under the current set-up, Chapters seems to feel little responsibility to keep the Senate committee apprised of what's happening at the bookstore.

McSweeney called for the two McGill committees that dealt with bookstore issues to be merged.

Vice-Principal (Administration and Finance) Morty Yalofsky said such a merger would be difficult, because the oversight committee exists to deal with the contractual obligations of both McGill and Chapters in regard to the bookstore.

But Yalofsky agreed that the two McGill committees need to have a better relationship with one another.

To that end, he said the chair of Senate's bookstore committee would become an ex officio member of the oversight committee from here on in. And extracts from operating reports about the bookstore would be shared with the members of the Senate committee.

While McSweeney agreed that Yalofsky's proposals represented an improvement, political science professor Sam Noumoff believes the committees should still be merged. He spoke of the "lack of transparency" of the oversight committee given that, in dealing with the bookstore, it deals with issues with academic repercussions.