S-98-38 FACULTY OF SCIENCE Meeting of Faculty Tuesday, April 6, 1999 Leacock Council Room - L232 ATTENDANCE: As recorded in the Faculty Appendix Book. DOCUMENTS: S-98-34 to S-98-37 Dean Shaver called the meeting to order at 3:20 p.m. CHANGES TO THE AGENDA - Items 5(b) and 5(c) to be dealt with first. (5) DEAN'S BUSINESS (b) Networks, CFI; Banner, LMS2; Courseware, Educational Technology S-98-36 - Vice-Principal B. Pennycook (Information Systems & Technology) 805.1 Vice-Principal Pennycook spoke on the following topics and answered members' questions: Abstract 1. NETWORKS, CFIWhile we do not have final word on the Network Infrastructure Proposal I made to CFI, I am reasonably confident that we will be awarded a substantial amount of money to proceed with our plans to bring 10BaseT (switched) service as a minimum to every machine at McGill. It is important to note that the CFI money is only to fund the research-related use of the new network services and that funds for non- research use (teaching and administration ) will have to be contributed to the project. It will take some time for CC and I to work out an equitable model. 2. BANNER, LMS2The Banner Information Systems Project will deploy a new Financial Information System, Student Information System, and Human Resources Information System. We are also negotiating with McGill for a new Student Aid System. These are the primary "enterprise" systems and represent a major shift from "someone else will enter the data" to "you manage the data you need". The client server, Web-based model will significantly change how all of us, academics and non-academics, conduct our daily business. The new Library system replaces NOTIS, which is good, but obsolete. The new system is also a client- server/Web-based system that will provide a significant improvement to all forms of library and bibliographic information retrieval. 3. COURSEWARE, EDUCATIONAL TECHNOLOGYI am seeking external funds to establish a "Center for New Media and Educational Technology" not unlike those that exist at many other universities. The Centre will not be an academic unit, but rather a combination of several existing services plus a new focus on the integration of educational technology in the classroom and through on-line course delivery. Part of the puzzle is the need for a uniform procedure for the commercialization of courseware. I have presented to the Dean's such a policy and this should be discussed at a Faculty meeting. I welcome your views and suggestions. 805.2 As an update to item #1 in the above abstract, V.-P. Pennycook announced that McGill had received $4 M for the Network Infrastructure Proposal from CFI. (c) McGill Systems Inc - MSI S-98-37 - Prof. G. Ratzer 805.3 Prof. Ratzer spoke on the following topic and answered members' questions: Abstract MSI is a 100% McGill owned company whose task it is to help the University commercialize software and other Intellectual Property (IP) developed by members of the McGill community. To date two main products have been commercialized and they have brought in some $20 million to McGill. MSI is looking for new IP development opportunities that will be of benefit to both McGill and the researchers. A number of different proposed projects will be outlined and the new direction of MSI presented. 805.4 Dean Shaver thanked Vice-Principal Pennycook and Prof. Ratzer for their presentations. (1) MINUTES OF March 9, 1999 S-98-34 Prof. Barrette moved, seconded by Prof. Lin, that the minutes be approved. The motion carried. (2) BUSINESS ARISING FROM THE MINUTES There was no business arising from the minutes. (3) ANNOUNCEMENTS There were no announcements. (4) REPORTS OF COMMITTEES a) Academic Committee S-98-35 MINOR COURSE CHANGES (AC-98-105) (for information) SCIENCE FOR TEACHERS - Major Program in Biology & Geography for Teachers (AC-98-111) - Major Program in Biology & Chemistry for Teachers (AC-98-113) New Program: - Major Program in Biology & Mathematics for Teachers (AC-98-112) Prof. Pasztor moved, seconded by Prof. Schmidt, that the above program changes and new program be approved. The motion carried. LIMITATIONS FOR MSE STUDENTS ON COURSES OUTSIDE ARTS AND SCIENCE (AC-98-108-[Revised]) 804.1 Associate Dean Mendelson said, with regard to the first proposal, that there is a limit of 18 credits on courses that B.Sc. students may take outside Arts and Science. This regulation does not suit students in MSE programs, because they may take courses in three faculties. Consequently, the MSE was asking the Faculty to approve the first proposal, so that MSE students could take as many courses outside Arts and Science as would be necessary for their program. 804.2 Associate Dean Mendelson said, with regard to the second proposal, that there was an existing Faculty regulation that typically did not allow Science students to take statistics courses outside Arts and Science. This regulation would prevent students in the MSE from taking courses offered by the Faculty of Agricultural and Environmental Sciences. This would particularly affect students in the Environmentrics Domain. Associate Dean Mendelson said that the MSE was asking that this regulation be waived for MSE students. Prof. Pasztor moved, seconded by Prof. Ewing, that the changes be approved. 804.3 After some discussion concerning the second proposal, during which it was pointed out that only statistics courses (and not mathematics and statistics courses) should be specified in the proposal, Prof. Farrell moved the following amendment. "Students in the B.Sc. Major in Environment may take required statistics courses outside of the Faculties of Arts and Science necessary to satisfy their program requirements, and to permit them to study at the McGill campus of their choice." 804.4 Prof. Pasztor and Prof. Ewing accepted the above amendment as friendly. The motion carried, with the above amendment. (5) DEAN'S BUSINESS (a) Academic Integrity 805.5 Associate Dean Mendelson reported that there had been a round-table discussion on academic integrity, attended by faculty members (Professors Altounian, Harpp, Kramer, Turner, Associate Dean Amsel and Associate Dean Mendelson) and seven students, including members of this year's and next year's executives of SUS. The point of the discussion was to have students and professors address issues of academic integrity related to plagiarism, to cheating on examinations, and how to prevent these. Also, the values underlying academic integrity had been discussed, as well as strategies for promoting academic integrity in the Faculty. Associate Dean Mendelson said that the discussion had been lively, civilized, and productive. After the examination period, students and the Associate Dean will plan follow-up activities for next year. The long- term goal is to have students involved with the Faculty in promoting issues of academic integrity. (6) MEMBERS' QUESTION PERIOD There were no questions. (7) REPORT ON ACTIONS OF SENATE Senate Meeting of March 31, 1999 - Report by Prof. GowriSankaran, read by Prof. Rigelhof: The meeting of Senate started with the Steering Committee report as usual and was followed by the approval of the Minutes of the meeting held on 3 March 1999 and the Agenda as circulated. The following motion proposed by Professor S. Noumoff was approved: Be it resolved that Senate instruct the Steering Committee, when normal business does not warrant the convening of a meeting, to select a major issue of concern to the community for discussion in the Committee of the Whole. Senate then had a confidential session to approve proposal for the awarding of honorary doctorate at the June convocation. Once again, for the next item (discussion of preliminary budget for 1999-2000) Senate moved into confidential session. The discussion took place for 45 minutes when Senate moved into a Committee of the Whole with Professor P.G. Farrell as Chair. V.-P. Heaphy presented the document outlining the salient features of the proposed budget for the coming year. She forecast a deficit of 5.5 million dollars in the coming year. (A copy of a brief summary of the main items contributing to the decrease/increase of the deficit is available with Ms. J. D'Amico). The budget deficit of 1998-1999 may not be as high as the forecast amount of $5.5M. The main items contributing to the deficit are: the promised salary increases totalling $7.9M, decrease in government grant of $3.1M due to decreased number of students, new computer system costing $1.5M, fund of $0.5M set aside (for the first time, I believe) for graduate student support, and other miscellaneous items. The items that are favourable are (an unexpected) grant of $3.6M from the Government for salary adjustment, 1.9% (base) budget cut to all units totalling $3.4M (!!), additional $1.3M (one time only) budget cut to all units, and other miscellaneous items. The following were some of the highlights of the discussion that took place: On a question from Professor W. Jonsson, V.-P. Heaphy explained that a million dollars earmarked in the budget for academic renewal (to create approximately 20 new positions) does not include the cost of benefits to the new staff. She hoped to absorb this increase (viz., the benefits for the newly hired staff) in the benefits budget of $36M for all the staff. The Principal also remarked that some units (particularly the professional faculties) may have to pay substantially more than (the average provided) $50,000 in order to attract good candidates. But he remarked that it is their prerogative to find the balance from their budget. Professor GowriSankaran remarked that of the $7.9M budgeted for the increase in the salaries of the Faculty, $3.6M comes from the Government and the rest of the amount has been downloaded to the Faculties and the units in the form of budget cuts. He also remarked that this implies that the Administration has prioritized (for the Faculties and the Units) the salary issue and has required them to make the cuts elsewhere. He wanted to know how other services will be affected by this process. Principal Shapiro admitted that this is indeed the case, and he (really) had no answer for the question, except to state that we had to make our salary position competitive, that we had no choice in the matter, and that he was aware that the other services were definitely underfunded already. Professor Janda expressed his concern at the University incurring such a large deficit (of $5.5M), but realized that the explanation given by the Principal (that "we want our deficit somewhere near but definitely below that of the UniversitÇ de MontrÇal and that of Laval University") was very convincing. The proposed budget plans to impose an (new) additional fee of $80 per student as a registration fee (raising a total of $1.3M). The student senators spoke very passionately against this raise. They thought this was a slap in the face in view of the efforts the students had put in to raise $5 million in donations from students during the present fiscal year. One of them (Mr. Duncan Reed) also pointed out that this will bring the total fees for out-of-province Canadian students to almost $4,000. After Senate moved out of the Committee of the Whole, Mr. Reed proposed the following motion (as amended) which was passed with a substantial majority: Be it resolved that Senate encourages the Administration and the Board of Governors not to impose the new $80 (additional) registration fee until such a time that a dialogue is undertaken to find alternate solutions for the coming fiscal year. The last item on the agenda (other than receiving two reports from the B of G) was to approve the recommendations of the Nominating Committee. In particular, Senate approved the list of Senate nominees on advisory committees to choose: 1) a Dean of Arts; 2) a Dean of Students; 3) a Dean of Medicine, as well as members on statutory selection committees for consideration for promotion/appointment to the rank of professor. (8) OTHER BUSINESS There being no further business, the meeting adjourned at 4:45 p.m. josieFacsci\Fmn1998af.doc