9 9 S-00-3 FACULTY OF SCIENCE Meeting of Faculty Tuesday, September 12, 2000 Leacock Council Room - L232 ATTENDANCE: As recorded in the Faculty Appendix Book. DOCUMENTS: S-99-55, S-99-56, S-00-01, S-00-02 Dean Shaver called the meeting to order at 3:05 p.m. Dean Shaver welcomed members to the first Faculty of Science meeting of the year. Dean Shaver introduced Prof. Keith Franklin, the first Associate Dean of Research in the Faculty of Science. (1) ADOPTION OF THE AGENDA Prof. Schmidt moved, seconded by Prof. Farrell, that the Agenda be adopted. The motion carried. (2) MINUTES OF MAY 23, 2000 S-99- 55 Prof. Harpp moved, seconded by Prof. Lennox, that the minutes be approved. The motion carried. (3) BUSINESS ARISING FROM THE MINUTES There was no business arising from the minutes. (4) ANNOUNCEMENTS 104.1 Dean Shaver said that the Dean's Office would continue to send out announcements concerning awards, promotions, etc. to members of the Faculty of Science. He urged members to inform their chair or the Dean of any awards. The announcements go to the Principal, Vice-Principals, Chancellor, Board of Governors, and the media, and highlights are presented at Convocation. Dean Shaver emphasized that this was good publicity for the Faculty of Science. (5) REPORTS OF COMMITTEES a) Sub-committee on Scholarships S-99-56 (for information) 105.1 Prof. G. Brown, Chair, Science Sub-committee on Scholarships, drew members' attention to the scholarships report that had been tabled. b) Committee on Student Standing S-00-01 105.2 Associate Dean Mendelson read out the report of the Committee on Student Standing. c) Nominating Committee S-00-02 105.3 Dean Shaver said the Nominating Committee consisted of the nine elected Science Representatives on Senate. 105.4 Prof. Farrell, convenor of the Nominating Committee, presented the report. (1) The Faculty of Science Ad Hoc Standing Committee on Computing: (a) Workgroup on Instructional Computing (b) Workgroup on Administrative Computing (c) Workgroup on Technology 105.5 Prof. Farrell said the workgroups had been reorganized in order to place one person, Mr. Michael Head, as chair of each of the three workgroups, to provide a certain degree of coherence and continuity. Prof. Farrell moved, seconded by Prof. GowriSankaran, that the membership of the above workgroups be approved. The motion carried. 105.6 Dean Shaver announced that Mr. Michael Head had been seconded from the Computing Centre to the Faculties of Arts and of Science. Mr. Head will be working with the Faculties of Arts and of Science for one year as Assistant to the Deans (Information Technology). Dean Shaver said this was part of a long-term attempt to try to raise the activity of the above committees. He said Mr. Head has been involved with the Faculty of Arts Computing Lab, the Science Undergraduate Society, and also has been teaching in the Faculty of Arts. Mr. Head has done a lot of liaison work with the Faculties of Arts and of Science. (2) Committee on Student Standing 105.7 Prof. Farrell said the above standing committee had representatives from each department offering a B.Sc. program; student representation was still to be announced. Prof. Farrell moved, seconded by Prof. GowriSankaran, that the membership of the above committee be approved. The motion carried. (3) Academic Committee 105.8 Prof. Farrell said the above standing committee consisted of representatives from each unit offering a B.Sc., as well as the Associate Dean (Academic) from the Faculty of Agricultural and Environmental Sciences; student members have yet to be announced. Prof. Farrell moved, seconded by Prof. GowriSankaran, that the membership of the committee be approved. The motion carried. (4) Science Chairs' Council (for information) 105.9 Prof. Farrell said the Science Chairs' Council was an advisory committee to the Dean, and not a standing committee. (5) Committee on Materials Science 105.10 Prof. Farrell said the above committee was set up in order to determine the extent of interest in materials science, and to coordinate some of the activities in that area within the Faculty. Prof. Farrell moved, seconded by Prof. GowriSankaran, that the membership of the above committee be approved. The motion carried. (6) Scholarships Sub-committee 105.11 Prof. Farrell said the membership of the above committee was appointed in consultation with the Associate Dean (Academic and Student Affairs). The committee meets only late in the academic year to deal with nominations for Faculty awards. Prof. Farrell said most of the awards are based on nominations by departments. He said that Prof. Greg Brown had been nominated as Chair for 2000-2001. Prof. Farrell moved, seconded by Prof. GowriSankaran, that Prof. Greg Brown be approved as Chair of the Science Sub-committee on Scholarships. The motion carried. (7) Tenure Committee (for information) 105.12 Prof. Farrell said the above committee was partly determined by the Faculty and partly by Senate. He said membership of the committee had previously been approved, and that members would continue to serve during the current year; therefore no further approval was necessary. (8) Leo Yaffe Committee 105.13 Prof. Farrell said the Nominating Committee had nominated Prof. Bruce Lennox, Department of Chemistry, to chair the Leo Yaffe Award Committee, which had been previously chaired by Prof. David Wolfson. Prof. Farrell moved, seconded by Prof. Baines, that the membership of the above committee be approved. The motion carried. (9) Animal Care Committee 105.14 Prof. Farrell said this committee had been mandated in order to advise Faculty concerning issues with respect to the use of animals in research. The committee had been previously chaired by Prof. Andrew Baker, who had devoted much time to it. The Nominating Committee had recommended Prof. Norman White as the new Chair of the Animal Care Committee. Prof. Farrell moved, seconded by Prof. Marley, that the membership of the above committee be approved. The motion carried. 105.15 On behalf of the Faculty of Science, Dean Shaver thanked Prof. Baker for representing the Faculty in the issue of animal care. Dean Shaver said Prof. Baker had handled some rather awkward requirements that had been imposed on the Faculty, and that Prof. Baker had been concerned with the Faculty's interests. (10) Science Nominating Committee 105.16 Prof. Farrell said that in keeping with the Faculty's tradition of having as few committees as possible, the Faculty's Nominating Committee has always been comprised of the members of the Faculty of Science who serve on Senate, plus the Dean, sitting ex-officio. 105.17 Dean Shaver said members should feel free to raise questions relating to Senate with any senators. He said there were many changes occurring in the University, and that it was important that people had input and asked questions. 105.18 Prof. Farrell said that the Science Senators do meet together, and that it was of value if members give opinions and make comments. (11) Ad hoc Constitution Review Committee 105.19 Prof. Farrell said this ad hoc committee may or may not meet in the current year, and, if it met, a student member would be nominated by the SUS. Prof. Farrell moved, seconded by Prof. GowriSankaran, that the membership of the above committee be approved. The motion carried. (12) Ad hoc Graduate Studies Committee 105.20 Prof. Farrell said the above committee was being chaired by Prof. Bruce Lennox, and that the committee had been reporting in the last year, and would be reporting again at the current meeting. Prof. Farrell moved, seconded by Prof. GowriSankaran, that the membership of the above committee be approved. The motion carried. d) Other (i) Ad hoc Graduate Studies Committee - Prof. B. Lennox 105.21 Prof. Lennox said the above committee's report had been submitted to the Academic Committee. He said that once the Academic Committee had reviewed the report, the report would be brought to the next Faculty of Science meeting (October 10, 2000) for discussion. (ii) Committee on Materials Science - Prof. P. GrÅtter 105.22 Prof. GrÅtter said that a final report of the above committee was available, and that the committee would be recommending the following: - the creation of the McGill Institute for Advanced Materials (MIAM) - the recruitment of an accomplished researcher to develop and direct the Institute - the creation of a Materials option for undergraduates - the creation of a coursework Masters in Materials (M.Sc. and M.Eng.) - the creation of an interdisciplinary Ph.D. Program Option in Materials - the addition of new faculty with an interdisciplinary materials orientation - an annual one-day MIAM internal seminar - allocation of financial resources (at least $1M p.a.) from the university for support of technical staff to operate its core facilities. 105.23 Prof. GrÅtter said that course/program proposals would be submitted to the Academic Committee for review. 105.24 Dean Shaver pointed out there was another parallel committee in the Faculty of Engineering. Both committees have been having joint meetings, and the above report came from the Joint Committee on Materials Science. It was anticipated that the report would be presented to the Academic Committee, and eventually would be presented to Faculty. (iii) Constitution Review Committee - Associate Dean Mendelson 105.25 Associate Dean Mendelson said a quorum had not been present at the April 4, 2000 Faculty meeting, when the above item had been scheduled to be discussed. He said the Notice of Motion should be presented one meeting in advance of Faculty discussion, and that the committee had decided that the Notice of Motion would be presented at the next Faculty meeting, scheduled for October 10, 2000, to ensure that student representatives were seated. (6) DEAN'S BUSINESS - Fall Enrolment 106.1 Dean Shaver reported on the Fall enrolment. He said the university has been recruiting students aggressively, and that recruitment of students begins in September. Dean Shaver said he and Associate Dean Mendelson have meetings with recruitment officers to answer questions concerning the Faculty of Science and its programs. Dean Shaver and Associate Dean Mendelson also ask questions to find out how the Faculty is perceived, and what Faculty could do better in order to attract more high-quality applicants. There is now a French version of the Faculty of Science's Viewbook. Also, the Faculty is looking into the use of Websites for recruitment. He said that suggestions or input on recruiting would be appreciated. 106.2 Dean Shaver said the recruitment news was good. There had been a 4% increase in applications. As of September 8, 2000, there were 1059 students registered, an increase of about 2% from the previous year. There would still be some shifting because of Add/Drop Period. There has been a steady increase in the number of students from US high schools. There has been a lot of recruiting activity in the US by McGill and other Canadian schools. There has also been a steady increase from overseas high schools, again as a result of a much more professional approach to recruiting by McGill. The number of applications is increasing, as well as their quality. 106.3 Dean Shaver said the target is set at around 1000 students; part of the reason for this is to try to maintain some stability in the student/professor ratio. The professoriate has shrunk somewhat and the Faculty has been very concerned about the student ratio. He said the Faculty is trying to rebuild the its professoriate. About 18 or 19 people have been hired by the Faculty of Science over the last year; the number was 13 or 14 in the previous year; the number in the year before that was 0. 106.4 Some of the points raised included the proportions of anglophone and francophone students; the effect of the "baby boom echo;" the difficulty of attracting students to courses in geology, agriculture, and civil and mining engineering; the relationships between the Faculty's introductory-level courses and CEGEP courses; the high proportion of McGill students from outside QuÇbec; and McGill's admission standards. 106.5 Dean Shaver said that Associate Dean Mendelson was constantly monitoring students' performances, particularly in entry-level classes. 106.6 It was mentioned that CEGEP students had complained that recruiters were not sufficiently affable. (7) MEMBERS' QUESTION PERIOD There were no questions. (8) REPORT ON ACTIONS OF SENATE Senate Meeting of May 24, 2000 - Report by Prof. P. Farrell This meeting commenced with a resolution on the death of Professor John Robson, presented by our Dean. A motion recommending the establishment of a working group to develop recommendations in support of equitable, competitive, consistent University-wide salary and employment policies for part-time academic staff was then debated. The V.P. (Academic) noted that the working conditions of part-time academic staff were reviewed and updated under V.P. Chan and that a survey of the current conditions, salaries etc. could be carried out to determine the need for such a group. The mover, Professor ParÇ, suggested that such a survey be a task of the working group and his arguments persuaded Senate to pass the motion, with the aim of implementing any recommendations in the 2001-2002 academic year. Senate then agreed to recommend to the Board that the lapsed software policy (because of no Policy on Intellectual Property having been established) be reinstated, with no termination date! A number of new programs etc., including the B.Sc. Major in Software Engineering, were approved, as was the introduction of the "Principal's Prize for Excellence in Teaching". Various Committee positions were filled, the University Committee on Scholarships report received and a report to this latter Committee (by a Task Force on Student Funding) was tabled. Senate moved into Committee of the whole to discuss the 2000-2001 budget. This exercise generated little discussion, except for the proposed increase in student "administrative charges". The graduate student representative, in particular, expressed concerns over these, as the proposed increases will cause especial hardship on graduate students from outside Canada. After warmly endorsing a motion of sincere thanks to Dr. Richard Tomlinson for his very significant gift to the University, Senate noted that quorum had been lost and therefore adjourned. Senate Meeting of May 31, 2000 - Report by Prof. A. Baker This was a special meeting called to deal with the proposed Intellectual Properties Policy. An ad hoc committee had previously met with Vice-Principal BÇlanger and had come up with a number of recommendations. A few days before the Senate meeting Vice-Principal BÇlanger faxed a new proposal to the members of Senate. The most controversial point in this proposal was that the University maintain 100% ownership of intellectual properties (meaning inventions and programmes). Following adoption of the agenda and report of the Steering Committee, Senate sat as Committee of the Whole for a two-hour discussion of Intellectual properties. The discussion was chaired by Professor Farrell. The discussion was long and largely technical however two important issues were raised: 1. Ownership of Intellectual Properties. The general consensus was that ownership should be shared. A minority believed in ownership by the inventor. 2. Fate of materials developed for the university (courseware) and who would own them when the developer left the University. Consensus seemed to be that the University would retain right to use the material and the developer would retain ownership. No general consensus was achieved. It was pointed out that if the Committee of the Whole developed a piecemeal policy it would be disjointed and probably not legally workable. Senate adjourned from the Committee of the Whole. The Principal took over the chair. The Principal summarized the discussion briefly and then stated: 1. That he would present any decision by Senate to the board but would only support or recommend one involving joint ownership. 2. That the present policy seemed to be working in the short run so perhaps it should be continued and the ad hoc committee meet and come up with a consensus policy. 3. This policy should be legally vetted. 4. Negotiations depend on good faith and good faith does not include last minute surprises. Dean Shaver moved that the advisory committee meet with Vice-Principal BÇlanger and come up with a clear text of an Intellectual Properties Policy. Motion passed. c) Senate Committee on Information Systems and Technology (SC-IST) Annual Report 1998-1999 (D99-82) Report was accepted. Quorum being lost the meeting adjourned. 108.1 Prof. Farrell informed members that the IP policy would probably be brought to the Senate meeting of October 11, 2000, and that Science Senators would be interested in any concerns or input from Faculty members. (9) OTHER BUSINESS There being no further business, the meeting adjourned at 4:15 p.m.