Senate Passes Procedures for Temporary Suspension of Admissions (28 May 2013)

By Mark Jones; posted 31 May 2013.  For more history on this issue, see also QUFA Responds to SCAD re Suspensions of Admissions (27 August 2012).

At its May 28 meeting, Queen’s Senate passed SCAD’s “Recommended Procedures Concerning the Temporary Suspension of Admissions to Academic Programs” with all but the first of ten amendments moved by Senator Jordan Morelli.  See the appendix to this post for an unofficial reconstruction of the procedures document as passed.   

Two Motions concerning the new “Time to Completion” policy in the School of Graduate Studies (16 April 2013)

As sent to the Senate Agenda Committee 15 April 2013.  Update, 30 April:  the first of these, urging the GSEC to suspend its new policy and find practical ways of facilitating timely completions, passed.  The second was stalled by technical objections and deferred for consideration at the Senate of 28 May 2013.

1. Moved by Senator Bridges, seconded by Senator Scribner:

That Senate urge the Graduate Studies Executive Council (GSEC) to strike a broadly based Task Force to seek practical ways to facilitate timely completion that are (a) sensitive to disciplinary differences, (b) consistent with academic quality, (c) consistent with equity, (d) cognizant of all factors that affect graduate student completion times, and (e) based on real consultation with all affected parties, in particular graduate students and graduate supervisors; that it request the Task Force to report back to Senate by November 2013; and that it urge the GSEC to rescind or suspend its decision to shorten Time-to-Completion limits until such time as this Task Force can complete these objectives and report back.

Mark Jones, Comments on the SAPTF Draft Report of March 2013 (8 April 2013)

Comments on the APTF-Draft-Report-March-2013, as sent to Senator Chris Moyes, Chair, Senate Academic Planning Task Force (SAPTF), on 8 April 2013; slightly revised.  

Through no fault of the task force, this Draft Report appeared at a bad time of year for communal assessment.  The Draft is dense and 86 pages long, plus appendices; two and a half weeks after its appearance only one comment has been posted on the SAPTF website; the town-hall was attended by about 20 people, if that; and with the best of intentions and efforts I have been able to get only to p. 68 of the Report by April 8, when comments are due to the SAPTF (I therefore submit this response in unfinished form).  Given all this and the number of issues yet needing to be addressed (as explained below), I therefore feel that the Draft needs a longer review period than has been suggested, and that it should not be considered for approval by Senate before September 2013.

Mark Jones, Comments on the Strategic Enrolment Management Group Report (22 March 2013)

As emailed to Provost Alan Harrison and copied to QUFA Executive and PACC, 22 March 2013.  The Provost has not responded.

Dear Dr. Harrison:

I write in response to your invitation for comments on the SEMG Report on Enrolment Targets and Projections.

1.  As I mentioned in Senate, and as Senator Bridges reiterated, it is a serious matter for concern that this Report purports to address “Factors Affecting Enrolment Planning” (p. 2) without discussing the key factor of faculty renewal and while barely referring to academic staff at all.  Faculty numbers at Queen’s have suffered serious attrition since 2007 (as you acknowledged in the same meeting of Senate) while student numbers have risen.  

Proposed Amendments for SCAD’s Draft Procedures for Suspension of Admissions (18 March 2013)

As sent to SCAD and copied to all Senators by Senators T. Bridges, M. Jones, and J. Morelli, 18 March 2013. SCAD’s Report and Draft appear in the Senate Agenda package for 19 March 2013.

Motions to Amend SCAD’s Proposed 
“Recommended Procedures Concerning the Temporary Suspension
of Admissions to Academic Programs”
(Senate Agenda, Mar. 2013, pp. 36-37) (with Comments)

1.  Moved, that the word “recommended” be removed throughout, especially from the title, the sub-headings, and line 4 of the preamble.

Question for the Provost re New Administrative Positions (4 March 2013)

As submitted by Mark Jones (faculty Senator for Arts and Science) to the Senate Agenda Committee, 4 March 2013:

Senate was recently informed of the creation of a new position in the upper Administration, the Vice-provost for Teaching and Learning. 

Mark Jones, The Meaning of Justice Iacobucci’s Advice to Senate (16 November 2012)

Link sent to Senators and other campus lists, 16 November 2012.

Dear Queen’s Senators and Colleagues:

Queen’s Secretariat has released Justice Frank Iacobucci’s legal opinion (dated Nov. 12) “Re: The Senate’s role in Queen’s University Governance.” 

Justice Frank Iacobucci, Opinion Re: The Senate’s role in Queen’s University governance (12 November 2012)

As made available to Queen’s Senators on Qshare, 14 November 2012,  pursuant to the motion approved in Queen’s Senate, 28 February 2012, 

That the Senate obtain independent legal advice from a law firm with experience dealing with public law issues that answers the following questions:

In general, what is the authority and responsibility of Queen’s Senate with respect to decisions that are intrinsically academic in nature or that have significant academic impacts?

And in particular,

1. Whether the Senate is legally required to consider and approve any decision that will result in the closure of an academic program;

2. Whether the Senate is legally required to consider and approve any decision which may result in the closure of an academic program, including a suspension of enrolment; and

3. Whether the Senate is legally required to consider and approve any decision to merge academic units or that will result in the merger of an academic program with an academic unit.

Justice Iacobucci Opinion re Queen’s Governance (12 Nov 2012)

Annette Burfoot, Statement in Support of Senate Motion for Curriculum Committee Approval of all For-Credit Courses, Programs, and Activities (30 October 2012)

By Professor Annette Burfoot (Sociology).  As read in Queen’s Senate in support of the motion, 30 October 2012; posted by permission. (The motion was voted down, 25-20.)

When I began work at Queens in 1989, serving in Senate was a privilege to be earned and attendance at Faculty Board was assigned to all members of my department on a rotation basis.  We were enough full time faculty that we each attended only twice a year. Working on the Faculty Curriculum Committee was an onerous job (all new courses and substantial course changes went through this committee) and it took time as its members carefully deliberated over each case.

Submissions to the Agenda Committee for October Senate (16 October 2012)

The following questions and motions have been submitted to the Senate Agenda Committee for its consideration for the October 30 meeting of Queen’s Senate.

Question for the Provost concerning the CAUT Report on the University’s treatment of Michael Mason

Open Letter to Provost Harrison: Request for Written Report on Provost’s Office Investigation of Allegations of Research Misconduct at Queen’s and HEQCO (26 September 2012)

As emailed to Provost Alan Harrison by Mark Jones and Jordan Morelli, Faculty Senators for Arts and Science, 26 September 2012.  As of 16 April 2013, no answer has ever been received, and no written report on the Provost’s “investigation” has been published.

Dear Provost Harrison:

We are writing to ask whether your report to Senate yesterday constitutes the final report on your office’s investigation of the allegations of research misconduct at Queen’s and HEQCO, and in any case to request that you publish a written text of your final report.

Sincerely,

Mark Jones, Faculty Senator for Arts and Science

Jordan Morelli, Faculty Senator for Arts and Science

September Senate Notes (26 September 2012)

The following notes are not comprehensive and are not meant to usurp the place of official minutes, only to inform members of significant developments pending the appearance of the official draft minutes next month.

Senate met on 25 September (see agenda).  Most of its business was routine, but several matters of interest arose in the Principal’s and Provost’s reports and in their answers to questions.

SFC Meeting Monday, 24 September, 405 Douglas Library

The first Senate Faculty Caucus meeting for the new academic year will be Monday, 24 September, at 2:30 p.m. in Room 405 in Douglas Library (on the ground floor).

Please Respond to SCAD re Suspensions Document (11 September 2012)

As emailed by Mark Jones to campus lists, 11 September 2012:

Dear Colleagues,

If you believe that Queen’s should follow regular consultative procedures before suspending admissions to academic programs (and this should include all who were concerned about the BFA issue last year):

Please respond to the notice forwarded below.  SCAD has graciously extended the deadline to 28 September.

Five Questions Submitted to the Agenda Committee for September Senate (10 September 2012)

1. Question for the Provost concerning the Provost’s Investigation.  Submitted by Senator Morelli.

What is the state of the Provost’s investigation into the allegations of research misconduct by HEQCO and Queen’s?

Faculty Senator Emails (updated 29 April 2013)

A full list of Queen’s Senate emails is elsewhere; this list compiles 35 Faculty Senator emails, as of 29 April 2013, as given on the Senate Membership webpage.

List of Queen’s Senate Emails (updated 28 April 2013)

Below is a multiple-address list for all current members of Queen’s Senate, as of 28 April 2013, as given on the official Senate Membership list.

QUFA Responds to SCAD re Suspensions of Admissions (27 August 2012)

Queen’s Senate Committee on Academic Development (SCAD) presented Senate with an “Interim Report” and a Draft of its “Recommended Procedures for the Suspension of Admissions to Academic Programs” last May (see Senate Minutes, 22 May 2012, AppEb).  It requested responses with a deadline of 17 September.

Paul Young emailed the Queen’s University Faculty Association (QUFA) response to SCAD today, with copies to all Senators.

May Senate Notes (22 May 2012)

The following notes are not comprehensive and are not meant to usurp the place of official minutes, only to inform members of significant developments pending the appearance of the official draft minutes next September.

Senate met 22 May.  About 40 members attended, and the meeting lasted from 3:30 till after 6.

Agenda / Agenda Committee.

The agenda was amended to include four motions rejected by the Agenda Committee.[1]  All four had been revised in response to the Committee’s objections.

SGPS, Open Letter on Access Copyright (22 May 2012)

Open Letter to Provost Alan Harrison from Queen’s Society of Graduate & Professional Students (SGPS); copied to Senators email list, 22 May 2012:

Dear Provost Harrison,

On behalf of the Council of the Society of Graduate and Professional students, we write to you to today to make known our opposition to Queen’s signing on to the model license agreement negotiated between Access Copyright (AC) and the Association of Universities and Colleges of Canada (AUCC).

Jennifer Massey and Sean Field, Open Letter to Queen’s Senate concerning Allegations of Research Misconduct at Queen’s University and HEQCO (18 March 2012)

Posted 20 May 2012, from a pdf file: Massey and Field Statement (19 May 2012).

May 18th 2012

Dear Senators,

We urge you to consider the motions proposed by Senators Terry Bridges, Mark Jones, and Jordan Morelli, which we understand have been struck from the May 22nd Senate agenda.

Revised Motions concerning Allegations of Research Misconduct at Queen’s University and HEQCO (15 May 2012)

Following the Senate Agenda Committee’s rejection of the original motions on 14 May 2012, the following three motions were resubmitted to the Agenda Committee on 15 May.

Three Motions for Senate Concerning Alleged Research Misconduct at Queen’s University and HEQCO (8 May 2012)

As submitted to the Senate Agenda Committee on 8 May 2012 for inclusion on the Agenda for 22 May. The first was submitted by Senator Jordan Morelli, the second by Senator Terry Bridges, the third by Senator Mark Jones.  All three motions refer to the Ontario Confederation of University Faculty Associations (OCUFA) “Statement on allegations of research misconduct at Queen’s University and HEQCO” (27 April 2012). HEQCO is the Higher Education Quality Council of Ontario, an Ontario Government agency. The principal documents are available on the Canadian Federation of Students (CFS) Ontario website.

All three of these motions were rejected by the Agenda Committee (in the absence of its faculty member, incidentally) on 14 May, on alleged and unspecified grounds that “there appear to be facts assumed that are not proven.”

Motion for Senate concerning Access Copyright (8 May 2012)

As submitted to the Senate Agenda Committee on 8 May 2012 by Mark Jones, Faculty Senator for Arts and Science,  for inclusion on the Agenda for 22 May. 

Given that the Association of Universities and Colleges of Canada (AUCC) has signed an agreement with Access Copyright on a model copying-license to cover the reproduction of paper and digital content on university campuses;

Motion for Senate Concerning Policy on Travel Expenses (8 May 2012)

As submitted to the Senate Agenda Committee on 8 May 2012 by Mark Jones, Faculty Senator for Arts and Science,  for inclusion on the Agenda for 22 May.  Professor Epprecht’s letter is attached by permission.

I move that Senate endorse DEVS Head Marc Epprecht’s letter to VP Janiec, and that it recommend that Queen’s Administration reconsider Queen’s new guidelines for travel expenses,

OCUFA: Statement on allegations of research misconduct at Queen’s University and HEQCO (27 April 2012)

As posted by the Ontario Confederation of University Faculty Associations and sent to members on 27 April 2012:

OCUFA-Statement-on-Queens-HEQCO-April-2012-FINAL

Mark Jones, Comments on the Principal’s Announcement re Legal Advice for Senate (17 April 2012)

As delivered in Senate, 17 April 2012, under “Business Arising from the Minutes” of 27 March 2012. Links have been added. The relevant text from the Minutes is given below.

I have three comments concerning the Principal’s announcement that “Justice Frank Iacobucci had agreed to take on the task” of advising Senate on its academic authority, in connection with the Senate Motion of February 28.

Open Letter to Principal Woolf: Materials for Justice Iacobucci’s Consideration in Reference to the Authority of Senate (30 March 2012)

As emailed to Principal Woolf by Mark Jones and Jordan Morelli (as movers of the motion to get Senate legal advice on its own academic authority), and copied to all Senators, on 30 March 2012. The Principal responded on 30 March that Justice Iacobucci has also been given the consolidated Charter, and he reiterated that he would not share Diane Kelly’s opinion with the Senate. He also offered a correction: Justice Iacobucci “has been retained by the Board of Trustees, not the Senate.”

Dear Principal Woolf,

We believe that you said in your recent Senate report that you had provided or would provide Justice Iacobucci with relevant documents, including our Motion, the “Purpose and Functions of Senate,” and David Mullan’s and Diane Kelly’s opinions.

Queen’s Posts “Queen’s University Academic Plan 2011” (27 March 2012)

The Secretariat’s website has now posted “Queen’s University Academic Plan 2011” as a complete text in one file.  The URL includes the word “final.”  This text appears to accord exactly with the text as approved by Senate in November 2011.   (The Plan was formerly posted in two parts in early March, with the summary introduction (pp. 2-13) misleadingly  titled “Queen’s University Academic Plan 2012.”)

Selim Akl, Letter on the GPA System and PeopleSoft (26 March 2012)

As emailed to Ryan Marchildon by Selim Akl, Director of the School of Computing, and forwarded to all Queen’s Senators on 26 March 2012:

Hi Ryan,

Thank you for your message. For the past three years I have been asking that a “third column” be added to the PeopleSoft database which would store the percentage grade. My proposal has been thoroughly ignored.

Queen’s Secret “Business Case” for Online Learning: Questions for the Provost (13 March 2012)

As submitted to the Senate Agenda Committee by Mark Jones, Faculty Senator for Arts and Science, on 13 March 2012, for Question Period in the 27 March meeting of Senate. [Update: The Agenda Committee declined to include these questions on the Senate agenda. No reason for the exclusion was given, nor has the Provost answered either question. See also the Queen’s Journal, 23 March 2012.]

Questions for the Provost concerning Queen’s development of online courses, programs, degrees, and certificates:  especially concerning Queen’s development of a “Business Case for the expansion of Continuing and Distance Studies” and simultaneous exclusion of the subject of online learning from the “Queen’s University Academic Plan 2011.”

A Motion concerning the Academic Plan (13 March 2012)

As submitted to the Senate Agenda Committee by Mark Jones, Faculty Senator for Arts and Science, on 13 March 2012, for the 27 March meeting of Senate. See also Queen’s Bowdlerized Plan: An Open Letter to the Principal and the Provost (11 March 2012), Principal Woolf’s Response, and a response to Principal Woolf. The motion below was omitted from the Senate Agenda because the Principal promised on 20 March to replace the two misleading documents with the complete Plan in one file, and to withdraw the glossy brochure version “from further circulation.”

Legal Advice for Senate: Questions for Principal Woolf (13 March 2012)

As submitted to the Senate Agenda Committee by Mark Jones, Faculty Senator for Arts and Science, on 13 March 2012, for Question Period in the 27 March meeting of Senate.  The same questions were sent to the Principal on 8 March by email and went unanswered.  When submitted for Senate, they were refused entry on the agenda with the explanation that “The Principal intends to update the Senate on the progress he has made on this matter when he presents his Senate report on March 27” (Georgina Moore, email of 21 March).  When the Principal reported to Senate on 27 March, it was only to inform Senate that he had unilaterally engaged Justice Iacobucci as counsel.  He later explained that Justice Iacobucci “has been retained by the Board of Trustees, not the Senate” (email to Mark Jones and Jordan Morelli, 30 March 2012).  The Principal has also refused (both in Senate on 27 March and by email on 30 March) to share with Senate the written opinion by Ms. Kelly that Justice Iacobucci has been engaged to assess.

Questions for the Principal concerning Legal Advice for Senate:  First, given that the motion for Legal Advice for Senate, approved in our last meeting, provides “that the Senate obtain independent legal advice,” how should we proceed in appointing a legal firm that is mutually agreeable to the Administration and other parties in Senate?

Mark Jones, Response to Principal Woolf re “Queen’s Bowdlerized Plan” (13 March 2012)

For this post, please see the Real Academic Planning blog.

Principal Daniel Woolf, Response to “Queen’s Bowdlerized Plan” (12 March 2012)

For this post, please see the Real Academic Planning blog.

Queen’s Bowdlerized Plan: An Open Letter to the Principal and the Provost (11 March 2012)

As emailed to Principal Daniel Woolf and Provost Alan Harrison, and copied to all Senators, by Petra Fachinger, Mark Jones, and Jordan Morelli on 11 March 2012.  See also Principal Woolf’s response (12 March) and a further response to Principal Woolf (13 March). On 20 March, the Principal responded again to say that the Secretariat website would replace the two separate documents with one file comprising the full Plan, and that the brochures would be “withdrawn from further circulation.” The links on the Secretariat’s website were changed accordingly on 27 March (see Queen’s University Academic Plan 2011) and the links to the bogus Plan were disabled on 2 April.

Dear Principal Woolf and Provost Harrison:

We write you concerning a 16-page glossy brochure we have just seen, entitled “Queen’s University Academic Plan 2012.”  Although it has not yet been released as a brochure, it has already been posted as a pdf at http://www.queensu.ca/secretariat/index/QU-2011-AcademicPlan-overview.pdf [link disabled as of 2 April 2012].

Our concern is owing to the fact that, despite its title, this brochure does not reproduce the “Queen’s University Academic Plan” as it was approved by Queen’s Senate in November.

Queen’s Journal: Lawyer to revisit BFA decision (2 March 2012)

By Savoula Stylianou. As published in Queen’s Journal, 2 March 2012.

University will hire lawyer to examine Fine Art suspension

[photo caption:] Students and members of Occupy Queen’s protested outside Senate on Tuesday in support of the BFA program as Principal Woolf walks past. (Justin Chin)

The University’s decision to suspend admissions to the Fine Art program will now be examined by an independent lawyer.

Mark Jones, Senate Passes Motion to Get Legal Advice (29 February 2012)

As emailed to campus lists, 29 February 2012:

Dear Colleagues:

Senate passed a motion to get legal advice concerning its own authority on academic decisions by a vote of 28 – 20 at yesterday’s meeting, thanks to very strong student support both in and outside of Senate.

The motion responds to recent Administrative actions such as the recent freezing of BFA Admissions without consultation, as well as to Administration arguments in support of such actions.

Mark Jones, Queen’s Governance: The Case for Legal Advice for Senate (28 February 2012)

At its meeting of 28 February 2012, Queen’s Senate passed a motion concerning Senate authority on academic decisions by a vote of 28 – 20. What follows is the opening argument for it as delivered in Senate.

This motion simply proposes that Queen’s Senate get independent legal advice concerning the proper extent of its own authority and responsibility in academic matters.

QueensYOU: Our Platform (28 February 2012)

As sent to Queen’s Senators by Ryan Marchildon on 28 February 2012 (with minor corrections by the authors).  See also Ryan Marchildon, “Letter to Senate on the GPA System.”

To our friends and colleagues at Queen’s University:

QueensYOU is spearheading a movement to address several concerns regarding the present implementation of the GPA scheme.

Ryan Marchildon, Letter to Queen’s Senate on the GPA System (28 February 2012)

Ryan Marchildon addressed Queen’s Senate on 28 February 2012 concerning  problems posed to students by the new GPA system.  Since his speaking time was limited, he forwarded the following supplement, outlining possible solutions, to the Senators by email. See also QueensYOU, “Our Platform.”

Dear friends,

I will be taking a strong position on why we need to advocate an improvement to the present system of academic assessment, in the best interests of the entire student population.

SGPS Council Supports Senate Motion Concerning Senate Authority on Academic Decisions (14 February 2012)

PDF file emailed to Queen’s Senators on 14 February 2012.  Refers to the Motion Concerning Senate Authority on Academic Decisions, which is on the Senate Agenda for February 2012. 

SGPS Letter Supporting Senate Motion re Senate Authority

Excerpt: we, the Council of the Society of Graduate and Professional Students, representing over 4,000 students, urge you to support the motion on February 28 concerning Senate authority in academic decision.

Questions for Principal Woolf (13 February 2012)

Questions for the Principal, as submitted to the Secretariat on 13 February 2012 for the 28 February meeting of Senate, in reference to the Principal’s January address.

Mark Jones, Actual Attendance in Queen’s Senate, 2010 and 2011: Analysis (8 February 2012)

Posted 8 Feb. 2012; corrected 16 April 2012 (the original posting under-represented   ex officio attendance for 2010).

Senate attendance is not what it should be, analyses for 2010 and 2011 show.[1]  The official history of Queen’s Senate and authorities on Queen’s governance agree in emphasizing a longstanding “principle” of faculty majority in Senate.[2]  In practice, however, faculty senators have recently been in the minority.  Student senators, too, are often fewer than they should be. On the other hand, ex officio senators, mostly administrators, have been edging up

Mark Jones, Notice of Motion that Senate Obtain Legal Advice (10 January 2012)

As filed with the Secretariat by Mark Jones, Faculty Senator for Arts and Science, on 10 January 2012, and included in the January Agenda for Action on 28 February:

Principal Woolf’s Report to the University Senate (24 January 2012)

This is the text of the Principal’s address to Senate on 24 January 2012, as subsequently posted on the Office of the Principal website:

January 24, 2012

Speaking notes

Check against delivery

Welcome back everyone and a happy new year.

For my first report to Senate of 2012, I would like to deviate from my usual relay of information and regular occurrences to share with you my sense of where we are, post-Academic Plan exercise, and what should happen next.

Petition to Senate Concerning Admission Freezes and Closures (17 November 2011)

As posted 17 November 2011 on ipetitions.com; this petition was presented to Senate in November with 580 signatures and had 740 signatures as of 11 February 2012.

Given the recent announcement that Queen’s “is suspending admission and upper-year transfers to the Bachelor of Fine Arts (BFA) program for the 2012-2013 academic year based on an assessment of the faculty resources available to support the program”;

Queen’s Secretariat, “Update on the Academic Plan” (4 November 2011)

This email to Queen’s Senators, titled “Update on the Academic Plan” and sent before noon on Friday, 4 November 2011, announces the “final” draft of the Plan. See commentary.

Dear Senators:

As agreed at Senate on October 24, the Academic Plan Task Force has posted the final version of the Academic Plan 2011 on its website http://www.queensu.ca/saptf/ to allow Senators and all members of the Queen’s community ample time to read it before the next Senate meeting.

Mark Jones, e-Queen’s Misrepresents Senate (1 November 2011)

“Senate in Brief,” in the e-Queen’s Bulletin for 1 Nov. 2011, reports on Senate for 24 October 2011.  As it explains, “The Senate Academic Planning Task Force (APTF) submitted a notice of motion with the results of its work to allow discussion to take place prior to the senate vote at the November meeting.”

But it then claims that “There was a question about why references to certain practices – such as online learning – had been removed from the document. APTF member Iain Reeve replied that the document is meant to provide overarching guidelines for the university, not specific, direct instructions” (emphasis added).[1]

October Senate Notes (24 October 2011)

These notes are not comprehensive and are not meant to usurp the place of official minutes, but only to inform members of significant developments in Senate, pending the appearance of the minutes.

Senate met on 24 October 2011.

Among the most important items on the Agenda were two notices of motion for the Senate of 22 November 2011 concerning approval of the academic plan:

Senate Faculty Caucus Meeting Schedule, 2011-12

Senate Submissions Due (noon)

Caucus Meetings (Fridays)

Senate Meetings (3:30 p.m.)

Jordan Morelli, Notice of Motion for Approval of the Completion of the 2010-11 Academic Planning Cycle, and for the Institution of a Cyclical Annual Planning Process (17 October 2011)

As sent by Jordan Morelli, Queen’s Senator for Physics, Engineering Physics and Astronomy, to the Secretariat on 17 October 2011. Since the greatest weaknesses that were noted in the September draft of the Academic Plan, such as its entire failure to address graduate and professional studies and its perfunctory treatment of emerging issues like virtualization, are untouched in the APTF’s revisions of October and November, those revisions do not affect the relevance of the present motion, which will be presented in the Senate meeting of 22 November 2011.  See also the electronic petition in support of this motion.

Given the objections to the draft plan as presented to FAS Faculty Board and Senate in September (see comments on the APTF website [here and here], and in Senate);

Daniel Woolf on the Academic Plan and the “Domain of Senate” (excerpt from a Letter to William Young) (posted 7 October 2011)

A letter written by Principal Woolf to the Chair of the Board of Trustees on 25 June 2011, laying out “Annual Goals and Priorities” for 2011-12, was leaked sometime in July and discussed widely on campus and in the national press (see discussion by Queen’s Journal, 27 July 2011, QUFA, CUPE, QUFA, and USW, OCUFA, and  Macleans on Campus, 28 July 2011.)

The letter discusses “Conclud[ing] the Academic Planning Exercise” as the third of three “Group A Priorities,” and makes clear

Mark Jones, The Principle of Faculty Majority (6 October 2011)

In the Queen’s Senate meeting of 27 September 2011, the Senate Operations Review Committee (SORC) moved that a new ex officio position in Senate be created for Vice-Provost Cole.  Senator Morelli asked how the addition of an administrative ex officio position would affect the longstanding principle that faculty hold the majority of positions in Senate.  Principal Woolf replied that the vice-provost is also a faculty member, and that in any case Senate makes no distinction between faculty and administrative positions.  The vote was then taken and the SORC motion was carried.

Principal Woolf’s response misapprehended the matter of Senate’s composition, and in fact misled Senate on this vote.

September Senate Notes (27 September 2011)

These notes are not comprehensive and are not meant to usurp the place of official minutes,  but only to inform members of significant developments in Senate, pending the appearance of the minutes.

Senate met on 27 September. The major issue on this meeting’s agenda was the Academic Plan (item III.3), slated for a 30-minute discussion. The draft Plan (see text here) was first discussed at Faculty Board in Arts and Science on 17 September and first announced publicly in an eQueen’s bulletin on 27 September. A member of the Task Force sent out a dissenting view on the morning of Senate; on the other hand, Principal Woolf welcomed the new draft in his report to Senate as an “excellent document.”

Mark Jones, Queen’s Draft Academic Plan as of September 2011: A Dissent (27 September 2011)

As emailed to the Academic Planning Task Force, Senate, and campus lists on 27 September 2011:

As an active member of the Academic Planning Task Force from January to July (when I left on sabbatical), I herewith express my dissent with regard to the draft Plan as submitted to Arts and Science Faculty Board on 17 September 2011 and to Senate for its meeting of 27 September. While the draft includes sections that had been carefully prepared, approved by the task force, and duly posted on the APTF website for community feedback by July, [1] the whole as I now find it includes over 50% new material by page-count and these additions have transformed the Plan as I understood it into something quite different: a preparation for doing “less with less.”  My concerns include the following:

Mark Jones, QUFA and Queen’s Senate (9 September 2011)

As published in QUFA Voices, 9 September 2011. See also here and here.

At QUFA’s 24 August 2011 General Meeting to discuss the new agreement, someone asked how Members might best combat the Administration’s will to rule at Queen’s in the years ahead.  Allan Manson’s immediate response was that Members must begin asserting themselves in Senate.

Mark Jones, Farewell APTF (25 July 2011)

As emailed to Senators on 24 July 2011 with two attachments:

On Virtualization and Differentiation of Ontario Universities

Resources

Dear Senators and Colleagues,

I attach drafts, just completed, towards two sections of the Academic Plan: one long, on virtualization and related issues, and one short, on a possible financial remedy. I have just submitted both to the APTF for its discussion and approval.

May Senate Notes (26 May 2011)

As emailed by Mark Jones to Caucus members, 26 May 2011:

Dear Colleagues,

I am sending Caucus members some notes on Senate, which met at 9:30 a.m. on May 25. These are not meant to usurp the place of official minutes, of course, but only to inform you pending the appearance of the minutes.

Notice of Motion Concerning the Official Grading System of Queen’s University (May 2011)

As sent by Jordan Morelli to the Senate office, 19 May 2011:

Whereas at the May 20, 2009, meeting of the Queen’s University Senate, Senate passed Motion 09-42, moved by Senator LaFleche and seconded by Senator Deane,

“that Queen’s adopt an official grading system of letter grades with Grade Point Average (GPA), as depicted in Appendix 1 of the report (attached). Faculties and Schools may choose not to assign all of the grades in the full scale which will be so noted in the legend of the official transcript. A top GPA of 4.0 will correspond to the highest achievable grade of A+, with the accompanying descriptor that A+ denotes exceptional academic achievement,”

by a vote of 20 in favour, 10 opposed, with 4 abstentions; and

New “Purpose and Functions of Senate” (28 April 2011)

As sent by Senate, 2 May 2011. This is the final revision of the 1982 “Functions of the Senate“:

PURPOSE AND FUNCTIONS OF SENATE
Approved by the Senate on April 28, 2011

Central Function:

1. Under the jurisdiction of the Royal Charter of 1841, Senate determines all matters of an academic character that affect the University as a whole, and is concerned with all matters that affect the general welfare of the University and its constituents. Senate shall serve as a forum for discussion and exchange of ideas among the members of the University community.

Notes for the Senate Faculty Caucus Meeting (25 April 2011)

As emailed by Mark Jones to Faculty Senators, 25 April 2011:

Dear Colleagues,

The Senate Faculty Caucus will meet tomorrow morning (Tues., Apr. 26) at 9:30 a.m. in Watson 207, to discuss the Senate agenda for Apr. 28.

Mark Jones, Request for Withdrawal of Motion to Approve Revised Harassment/Discrimination Complaint Policy (8 April 2011)

As emailed 8 April 2011. Harry Smith (Co-ordinator, Dispute Resolution Mechanisms, and Chair of the Senate Working Group) responded that the Working Group had previously determined to withdraw the Motion for Approval from the Senate’s April Agenda.  See also Appendix H to the Senate Agenda for 24 March 2011, and the posting of 29 March.

David Mullan, Comments on March 25, 2011, Draft of Functions of Senate (2 April 2011)

This commentary was solicited by Queen’s University Faculty Association and is reprinted here by permission. It refers to two successive proposals from the Senate Operations Review Committee (SORC) for revising the 1982 Functions of the Senate. The first is attached to the Queen’s Senate Agenda for 25 November 2010 as Appendix Nb. The second, together with the legal opinion of Diane Kelly, is attached to the Senate Agenda for 24 March 2011 as Appendix G. See also Professor Mullan’s analysis (posted in January) of SORC’s previous proposal, and his Discussion Paper on the Governance Structure at Queen’s (November 2009).

Mark Jones, Concerns about the Proposed Revisions to Queen’s Human Rights Policy (29 March 2011)

Memo originally sent on 20 March 2011 to the Queen’s Senate Faculty Caucus and QUFA:

The Senate Agenda for 24 Mar. 2011 includes a Notice of Motion (for approval by Senate in April) of a revised “Human Rights Policy and Procedure: Harassment, Discrimination, and Accommodation,” with a “Final Draft” of the revised policy document attached in Appendix H. I submit the following concerns

Notes for the Senate Faculty Caucus Meeting (22 March 2011)

As emailed by Mark Jones to Faculty Caucus Members, 20 March 2011:

Dear Colleagues,

The Senate Faculty Caucus will meet in 207 Watson Hall at 9 a.m. Tuesday, 22 March, to discuss the Senate agenda for 24 Mar. Please email the list if you have issues you wish to discuss. I suggest the following Senate agenda items as possible topics:

Notes from the Senate Faculty Caucus Meeting (18 January 2011)

As emailed by Mark Jones to Faculty Senators, 18 January 2011:

Dear Colleagues,

The Senate Faculty Caucus (SFC) met at 9 this morning; discussion focused primarily on SORC’s proposed revisions to “Functions of the Senate” and on the analysis furnished by Professor Emeritus and constitutional law expert David Mullan earlier this month.

Notice of Motion for Senate of 20 January 2011 (6 January 2011)

Notice of Motion for Senate of 20 Jan. 2011
Senator Christie

Given that SORC gave notice on 25 November 2010 of a motion to approve its proposed revision of the 1982 “Functions of the Senate” document (item III.5.b in the 25 Nov. 2010 Senate Agenda);

Senate Faculty Caucus Meeting Schedule (2011)

Senate Faculty Caucus Meetings are generally scheduled for two days before Senate Meetings.  For 2011, the caucus will meet as follows:

David Mullan, Analysis of SORC’s Proposed Revisions to “Functions of the Senate” (6 January 2011)

On 25 November 2010, the Senate Operations Review Committee (SORC) gave notice of a motion to approve extensive revisions to the foundational “Functions of the Senate” document. Observing that SORC should have included point-by-point analysis with rationales for its proposed revisions, Mark Jones provided a parallel analysis with commentary and asked SORC to provide the rationales. Queen’s University Faculty Association (QUFA) was sufficiently concerned by the nature of the proposal that it sought the opinion of Professor Emeritus David Mullan, one of the nation’s foremost administrative lawyers. His analysis appears in a pdf file below.

Notes from the Senate Faculty Caucus Meeting (10 December 2010)

As emailed by Mark Jones to Faculty Senators, 5 January 2011:

Dear Colleagues:

The Senate Faculty Caucus held a special meeting on Friday, 10 December.  Following are notes on our discussion.

Patrick Oosthuizen: Selection Criteria for the Academic Planning Task Force (8 December 2010)

Queried about the criteria to be used by the Senate Nominating Committee in constructing the Academic Planning Task Force, Patrick Oosthuizen (Chair of the Committee) has responded as follows (extract from an email of 8 December 2010):

“Functions of the Senate”: Parallel Texts with Commentary (25 November 2010)

Email from Mark Jones to Marjorie Jean Stairs, Chair, Senate Operations Review Committee (SORC), 25 November 2010:

Dear Dr. Stairs:

As promised in Senate today, I write you regarding SORC’s Notice of Motion re “Functions of the Senate” (item III.5.b in the 25 Nov. 2010 Senate Agenda).

Two Motions for the Drafting of the Academic Plan, as amended (25 Nov. 2010)

These are the motions that created the Academic Planning Task Force (APTF). For the unamended motions, see 11 November. The motions are presented here as amended on the floor of Senate, as recounted in the Senate minutes for 25 November 2010; emendations are presented in boldface.

Notes from the Senate Faculty Caucus Meeting (23 November 2010)

As emailed by Mark Jones to Faculty Senators, 23 November 2010:

Matters discussed at the first Senate Faculty Caucus Meeting this morning:

1. SFC meetings schedule. For the remainder of the year, SFC plans to meet in the same slot, 9 a.m. on the last Tuesday (or at the least two days) before Senate. Thus, our meeting dates will be: 9 a.m. on Tues., Jan. 18; Tues., Feb. 15; Tues., Mar. 22; Tues., Apr. 26; and Mon., May 24.

Two Motions for the Drafting of the Academic Plan (11 Nov. 2010)

On the Senate Agenda for 25 November 2010:

1st Motion:
Given that Queen’s is about to embark on drafting its academic plan;

Open Letter on Queen’s Senate Emails (5 November 2010)

As emailed by Mark Jones to members of Queen’s Senate, 5 November 2010:

Dear Colleagues:
Queen’s Secretariat has refused to provide faculty members of Senate with the Senate email list. I therefore provide one in this email.

OCUFA Release: HEQCO Differentiation (27 October 2010)

Press release from OCUFA (Ontario Confederation of University Faculty Associations), 27 October 2010:

Council’s vision for university differentiation just won’t work, say faculty

TORONTO – The Ontario Confederation of University Faculty Associations (OCUFA) is deeply concerned about a new paper published by the Higher Education Quality Council of Ontario (HEQCO) on promoting more university differentiation. The paper, titled The Benefits of Greater Differentiation of Ontario’s University Sector, seeks to outline a model for encouraging a broader variety of missions among the province’s universities.

OCUFA Response to the HEQCO Differentiation Report (26 October 2010)

The Ontario Confederation of University Faculty Associations responds to the HEQCO Report; as sent to Queen’s University Faculty Association, 27 October 2010:

• “Differentiation”, when applied to Ontario’s university system, can mean a variety of different things. OCUFA takes it to mean a system where university communities (including administrators, faculty, staff and students) are free to develop specialized missions in response to student demand, community need, economic opportunity or social benefit.

Old “Functions of the Senate” Document (1982)

This document, posted on the University Senate website, was superseded by the new “Purpose and Functions of Senate” on 28 April 2011.

FUNCTIONS OF THE SENATE
(as amended November 1982, edited July 2010)

1. To determine all matters of an academic character which affect the University as a whole, and to be concerned with all matters which affect the welfare of the University.