1. Page 1
    2. Page 2

. Senate
Paper S-131(a)
From .... ............ P..D....Mc.Ta.gga.r.t-.Cow.an,....Chairman
Subject.. çom.mentontheR.p.Q1....ph.e
Committee on Terms of Appointment and T
................ April ...
9 ....... .................................................... .....
r e ??
I have read the report of Dr. Vidaver's Committee dated the 23rd
of April. I suggest Senate should consider the following concerns.
I suggest first it will be necessary to make clear whether the
statements contained in the report constitute recommendations for
changing the present Universities Act, or recommendations regarding
procedures that might be adopted forthwith involving operations within
the Act.
Assuming it is the latter, I suggest we can also assume that the
drafting of the present Act was such as to avoid, as far as possible,
• overlapping or conflicting areas of responsibility between the Board
and the Senate. Therefore, I suggest we must take Article 46 (d) as
definitive, i.e. that the appointment, the fixing of salaries, and the
definition of duties and tenure of office are the responsibility of the
Board of Governors. On the other hand, it is quite clear that Senate,
through its approval of the establishment or discontinuance of any
faculty, department, course of instruction, chair, etc., can clearly
influence the academic development and the balance among the faculties.
Similarly in Article 54 (k), Senate can make such recommendations
to the Board as may be deemed proper for promoting the interests of
the University, etc. It would seem therefore that a Senate Committee
would be in good form making recommendations to the Board on policy
regarding the procedural aspects of appointment, renewal, promotion,
tenure, etc. in order to create "an agreeable professional climate".
The Act, however, does not envisage that Senate would be either directly
or indirectly involved in the day to day operation of such procedures,
and that therefore having the University Tenure Committee a Committee
of Senate would be going outside the apparent intent of the present Act..
There are a number of other specific concerns.
There is no requirement that the three academic members elected
by Senate be themselves tenured.

There is no requirement that they be from different faculties. It
would be easy to envisage that the three academic members elected
by Senate might be all from one faculty which would mean that out
of the seven man committee one would be the Academic Vice-President,
four from one faculty, and one each from the other two. It might be
argued that the chance of this happening is remote, but as long as the
procedure permits it, it will be a continuing concern. The recommendation
put forward by the University Committee on Salaries and Promotions
avoided this problem by specifying "two members elected by each of the
faculties of Arts, Science and Education from among their tenured members".
The suggestion that the recommendations on appointments, etc. would
be conveyed through the President "as Chairman of Senate" to the
Board of Governors is, I suggest, in conflict with Articles 56, 57 and
58 of the Act, inasmuch as the President is charged with certain
responsibilities under those sections directly, and not in his capacity
as Chairman of Senate.
The entry of Senate into the procedures as a consultative body would,
to some extent, set it up as a third line of appeal, The proposed right
of Senate to request a report from the Tenure Committee, and thereby
in effect take the matter out of the Tenure Committee's hands, would
I suggest be running the risk of developing procedures at least as
cumbersome as those which we now wish to eliminate.
I suggest the basic intent of Dr. Vidaver's Committee could be
achieved over a period of years by recognizing Senate's interest in
the development of policy and procedures. I suggest the implementation
of their recommendation as presented would introduce some undesirable
complexities and would require amendment of the Universities Act.
P.D. Mc Taggart- Cowan

Back to top