....................... ......... .................... .................................................................. 

.From ........... L.M... .Srivastava 

?

.......................................................................................................I 

?

............. 

Subject ............. cc 

itution ..f 

SenateUndergra4- Date ........ D.ecem..r29.,.1969 

uate Admissions Board 

?

The final composition of Senate ' 

T

ndergraduate Admissions 

Board as passed at the last meeting of Senate (December 8,1969) is the 

following: 

Academic Vice President - Chairman (non voting,except 

in case of a tie) 

Three faculty members 

Three students 

Registrar or his designate (non voting) 

Director of Admissions (non voting) 

Recording Secretary (non voting) 

Since this composition is an amended version of the one proposed 

in paper S.293 presumably other parts of that paper apply. 

Accordingly: 

"One of the three faculty members shall be elected Vice- 

Chairman and shall serve as Chairman in the absence of 

the Academic Vice-President. While acting as Chairman, 

the Vice-Chairman shall only vote in case of a tie. This 

smaller Committee would require a smaller quorum; the 

Committee recommended that a quorum be four voting members". 

It is needless to remind the Senate that the above constitution was 

arrived at after a lengthy and for most part frustrating debate, rejection of 

two well thought out proposals, and numerous ad hoc amendments which, while 

ultimately returning a composition similar to that in the Sayre motion, failed 

to include those safeguards that are necessary for an adequate functioning of 

the Admissions Board. 

In my opinion this Constitution has serious drawbacks and must be 

amended. For instance: 

1.

It is a bad.practite where major decisions are arrived at 

by the Chairman's vote; yet the above constitution caters to 

that situation. 

2.

In the absence of the Academic Vice-President, the effective 

voting strength will be reduced to five and a quorum of four 

is much too high for that situation. 

. ?

3. It is left undefined how the three faculty members are to be 

chosen. I think they must be people familiar with undergraduate 

studies and as such must be drawn from the Undergraduate Curriculum 

Committees. Their terms of office are undefined. 

.

?

....2 

4.

It is not clear how student representatives are to be 

appointed, what F-culties they would come from and what 

their terms of office would be. 

5.

The rationale for both Registrar and Director of Admissions 

being on the Board is not clear. Two highly pai.d officials 

of the University, three if one includes the Academic Vice- 

President, should not be sitting on the Board when all they 

can do is provide information. 

Accordingly I would recommend the following amended constitution 

of the Admissions Board and further request that this constitution either be 

accepted or rejected but not amended in any way. 

Amended Constitution of Senate Undergraduate Admissions Board: 

1.

Academic Vice-President or his designate as Chairman - 

(non-voting except in case of a tie). 

2.

Three faculty members, one elected by each Faculty from 

its Undergraduate Curriculum Committee for a two year 

term, with provision for an alternate to be named by each 

Faculty (voting) 

. ? 3. Three students, one from each Faculty selected by Student 

Council for one year terms, with provision for an alternate 

for each student representative (voting) 

4.

One Senator elected by Senate for a two year term (voting) 

5. Director of Admissions (voting) 

6.

Recording Secretary (non voting) 

7.

A quorum shall be five voting members., 

:ams ? 

L.M. Srivastava 