Page 2
Page 3
Page 4
Page 5
Page 6
Page 7

r.'

As revised and approved

•

by Senate at its meeting

A PROPOSAL FOR THE

ESTABLISHMENT OF THE

of July 6, 1970.

SENATE UNDERGRADUATE ADHISSIONS BOARD AND

THE SENATE APPEALS BOARD

Dr. Robert C. Brown

History of the Problem

At the March meeting of Senate, Paper S.329 was presented

as a summation of the several previous attempts to establish a Senate

Undergraduate Admissions Board and a Senate Appeals Board. After

considerable debate, during which some sections of the paper were

approved, Senate referred the matter to the Academic Vice-President

for reassessment - "with a view to making sure there are appropriate

appeal mechanisms ... that it not be so complex and that the bodies

be not so separate (so that) more problems are likely to occur."

With these instructions of Senate in mind, lengthy interviews

were conducted with Admissions personnel, members of the present Ad

Hoc committees, Senators and administrators. These discussions

indicated the need for a complete re-thinking of the problem. Thus,

since Senate did not approve Paper S.329 in total and thus none of

•

its parts are yet accepted policy, I have chosen to completely re-

define and restructure its proposals. Those wishing to review past

debate on this matter are referred to Papers S.305, S.293, S.308 and

S.329, plus the minutes of the meetings of December 1 and December 8,

1969 and January 12, January 26 and March 2, 1970.

Re-Statement of the Problem

At a special meeting of Senate in November 1968, two Ad Hoc

Committees were struck in response to strong student-faculty criticism

of existing admission and transfer policy. The first, the Senate

Undergraduate Admissions Board (SUAB), was charged with directing the

admissions, standing and credit procedures of the University; and the

second, the Senate Appeals Board (SAB), was charged with hearing

student appeals.

The Registrar-was instructed by Senate to direct to these

committees all cases for which a definite policy had not yet been

established or which would require individual interpretation. The

cases were to go to SUAB for interpretation and decision. In cases

where the request of the applicant was denied, he was informed of his

right to appeal either in person, via representation, or both, to the

Appeals Committee. The decision of the Appeals Committee was final

and binding.

•

While there is merit in some of the aspects of this

Ad lloc

system (students were provided with an appeals mechanism allowing

them personal representation, and some Senators did become familiar

with the complex problems of admissions, transfer and standings

policy) there were also several negative results. They are too

-2 -

numerous to list them all here, but perhaps the most serious

were

the

lack of confidence which developed between the committees that

resulted from the frequent reversal of SUAB decisions by the Appeals

Committee; the general lack of confidence among admissions personnel

in the consistency of the committees; and the general malaise generated

within the Registrar's Office in having Senate Committees doing their

jobs for them. The general problem facing Senate now then is to

reconstruct these committees within the spirit of the Ellis Report so

that . the problems encountered within the previous system are minimized

or eliminated. The ultimate goal is to provide a mechanism for the

establishment and review of policy, a mechanism which provides students

with rights of appeal, and which, at the same time, will allow the

Registrar's Office to perform in a confident, efficient manner.

Justification of the Two Committee System

While the Ellis Report, as accepted by Senate, calls for the

formation of the

SUAB and the SAB,

a few qualifying comments are in

order here.

seen in the previous paragraphs, these committees were

generated as a result of alleged inadequacies in admissions procedures

within the Registrar's Office,. This, it seems to me, has been a

misinterpretation of facts. If there was a problem, and it has never

been clearly demonstrated that there was, it was that Senate had not

provided sufficient guidance in the form of. University policy so that

the admissions personnel could adequately screen applicants, particularly

student transfers. Thus what is required is a body, like

SUAB,

which can

generate new policy and review existing policy; not committees which

review hundreds of individual cases. That is the job of the admissions

personnel. So while there is a clear need for the two committee system

at present, Senate may want to reconsider the situation within two or

three years when we have generated needed policy and procedures. At

that time "exceptional" cases should be rare, and could easily be

handled within the Registrar's Office as they are in most Universities.

Thc Mrt-inns

It is

moved that Senate accept the following:

(1)

The Registrar's Office is charged with the administration

and application of policy emanating from the Senate. If a need is

felt for interpretation of such policy, the Registrar shall seek the

guidance of the Senate Undergraduate Admissions Board (SUAB).

should be clearly understood that the decision to apply a policy of

Senate (interpreted if necessary by the Senate Undergraduate Admissions

Board

(SUAB))

is the responsibility of the Registrar

. ....It. follows

that if such a decision is appealed, only the propriety of applying

a policy in a particular case can be disputed. In other words, appeal

does not involve questioning the advisability of the policies of

(Membership

overlap)

Senate. This does not mean that the rules of Senate are immutable,

but simply points out that there is a difference between policy

reform and appeals of specific cases. Where policy reform is

deemed necessary, it shall be conducted by Senate acting either on

its own initiative or upon a recommendation from the SUAB.

(2)

The Senate Undergraduate Admissions Board (SUAB)

Purpose: To recommend to and receive from the Senate policy

decisions on undergraduate admissions, re-admissions,

standing, and credit transfer and, where necessary,

to provide general direction in the interpretation

of such policy.

Procedure: It is the general responsibility of the Registrar

to apprise the committee of areas in which policy

needs to be formulated or of circumstances which

necessitate the review of existing policy. Then,

in line with the purpose above, there are three

possible procedural routes which the committee shall

follow:

a) Recommendations to Senate; the Registrar will

notify SUAB of need for review or establishment

of policy; SUAB will forward recommendations to

Secretary of Senate for inclusion on the agenda

of the next meeting of Senate.

OPERATING MODEL (SUAB and SAB)

Registrar's Office:

Students apply to Registrar's Office

Processed under Senate Rules

Notification of Right to Appeal

given where appropriate

S AB

Hears appeals on propriety

of application of policy in

specific cases.

S UAB

Develops new policy where

needed and reviews existing

policy - recommends to Senate

Interprets existing policy

Receives policy from Senate

-4-

Receive policy decisions from Senate: Senate will

instruct the Secretary of Senate to pass policy

decisions to the SUAB, and the SUAB will, where

necessary, provide general direction to the Registrar

in the interpretation of the policy. In cases where

Senate requests a recommendation from the SUAB, they

will be handled as in a).

Interpretation of existing policy: The Registrar

will infornr SUAB of the need for an interpretation

of an existing policy. The interpretation will be

made and transmitted to the Registrar's Office.

a. Recommendations to Senate:

Receive Policy Decisions from Senate:

c. Interpretation of existing policy:

of SenateJ

Registrar

Membership:

Academic Vice-President or a Senate designate of

his choice as Chairman (non-voting except in case

: of tie).

A Senate Appointee to the Academic Board, plus

•

alternate. (There are two Senate appointees to

the Board - they should decide which shall serve

on the committee as the prime member and which

as alternate.)

The Director of Admissions.

•

Three Students (one elected by Student Council,

with provisions for an alternate, and two student

Senators elected from Senate, with the third

student Senator to serve as alternate; one year

term).

OThree faculty members (one elected by each Faculty

from its Undergraduate Curriculum Committee, with

each Faculty also providing an alternate; two year

term).

One member of Senate elected by Senate for a two

year term.

Recording Secretary (non-voting).

Operation:

A quorum will be five voting members.

Decision will be based upon majority (of those

present) rule.

The Director of Admissions will he responsible for

preparing the Agenda of the meetings, sending Out

notice of meeting, preparing and distributing

minutes of each meeting to the members of SUAB and

SAB.

(3)

The Senate Appeals Board (SAB)

Purpose:

To consider cases wherein an individual feels aggrieved

by the decision of the Registrar to apply a particular

admission, re-admission, standing, credit transfer or

•

grade change policy in his specific case (see (1) above).

Procedure:

In cases where.a student request with respect to

admission, re-admission, standing, credit transfer,

or grade change is denied by the Registrar, the

student will be informed, in writing, of his right to

appeal the application of a particular policy in his

case. If he wishes to appeal, he will be informed of

the date of the next meeting of the committee in

writing and of his right to appear before the committee

in person, via a representative, or both. The decision

of the committee is final.

Membership:

The Registrar or his designate (non-voting, Chairman).

One Faculty member of SUAB, plus alternate, elected

by SUAB.

Two students, plus alternate, chosen in a manner to

be determined by Student Council.

One faculty Senator, plus alternate, elected by

•

Senate.

One Recording Secretary (non-voting).

•-6-

Operation:

A quorum is three voting members.

Meeting shall be closed and proceedings shall remain

confidential.

Regular meetings will occur three times, a semester;

in the week prior to registration; after registration

but before the final date to change courses; and in

the ninth week of the semester. Specialmeetings may

be scheduled as deemed necessary by the Registrar or

his designate and shall be announced well in advance

of the meeting.