MEMORANDUM

M

Jiø

ef

TO:

Senate

FROM:

Tom Brose

SUBJECT:

Senate's Responsibilities

DATE:

October 3rd, 1966

under Sec. 46(f) Universities

Act.

Sec. 46(f)

(T)he Board has power...

with the approval of the Senate, to

provide for the establishment and maintenance of Faculties and

departments with suitable teaching staff, and for such chairs,

fellowships, scholarships, exhibitions, bursaries, prizes, and

courses of instruction in any subject as may seem meet to the

Board and Senate, except for theology courses intended as train-

ing for the ministry of any religion, and with the approval of

the Senate to discontinue any Faculty, department, chair, fellow-

ship, scholarship, exhibition, bursary, prize, or course of

instruction.

•

This memorandum seeks to open the discussion on Senate's responsibilities re-

garding the "maintenance of ... departments with suitable teaching staff" as

mentioned in the Act. In our several months of existence, we have not accept-

ed the full burden of our responsibilities. I hope our discussion could clar-

ify Senate's role and lead to the creation-of Senate committee or committees

concerned with staffing, promotion, and tenure in-the Faculties.

Since the essential criteria for either hiring, promoting, or granting of

tenure are academic, it seems only reasonable to expect to have Senate enter

the picture at some stage, if only to give approval after review to proposals

of the departments as accepted by the Board. To date, Senate has been absent

and silent.

There are also practical reasons in favor of Senate's participation in this

process, even though 54(b) of the Act gives Senate the power "to provide

for the government, management, and carrying-out of curriculum, instruction

and education offered by the University". Senate could bring both the public

and. a wide segment of the Faculty, selected by the Faculty, into the academic

process of establishing criteria for hiring, promoting and granting tenure.

The present system of dealing with these matters is very overlapping. Heads

make recommendations which are reviewed by a committee composed of Heads, and

then subject to another committee struck by the President and composed of some

of the Heads and full professors. Senate's committee could be a review com-

mittee as well as an appeal committee within the Act. If the role of Senate

as the academic decision-maker is to be made fully meaningful, then the academ-

ic criteria for promotion, tenure and the like should be presented, at some

•

stage, to Senate.

Furthermore, Senate as a body concerned with the academic consequences of de-

partmental staffing could review, prior to giving its approval, the Board's

decisions which, in the main, are determined by economic considerations • One

---

1

?U

1,

t ?C-t(

1

-2 -

could maintain a situation in which the Senate might have to inform the Board

on any academic dangers resulting from Board decisions to limit staff for eco-

nomic reasons. Also, the changes in students' academic interests might result

in departments being temporarily overstaffed, but decisions made on economic

grounds by the Board could result in danger to

such

academic values as a broad

liberal education.

Finally, I am not here suggesting that Senate attempt to spread itself too

thin by keeping a hand in all aspects of the university, but I think

that

the

maintenance o

f

departments involves essential questions of an academic nature,

and Senate should not shirk its responsibility. Senate should realize, more-

over, that if it does not assume its full role, its function will be performed

by other persons and other bodies in the university.

.

TRB/kc

[]