AGENDA - SRA 04DSTUDENT REPRESENTATIVE ASSEMBLY

Sunday April 25, 2004, 6:30pm Council Chambers, Gilmour Hall Room 111

PROCEDURE

Call to Order, Call of the Roll, Adoption of the Agenda, Adoption of Minutes 04B & 04C, Delegations from the Floor, Information Period, Question Period, Business Arising from the Minutes, Committee Business, Business, Unfinished Business, New Business, Time of Next Meeting, Adjournment, Call of the Roll.

DELEGATIONS FROM THE FLOOR

• Ombuds Year End Report - Shelley Lancaster

BUSINESS

1. Recess for a meeting of Full Members of MSU Inc. Boney2. Recess for a meeting of Full Members of CFMU Inc. Boney

MOTIONS

1. Moved by___________ , seconded b y _____________that the SRA recess for a meeting ofthe Full Members of MSU Inc.

2. Moved b y _, seconded by _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ that the SRA recess for a meeting ofthe Full Members of CFMU Inc.

51/ Student Representative Assembly Meeting 041) Sunday April 25, 2004 @ 6:30pm

Council Chambers, Gilmour Hall, Room 111

Call to O rder @ 6:35 pm

Call of the Roll Present Bateman, Baldeo, Grenier, Hundal, Jones, Kherani, Mohan, Moran, Murray,

Osbome, Ott, Patel, Patel, Piribauer, Qureshy, Sumner, Takawy, WongAbsent ExcusedAbsentLateOthers Present

Brown, Dinath. Du, Klein. Marcelle, Minard, O'Neill, Pahulje, Raina. Vanini Aylward-Nally, Lannan, Robinson, Boney, Lrickson, Somers David Moore (MAPS-MSUAA), James Kusie (CASA), Sam Minniti, Shelley Lancaster (Ombuds), Christine Cole (Recording Secretary)DauphineeSpeaker

ADOPTION OF AGENDA

Moved by Bateman, seconded by Ott that the agenda be adopted as amended.

Amendments

• Boney - would like to add item of business # 2 - Sexual Harassment Policy• Speaker - item of business is out of order.

Moved by Boney, seconded by Mohan to challenge the chair.

Discussion

• Lannan - can we revisit this challenge after delegations from the floor, out of respect for our guests?

• Speaker - there has been a motion to adopt the agenda. I am in a conflict of interest. Could someone else chair this portion of the meeting?

• Lannan took over as chair.

• Boney - 1 tried to get this resolved outside of this meeting. There are precedents for this.Bylaw 5 states that the agenda has to be circulated four business days prior to meeting.You only had one day to prepare for the meeting. Three lawyers have reviewed this policy and this is my last meeting and would like to see this addressed. We need to get this approved before the end of the fiscal year. The Speaker likes to follow the letter of the law on this, which I do not believe is always necessary.

• Mohan - support Boney on this matter.

Carried by General Consent

Discussion

• Dauphinee - reviewed rules for members and agreed that the agenda was sent out late. The agenda in the speaker's opinion is not a violation. To suspend the rules would violate Bylaw 1 and as the Speaker, I must rule it out of order.

Vote to add item to AgendaIn favor: 21 Opposed: 4 Abstain: 0

Motion Passes

Vote to adopt Agenda Carried Unanimously

ADOPTION OF MINUTES 04B & 04C

Moved by Ott, seconded by Bateman to adopt the minutes as circulated.

Discussion

• Moore - in 03B - Marcelle and Osborne were not running for Bylaws & Procedures, it was Kherani and Erickson that were running. Would suggest re-circulating the minutes and approving them at the next meeting.

Moved by Erickson, seconded by Robinson that the adoption of minute’s 04B & 04C be deferred.

In favor: 24 Opposed: 1 Abstain: 1 Opposed: Bateman Abstain: Takawy

Motion Passes

DELEGATIONS FROM THE FLOOR

1. Ombudsman Year End Report - Shelley Lancaster

• Lancaster handed out a summer of her Ombudsman Office Annual Report from August 1, 2002 to July 31, 2003 and reviewed the document in detail for members of the SRA.

• Lannan - thank you for coming. What is your view on fees? How can we begin to address this?

• Lancaster - an appeal mechanism may work but it is a slippery slope. The MSU is a corporation and you have to protect your interests. There is potential for abuse. If there was an appeal mechanism, you may wing up with a large number to deal with. Some people will always abuse. It wouldn’t be bad to try an appeal mechanism for a year and set up some criteria.

• Boney - could you give us your feelings about whether the Sexual Harassment Policy was done fairly?

• Lancaster-am neutral. I will say that it is long overdue. I was involved in initial discussions with the lawyers. You have great education resources and Human Rights & Equity Services. There is some benefit from distancing the MSU management from this.

• Aylward-Nally - did the grievances have anything to do with the employment type of thing?

• Lancaster - there were all Full-Time staff issues.

INFORMATION PERIOD

• Speaker - has concerns regarding the budget. The budget violates the MSU bylaws because it did not meet notice requirements. Could rule it out of order today but it needs to be done by April 30 and for that reason, I will not rule it out of order. Rules are as follows:

o Ruling # 1 - consideration of the draft Operating policy - Sexual Harassment, is ruled out of order for consideration at this time. The deadline for inclusion of this item on the agenda was Tuesday. The deadline for circulation of this to the SRA was Wednesday. The documentation was not circulated to the SRA until Friday. The proposed Anti-Discrimination and Sexual Harassment Policy may be considered at the next meeting of the SRA. In making this ruling, I note that it would not be in order to amend the agenda to include the adding of this item.The Bylaws are explicit in the requirement for notice and it is not in order to suspect a bylaw requirement where the bylaw does not itself provide for its own suspension. Bylaw #1 states: When the Assembly wishes to do something that it cannot do without violating one or more o f its regular rules, it can adopt a motion to SUSPEND THE RULES interfering with the proposed action. It shall not be in order to suspend any provision o f the Constitution or Bylaws.

o Ruling # 2 - as Speaker, it is my duty to inform the SRA that the consideration of the budget violates the MSU Bylaws. In this and other financial processes this year, the Executive has repeatedly failed to meet notice requirements. As an example, the Budget Review did not occur at all. By not meeting notice and other deadline requirements in the Bylaws, both the letter and the spirit of the rights of the SRA have been violated. I could rule consideration of the budget today out of order; however, there are Constitutional and Bylaw requirements to have the budget approved by the SRA. For that reason, I will not rule the budget out of order.

• Boney - my report will be in electronic form today. Hard copies will be ready by the end of the week and passed out. [ apologize for bringing this to you on short notice. We are trying to get everything done before the end of the year. Thank you for voting in favor for keeping this policy on the agenda.

• Ott - passed out forms for contact information. I need to know who has not had their picture taken yet because a camera is available tonight.

QUESTION PERIOD

• Erickson - sent out an email to Boney and Dauphinee about electing non-SRA members to committees. What are the thoughts on this?

• Speaker - no opinion but it seemed to be the will of the Assembly during the last meeting to defer to a meeting in the summer.

• Boney - 1 think we should ratify non-SRA members. We could add to the agenda today.• Osbome - when will bylaw revisions be available on the web?• Speaker - Ninham and I will work on them on Monday. Will send out an email.• Moore - the Executive Board has full authority to act as the SRA for the summer unless

there are restrictions placed on that Board.• Aylward-Nally - does the Vice-President (Education) have copies of the CASA bylaws?• Lannan - yes. Kusie will be able later on also to answer any questions that you may

have.

• Mohan - if we want to discuss CASA, it will have to be done under unfinished business and new business. Budget has to be done first.

• Lannan - could the Speaker please be consistent so that people aren't singled out.• Speaker - my point wasn’t to single out anyone.

BUSINESS ARISING FROM THE MINUTES

• None

COMMITTEE BUSINESS

• None

BUSINESS

1. Recess for a meeting of Full Members of MSU Incorporated

Moved by Osborne, seconded by Bateman that the SRA recess for a meeting of the Full Membersof MSU Incorporated.

Moved by Somers, seconded by Qureshy that the SRA recess for a meeting of the Full Members of CFMU Incorporated.

Carried by General Consent

2. Recess for a meeting of Full Members of CFMU Incorporated.

Carried by General Consent

Return to regular SRA meeting Call of the Roll @ 10:45pm

Absent Excused Absent

LateOthers Present

Speaker

Present Aylward-Nally, Baldeo, Boney, Dyason, Grenier, Hundal, Jones, Kherani, Minard, Mohan, Murray, Ott, Patel, Piribauer, Robinson, Somers, Takawy, WongBateman, Osborne, QureshyBrown, Dinath, Du, Marcelle, Pahulje, Raina, O’Neill, Patel (Bhavik), Sumner, Vanini, Klein Erickson, LannanDavid Moore (MAPS-MSUAA), James Kusie (CASA), Sam Minniti, Christine Cole (Recording Secretary)Dauphinee

BUSINESS

3. Operating Policy - Anti-Discrimination and Sexual Harassment

Moved by Boney, seconded by Minard that the SRA approve Operating Policy - Anti­Discrimination and Sexual Harassment as circulated.

Discussion

• Boney - did not bring copies with me because I had put them in everyone’s mailbox on Friday and it was sent out via email. It is important to pass this because we do not have anything in place right now. We need to get this done before the new fiscal year. Three lawyers have reviewed it and I am confident that it meets our format, while this policy has not gone through the Bylaws & Procedures committee; I have not heard anything negative from them. If we pass this motion, it allows the Board of Directors to go ahead and sign agreement.

• Minard - I am very excited that this in on the agenda. This has been a long time coming. It has gone through all the proper procedures. This will protect rights of staff and volunteers and we have to have this policy in place.

• Aywlard-Nally - this policy is important just to recognize that this kind of thing does happen.

• Kherani - I support this policy but where has this policy been talked about? What channels has this gone through?

• Boney - the MSU has policy on the books but it refers to the University documents. The MSU could set up its own policies and hire someone to do this but in the past, I was the sexual harassment officer and I have no training in this area. Because the University is not a part of the MSU, we have to do it ourselves.

• Piribauer - if changes are made to the policy, are we referencing that if changes are made we will review it automatically?

• Speaker - read policy to member and it is the Speakers belief that amendments need to be made when the document is in place.

• Boney - we would have an escape clause and we have thirty days to pull out.

In favor: 22 Opposed: 0 Abstain: 0 Carried Unanimously

UNFINISHED BUSINESS

• None

NEW BUSINESS

• Robinson - would like to do a straw poll on members willing to discuss CASA right now.

In Favor: 11

• Robinson - I would like to point out that we have a member of CASA present here today. There are serious issues surrounding this.

• Dyason - opposed to this discussion. I do not mean any disrespect but we have exams. Iam primarily here as a student. Also, there are only 22 out of 32 members present here today. I am not comfortable discussing this issue with so many members missing. [ am impressed that CASA is here but it’s not the right time.

• Mohan - it would be very irresponsible for us not to discuss this in some way. I understand people aren’t here but we do have quorum.

• Lannan - Kusie came down and that impresses me. I indicated to Kusie that I could not guarantee that CASA would be discussed today. I do think that this is important. [ hope that the Assembly can revisit this at some point. It is clear that [ support this. With

rights, come responsibilities. When we make this decision, it has to be a wholehearted yes or no. It is unacceptable to just go to the conferences. We cannot have our cake and eat it too.

• Boney - Point of Order - I don’t think we should discuss until there is a motion on thetable. I would ask that the Chair gain control of the Assembly and ask for a motion.

• Speaker - it is not the role of the Speaker to direct the Assembly.• Mohan - can there be a speaker’s list without a motion?• Speaker - yes.

Moved by Wong, seconded by Lannan to take from the table the previous motion thatreads.. .Moved by Lannan, seconded by Boney that the MSU have associate membership in theCanadian Alliance of Students Association (CASA) effective May 1, 2004.

In favor: 12 Opposed: 3 Abstain: 5 Abstain: Boney, Patel, Hundal, Erickson, Aylward-Nally

Motion Passes

Moved by Lannan, seconded by Boney that the MSU resume full membership in the Canadian Alliance of Students Association (CASA) effective May 1, 2004.

Discussion

• Lannan - my feelings are incredibly clear. I support full membership in CASA. CASA does not deserve any less. People are ready to make a decision on this. Be aware of the consequences of your vote.

• Boney - starting April 1, we are already out. I do not think we should rejoin as associate members. I do not think that we will be locked out of CASA if we do not rejoin now. If you feel the same as last week, vote against. I believe in the will of the Assembly. I have decided not to join CASA as an associate member.

• Lannan - Point of Information - Spence submitted a letter in response to the last meeting.• Mohan - to Speaker - please direct discussion so that we do not reiterate what we said

last meeting. I am still in full support of the motion. I think we made a mistake last year. Every issue that was raised last year has been addressed by CASA. I urge you to listen to two-experienced Vice-President (Education)’s who are telling you to join.

• Aylward-Nally - we hade to squeeze this motion out of people. I have not received an adequate answer from anyone regarding CASA in the last week. Not much has happened to change my mill and it is unfortunate that we are bringing this back to the table when there is no new information. What about our membership fees?

• Kusie - the number for McMaster are two years old. We need your FTE for this year and your operating budget for last year. It should be $33 or $34 thousand for associate membership.

• Aylward-Nally - CASA does not like flip flopping schools. The reason we are is because we have a Vice-President (Education) who did not like the decision his predecessor made.

• Lannan - Point of Personal Privilege - 1 appreciate what is being said but with a straw poll at the last meeting, close to XA of the membership approved the decision.

• Speaker - This is becoming slanderous.• Kherani - 1 think we need a straw poll.

In favor: 8 Opposed: 8 Abstain: 4

• Kherani - I am undecided and will probably be swayed by what is said here. We didn't get a chance to debate on associate membership versus full membership. I would have preferred full membership versus nothing.

• Robinson - I feel that associate membership in a federal organization is an empowerment to the MSU especially since we have a federal election coming. I urge the Assembly to think about this in terms of federal representation and not CASA itself. We need to be at the table federally. What message are we sending to our students if we have not got federal representation?

• Minniti - the MSU joined CASA in 2001. I can appreciate the difficulty this Assembly has especially with reduced members tonight. When the motion came forward to pull out, 24 of the members were new. There exists a dangerous precedent for CASA, if members do not vote in favor tonight, the MSU will be on a two-year hiatus from CASA and it would send the wrong message to CASA. The observer status is supposed to be for new schools that are "shopping”.

• Lannan - straw poll on who would be in favor of full membership.

In favor: 9 Opposed: 8

Moved by Lannan, seconded by Boney that the motion be amended to read., .the MSU resumefull membership in the Canadian Alliance of Students Association (CASA) effective May 1,2004.

Discussion

• Boney - we have two experienced VP's. Not all issues are addressed and if you arecomfortable with that go ahead and vote for this. I am speaking against this. The CSLprogram won’t die if we do not join CASA.

• Klein - all arguments are very good and so are supporting arguments. I am all for fullmembership even though they have issues, we should work with them to improve those issues.

Call to Question

In favor: 14 Opposed: 7 Abstain: 1 Abstain: Wong Motion Passes

Vote on Amended Motion

In favor: 14 Opposed: 7 Abstain: 1 Abstain: Erickson

Motion Passes

Discussion on Main Motion

• Boney - it is becoming clear to me that it is getting late. No one seems to be of sound mind including the chair and this is not a slander.

• Speaker - please speak to the motion.

• Piribauer - I am against this motion. I am a loan recipient, I was new last year and Istand by our decision of last year. CASA should not feel compelled to seek out membership during this period of time.

• Minniti - encourage members to vote in favor.• Minard - the points that have been brought up last year are still effective now. We

should stick by our original decision. In terms of the federal election, we just allocated $10,000 for the election. I think we need to take the two years. We are a stronger voice by sticking to our original decision.

• Aylward-Nally - if we choose to leave, we would recognize that we are sitting on the sidelines. I believe that we can leave the organization and not shut the door to rejoin.We must make a decision that is suitable for today. We can change our direction in the future. We are still hearing that CASA needs to change. No one has proven to me that this is an organization that can change from within.

• Kusie - thank you for allowing me to be here today. This is not an ideal situation at midnight to be making this decision. Councils make decisions and they have the right to reverse and amend past decisions. You have to assess your political realities now. I have not heard what the specific issues are around CASA. You have to address the problems first. If you try strategic planning for the MSU, you will have a lot more respect for what we have done over the last year. McIntosh did not participate in CASA. Spence did a great job last year but he only attended 1 lA conferences. Minniti has been our best representative. None of the concerns raised in Spence and McIntosh’s document were things that we could address easily. Your students are paying you money to put your best effort forward. I have faith that the student leaders such as Robinson and Mohan are going to work hard. The benefits of CASA - interest relief and debt reduction. It is a reality check to take a student to a food bank every day. The only message CASA will send back if you do not join is see you later.

• Moran - our faculties elect us, it is the responsibility of people to be here. We are hearing what could be rhetoric being bounced back and forth. We do not want to send a message, we want to do what is in the best interest and what we feel is right.

• Jones - in favor of rejoining for full membership. CASA is a good organization and some students need their services. We are facing a federal election and we could be facing a new federal government with different ideals than the Liberals. We need to be CASA if there is a new government. How much time can you spend lobbying when you can’t even stay for a full SRA meeting. We should work with CASA to resolve issues we have with CASA. Our concerns need to be brought to CASA’s table.

• Kusie - other organizations in this country with huge budgets call us and ask us how we manage to get meetings with the Prime Minister. Lobbying is a year round process and all federal lobbying takes place in Ottawa. If the federal government changes over, it is our job to make sure you are represented. You need a voice there. You have an opportunity here to send a message that McMaster is a strong school.

Call to Question

In favor: 14 Opposed: 6 Abstain: 1 Opposed Noted: Minard

Abstain: Kherani Motion Passes

Vote on Main Motion

In favor: 9 Opposed: 12 Abstain: 0 Opposed Noted: Boney with Rights

Motion Fails

Discussion

• Boney - I do not want MSU members to think that the SRA is anti-CASA. W e have an External Affairs Committee who is m andated to do this kind o f work. W e are not just out for two years; we have other ways to lobby. L et’s get people out to the polls.

• Kusie - while I appreciate your comments Boney, good luck trying to do what we have done effectively. Do not expect access to CASA and the government. When the budget comes down, you will not have the talking points. Communicate this to your constituents.

ADJOURNMENT

Moved by Murray, seconded by Takawy that the m eeting be adjourned.

Carried by General Consent

Call of the Roll

Absent Excused Absent

Present Aylward-Nally, Baldeo, Boney, Dyason, Erickson, Grenier, Hundal, Jones, Kherani, Lannan, M inard, M ohan, M urray, Ott, Patel, Piribauer, Robinson, Somers, Takawy, W ong Bateman, Osborne, QureshyBrown, Dinath, Du, M arcelle, Pahulje, Raina, O ’Neill, Patel (Bhavik), Sumner, Vanini, K lein

LateOthers Present Speaker

David M oore (M APS-M SUAA), Christine Cole (Recording Secretary) Dauphinee

Adjourned @ 12:35 am

Ombuds Office Annual Report August 1, 2002 - July 31, 2003

Shelley Lancaster, Ombudsperson

Introduction

This is the fifth annual report I have prepared for the Ombuds Office since I joined McMaster University and the McMaster Students Union in 1998. Over that time, I have met with over 1800 members of the McMaster community and worked on over 1400 files. The University has been home to many changes during this period and while, on occasion I may lament the slow pace o f change, I am heartened when I review the steady progress that has been made over the past five years. The Ombuds Office produces an Annual Report each year to inform the University about the work o f the Office and to note any observable trends in the caseload. On occasion, I may make recommendations involving policy or procedural changes and it is in this area that I am most cognizant o f the advances that have been made. New policies have been drafted and other policies revised to improve appeal procedures and streamline processes. The University is increasingly aware o f issues involving procedural fairness and acts promptly to remedy any defects in process that come to light. In addition, new energy has been focused on the goal o f building a truly inclusive and respectful community. Communication, a perennial concern of this Office, has been clearly recognized as a priority and offices continue to welcome suggestions for improving communications with students, staff and faculty. The role o f “change agent” has traditionally been an important Ombuds’ function. In a University setting, this often entails being a consultant on committees and gathering up issues that have been collectively recognized as needing attention. In this report, I will review the responses I received to last years’ recommendations and briefly discuss a few new issues.

Statistics

The tables included with this Report are designed to provide some information about the number and type of cases handled by the Office during the period from August 1, 2002 to July 31, 2003. I remind you that the numbers, in comparison to the total university population, are small and therefore, it is statistically dangerous to draw too many conclusions from the data. In total there were 356 cases and 86 inquiries this year (Table 1). This represents a 10% increase in caseload over last year. Historically, the caseload is 30% higher than the number of cases reported four years ago (after the initial jump of 40% when the Office first became known as a jointly funded service of the University and the MSU) (Table 1).

1

Once again, full-time students are by far the biggest user-group (243) and student issues continue to represent approximately 83% o f the Office’s caseload. The number of graduate students (24) visiting the Office was down slightly, as were the number of faculty members (19). The number o f staff consulting the Ombuds Office rose slightly to 59 in total, including both University and MSU staff (Table 2).

Student cases are grouped by type, into academic (Table 3) and non-academic (Table 4). The number of academic cases rose by 7% this year, after an increase of 35% last year. The number o f non-academic cases remained relatively steady. The breakdown o f cases by individual category was remarkably consistent with last year’s numbers. Academic issues raised most frequently included: grade appeals (18%), petitions (13%) academic misconduct (11%), examinations (9%) and reinstatements (9%). The most common non­academic concerns included: other services (25%) fees/financial (20 %), residence (15%) and clubs/associations (15%). Since twenty-five percent o f the non-academic cases involved “other services”, I hope to include more specific information under this category in future reports.

Over half o f the staff and two-thirds of the faculty members who consulted the Ombuds Office had a process/policy concern or were inquiring about an issue involving a student (Tables 5 and 6). Hopefully, the Ombuds’ early involvement in these inquiries helped to prevent some o f these cases from prematurely escalating to more formal appeal processes.

In terms o f the type o f action taken on cases, the Ombuds Office intervened in fewer cases - 25% - compared to 30% in other years. The term “intervention” is used when the Ombuds Office approaches an individual or an office in an effort to to resolve a concern. Visitors to the Office are always encouraged, where possible, to resolve concerns directly with the other party (ies) involved.

The Ombuds Office continues to be accessed by a number o f different methods: appointment, telephone, e-mail and drop-in. The new location o f the Office in MUSC has resulted in an increase in drop-in traffic.

Prior Recommendations

The Terms o f Reference for the Ombuds Office provide that once the Annual Report has been widely distributed, the Senate Executive and the MSU Board of Directors “shall ensure that the appropriate administrators consider and respond to the recommendations contained in the report” . I appreciate the involvement o f these administrators in bringing forward my recommendations to those individuals and groups who can assess them, often more fully than my role will permit. I recognize that there are often “no quick fixes” and progress may be measured solely by the continuation of discussions. For convenience, I have grouped and consolidated the recommendations. For a fuller discussion, please see last years’ annual report on the web at www.mcmaster.ca/ombuds .

Grading and Evaluation Issues

1. Orientation for new faculty and sessional lecturers on the University grading and evaluation processes

In response to this recommendation, the Centre for Leadership and Learning hosted a workshop; open to all faculty, on the University’s policies and procedures. Offices that presented included the Ombuds Office, HRES, the Faculty Association, CSD and the Academic Integrity Office. The workshop was well attended and confirms the need for more training in this area with particular emphasis on the needs o f new faculty and sessional lecturers.

2. Consolidation o f grading policies into one policy

Generally, there does not appear to be much support for this idea. However, I still feel it would be useful from a communication and educational standpoint. For example, currently the University has six separate policies on examinations; Policy on the Use of Calculators in Examinations, Undergraduate Council Policy on Examination Ban, Undergraduate Student Access to Final Examinations, Policy on Instructors at Examinations, Procedures for Conducting Oral Examinations, Policy concerning the Retention of Examination Papers and other Graded Materials. New Faculty could be directed to one comprehensive Examination Policy, which might at the same time increase their chances of becoming familiar with the policy in its’ entirety. At the workshop on Policies and Procedures I was surprised how many faculty were not aware of the existence o f the “Senate Resolution on Course Outlines.” I assume that it would be the responsibility o f the department to advise them of this policy. I have a fair number of cases each year where students are put in the awkward position of educating faculty members on these policies - many o f these cases could be avoided if faculty members, particularly new faculty, were better informed on these policies in advance o f issues arising.

3. More consistency in teaching and grading practices between different sections of a course, particularly a required course.

The Undergraduate Curriculum committee considered this matter and decided that they were satisfied with the current variations in teaching and grading practices. It was felt that in many disciplines it would be too restrictive to try and regularize how instructors chose to convey course content, particularly when it is very broad in scope. It was felt that it was best to leave this in the hands o f the department and faculty to consider on a case-by-case basis. There are currently a number of courses where consistency in teaching and grading has been deemed appropriate and steps have been taken to achieve this goal.

3

4. Clarification of who has the authority to alter grades at the University

This question continues to arise in the context o f appeals. There has been some further discussion, but the matter remains outstanding.

5. Academic Integrity concerns (e.g. collaboration on assignments, access to prior mid­terms, random seating and procedures for non-registrar invigilated examinations)

It has been nice to see some course outlines this year that contain very specific information on group collaboration and the need to complete certain assignments independently. The Academic Integrity Office continues to educate both faculty and students concerning group/individual work and the Office’s website has a specific section addressing this point (see www. mcmaster. ca/academicintegrity) Further discussion is still needed on the topics of access to prior mid-terms and procedures for non-registrar invigilated examinations. Considerable work has been done in the area o f multiple - version examinations and it is hoped that this will address some o f the same concerns that underlie the need for randomized seating.

6. Progress reports for Masters students where their programs are for more than one year

The School of Graduate Studies is now requiring progress reports for these students. It is not clear whether these students are, in all cases, formally meeting with their supervisors to review these reports.

Policy and Procedural Issues

7. Evaluations o f how well the policy on Petitions for Relief for Missed Term Work and for Deferred Examinations is working

While there has been no formal review o f this policy, it has been the subject o f much on­going discussion. The policy provides for a review committee composed o f Associate Deans, or their delegates to consider requests for special consideration for missed deferred examinations. This practice seems to be working well in promoting consistency across campus and students have expressed satisfaction with this University -w ide approach. This committee has also provided a venue to discuss how to approach chronic health conditions where students may need to apply repeatedly for special consideration.

8. Review o f the policy on “The Public Release o f Students’ Ratings o f Teaching Effectiveness”

At the March 1, 2004 meeting o f Undergraduate Council a motion was unanimously approved to refer the policy to the Provost and Vice-Presidert (Academic) so that they can meet with MUFA and recommend changes to the policy having regard to the following matters: that all faculty members be included under the policy; that the instruments o f evaluation be reviewed and standardized across all Faculties; and that

4

processes involved in compiling and publishing the results of the evaluations be reviewed to try and make the process more efficient.

9. Policy on Post-Doctoral Fellows

A policy has been drafted and is currently under active review and revision. Good progress has been made in completing this initiative.

10. TMG Grievance Procedure

This Procedure may already be in place by the time you read this report. It has been extensively reviewed and commented on by the University community. It is hoped that the existence o f a specific dispute resolution process will make it easier for TMG members to raise their employment concerns in the future.

11. MSU Sexual Harassment Policy

There have been on-going discussions with the MSU, Ombuds Office, HRES and the University surrounding the development of an MSU policy on sexual harassment. It is expected that a new policy and an educational plan will be in place, at the latest, by the beginning of next academic year.

12. Staff/Faculty Code o f Conduct

The Ombuds Office met with the Joint Committee to discuss some issues surrounding the Faculty Code of Conduct. The possibility o f a general code/or statement applicable to all employees is still under consideration. A Staff Code of Conduct was proposed, in part, to address issues o f civility and “personal harassment or bullying” (see the section on personal harassment below).

13. Review of: (i) convocation procedures to try and accommodate student’s requests to delay their convocation and (ii) the “Examination Guidelines”

These items were delayed until the new Registrar arrived - welcome Lou!

Diversity, Civility and Confidentiality

14. Religious Accommodation in Examinations

Refining Directions has cited “building an inclusive community with a shared goal” as one o f the three goals o f the University. This clearly indicates the importance of creating a welcoming environment for all students. A sub-committee o f the President’s Advisory Committee on Building an Inclusive Community (PACBIC) has recently recommended some changes to University policy in the area of religious accommodation in examinations.

15. Increased education in the area o f accommodation and mental health

An ad-hoc group o f representatives from Student Health, Health and Wellness, CSD, Chaplaincy, CPEC, Ombuds, HRES and the AVP Student Affairs met on a number of occasions to discuss mental health issues at the University. This group has arranged for the publication of a booklet to advise faculty and staff on how to identify and assist students in difficulty, including those suffering from mental illness, but also a whole range o f other challenges. CSD, Health and Wellness and HRES are continuing their education efforts in the areas o f mental health and accommodations.

16. Personal Harassment and Difficult Work Environments

While the standards surrounding a respectful work environment have not yet been specifically laid out in a Code o f Conduct (and I ’m not sure this is entirely possible, in any event), there is more clarity than in the past concerning how these complaints should be handled. Obviously, it is hoped that informal discussions between the parties and/or their supervisors could resolve the bulk o f these cases. When this is not possible, MUSA employees have access to the relevant terms in their Collective Agreement. TMG staff can now access the TMG Grievance Procedure and matters involving Faculty, may be handled through the Faculty Code o f Conduct. Students can be directed to the harassment provision in the Student Code o f Conduct. Any harassment allegations that are based on a prohibited ground under the Ontario Human Rights Code would, obviously, be directed to Human Rights and Equity Services (HRES). HRES, Human Resources and the Ombuds Office have in the course o f their discussions this year touched on the issue o f what to do when a whole department or office is struggling with a difficult work environment. Currently, these are handled on an ad-hoc basis; however, it has occurred to me that it might be preferable to set up a general framework for how these problems might be addressed. For example, the Center for Leadership and Learning has a process they offer to instructors if a class encounters difficulties.Similarly, it might be easier for a department or a group o f concerned individuals to approach Human Resource Services for assistance if there was a more accepted protocol for approaching these very sensitive problems.

17 Staff climate surveys

Human Resource Services has implemented some surveys for certain employee groups and continues to explore the feasibility o f further surveys.

18. Confidentiality concerns o f Graduate Students who are asked for input in Promotion and Tenure cases and Confidentiality training for staff.

I have no information on whether this issue has been discussed by the Senate Committee on Appointments and Tenure. The Dean o f Graduate Studies advised me that often the

faculty member that is up for promotion does not have students who have already graduated, or at a maximum may have just one or two such students. This means that the department must rely on the information provided by students currently enrolled in the program.

Confidentiality as it pertains to employment issues is covered by the current Human Resource Services management training sessions. I am not aware o f any organized training for staff on student confidentiality issues, although it is probably included in some departmental training sessions.

Discussion of Cases

While Ombudspersons may act as “change agents” or “early warning systems”, this is not their primary role. Historically, ombudspersons have always been concerned with the “little guy”(be this a student, staff, or faculty member) who is struggling to function within a large, sometimes impersonal, organization. As a neutral, impartial problem- solver, the bulk o f my time is spent listening. Listening to the stories o f individuals who have come to the office looking for someone to help them sort through their problems and advise them of their options. In my time here, I have learned the true value of listening - an important lesson for a recovering lawyer. I listen through the lense of “fairness”, as it applies to both process and outcome. Often, I play “devil’s advocate” for the individuals who visit me, or I take the time to explain the rationale behind a rule that at first glance appears quite arbitrary. When I feel it is appropriate and with the visitor’s consent, I may intervene to hear the “other side” o f the story. My goal is always to try and resolve conflict in a manner that is both respectful and fair to all concerned.

People are often curious about the types o f cases that come to the Office. Two o f the categories under “Student Cases -Academ ic” that often raise questions are “Program Requirements” and “Course Rules”. Below I have given a brief description o f some of the cases I classified under these categories last year. The cases are described broadly enough to remove any identifying information.

Program Requirements:• student concerned that her program included a required course that was too

difficult for students with no previous background in that area o f study• student interested in switching programs but CA not high enough due to a chronic

illness• student did not receive advanced credit for her program, although others with

similar backgrounds received credits• student told, mistakenly, that he needed additional courses to complete his

program• student looking for flexibility in required courses for second degree• student refused opportunity to write a thesis in 4th year• student arranged placement on her own without checking with program• student given erroneous information about program requirements (2 cases)

Course Rules:• student upset that no course work returned prior to the deadline for dropping

courses• student expressed concern about leaving her work in a “drop box”• student mistakenly downloaded assignment from previous term before instructor

replaced it with the current assignment• student concerned that a particular course not accepted as a pre-requisite,

although a course he considered “equivalent” was accepted• student informed a course was “capped”, although it was not listed as such• student received zero on an assignment because he did not attend class to hand it

in personally• student voiced concern that mandatory attendance for a lecture class was unfair

This year, instead o f making further recommendations, I thought I would just highlight a few areas and make some general comments.

1. Conditional Offers o f Acceptance / Eligibility and retention o f awards

Following a few complaints in the 2002-2003 academic year, the Registrar’s Office and Financial Aid and Scholarship worked hard to improve their communications concerning conditional offers o f acceptance and the eligibility and retention o f entrance awards. Students are now more clearly advised on such issues as: what constitutes a final admission average for acceptance purposes; the meaning o f “full-course load” for award purposes; whether an award can be deferred; and the fact that withdrawing, reducing one’s course load or transferring between programs may impact receiving and retaining the first and second instalments o f an entrance award. In addition, Financial Aid and Scholarship has worked with the faculty offices to ensure that students who are considering altering their courses or programs are aware that their actions may have financial implications and that they are referred to financial counselling, when appropriate. Financial Aid and Scholarship also has an excellent website for students outlining all the rules and regulations.

2. MSU Human Resources policies

Over the last few years, the MSU has experienced a period o f unprecedented growth.The opening o f MUSC, combined with additional services and initiatives have presented many challenges to the organization. As staff numbers (both part-time and full-time) continue to grow, it might be an opportune time to review the MSU employment policies and practices and to consider additional management training.

3. Graduate Students Concerns

When graduate students withdraw part-way through the year they are sometimes surprised that while their funding stops, they continue to owe tuition for the remainder of

the year. I understand that the “net equal monthly cheque” system was originally developed to assist students with their budgeting needs, but that it sometimes catches students unaware when they leave the program early. The Graduate School has advised me that they are currently looking into this issue.

Over the past few years I have seen a number of graduate students - usually Ph.D. students who are asked to leave their program, often for lack of progress/ability. These students may be very upset and at a loss for how to proceed. If there are grounds for appeal, I discuss these with the student but often; they are really in need of the type of assistance that is offered by an out-placement agency. I have started discussions with a couple o f services on campus, including CPEC, to see if an informal network could be set up to assist these students. Of course, this would be in addition to the informal advice and assistance many would undoubtedly receive from their supervisor and other faculty members.

4. Group Work

Over the past five years I have had three cases where students involved in group work have been threatened by fellow students - two very seriously. This arises in the context of academic dishonesty and/or group evaluations. Other Universities are reporting similar incidents. I recognize that the numbers are small, but I raise it simply to alert faculty. It may be helpful for faculty to assure students that if serious group problems do develop, they are available for consultation and that bullying behaviour, of any kind, will not be tolerated.

5. Examination Issues

The late distribution o f grades, particularly following December exams, continues to be a source o f complaint for students. Also, I continue to hear from students who have been granted deferred examinations in December and are then faced with writing an excessive number of exams in April. In one case a student had 11 final exams in April. I recognize the problems - logistically and from an academic integrity perspective, in letting students write outside an exam period, however, I am not convinced that it is fair to tell students, that they need to reduce their course load in the second term to succeed.

Other Activities

Externally, I continued to be active in our two federal organizations - ACCUO (Association of Canadian College and University Ombudspersons) and FCO (Forum of Canadian Ombudsman) by attending conferences and participating in committee work. Internally, I was involved with a number of groups/committees including: PACBIC, Refining Directions, the Anti-Violence Network, the group examining mental health issues on campus and the committee working on developing a graduate handbook. I also offered some assistance on a number o f policy issues including the TMG Grievance procedure, the application o f McMaster policies to the nursing consortium and various

Codes o f Conduct. As well, I assisted with a session hosted by Centre for Leadership and Learning on difficult behaviour in the classroom and conducted workshops on conflict resolution for the McMaster Leadership Certificate.

I want to take this opportunity to thank everyone who has assisted the Office this year - the students, staff and faculty who have approached the Office for assistance and the people I have contacted to help in the resolution of concerns. I appreciate everyone’s willingness to consider a different point of view. Thanks to my Advisory Committee - Dr. Wood and the MSU VP Education, Matt Lannan - your support continues to be very important to the successful operation of the Office. And finally, a long overdue thanks to Dr. Fred A. Hall, AVP (Academic) - he’s been there since the beginning and is always available for a chat - many thanks.

10

i

Table 1 -Number of Cases/Inquiries During the Period from Aug 1, 2002 to July 31. 2003

AuS

Sept Oct

Nov Dec

Jan Feb M ar

A pr M ay

June

July TOTAL

Cases 23 16 29 38 15 31 37 54 42 34 24 13 356Inquiries*

1 14 7 9 4 8 4 5 12 615

1 86

* Inquiries invo ve matters outside the jurisdiction of t le Ombuds Office e.g. lane lordand tenant, employment, family, civil cases. These matters are often referred to an outside resource.

Table 2 - Status of Individuals Who Initiate Cases

Full-time undergraduate 243Part-time undergraduate 6Graduate student 24Staff - McMaster University 46

McMaster Students 13UnionContinuing EducationFaculty 19Other: Miscellaneous 6

University applicants 6Former students 4

TOTAL 367** The number of inquirers are greater than the number o f cases because sometimes 2 people or a group come in with the same problem

TYPES OF CASES

Table 3 - S tudent Cases - Academic

Student cases - Academicadmission 12course rules and management Sprogram requirements 12grade appeal 34Petition 24academic misconduct 20interpersonal 13examinations 16transcript 4accommodation 9teaching quality 8

11

Withdrawal/reinstatement 16graduate thesis/supervision 6other 3TOTAL 185

Table 4 - Student Cases - Non-Academic

Student cases - Non-Academicregistration 3fees/financial 19residence 14employment on campus 8student discipline 5associations/clubs 14other services 23harassment 2other 5TOTAL 93

Table 5 - Staff Cases

Staff - University and MSUterms o f employment 6(salary/benefits)working conditions 5(physical/incivility)inter-personal 4services 1disability Idiscipline 3termination 4MUSA/TMGprocess/policy 22issue involving a student 10other 3TOTAL 59

Table 6 - Faculty Cases

Facultyemployment issues 3services 3Faculty Code o f Conduct 1freedom o f info./confidentialitypolicy 5hearing processpractices in other programmesrole and authority o f officesother issues involving student 7otherTOTAL 19

Table 7 - Type of Action on Cases

Information 32Referral 16Advice 218Intervention 90TOTAL 356

Table 8 - How Office Accessed

Appointment 71Telephone 102E-mail 86Drop in 97TOTAL 356