SENATE AGENDA - Your KPU - Home · project between the University and School District 42 under a formal Memorandum of Understanding. MOTION CARRIED Moved by Takashi Sato, seconded

SENATE AGENDARegular Meeting

Monday, September 27, 2010 4:00 – 7:00pm Cedar Building 2110

1. Call to Order ................................................................................................................ David Atkinson

2. Confirmation of Agenda

3. Approval of Minutes (June 28, 2010, August 23, 2010 and September 9, 2010)

4. Chair’s Report .............................................................................................................. David Atkinson

4.1. Correspondence

5. Senate Executive Committee ...................................................................................... David Atkinson

5.1. Clerk of Senate

5.2. VP Academic Search Committee Representation

5.3. VP Academic Search Committee Nominees

5.4. Outstanding Faculty Bylaws

5.5. Bylaw 2.10

5.6. Approval of Graduates

6. Senate Governance Committee (No Report) ............................................................. Dana Cserepes

6.1. Social Sciences Bylaws Revision

6.2. Senate Standing Committee on Educational Technology

7. Senate Nominating Committee ................................................................................... Mary Androsiuk

7.1. Nomination of Replacement Member (Senate Standing Committee on Policy Articulation)

8. Senate Standing Committee on Academic Planning & Priorities ............................... Wade Deisman

9. Senate Standing Committee on Curriculum ................................................................ Dana Cserepes

10. Senate Standing Committee on the Library (No Report)

11. Senate Standing Committee on Policy Articulation .................................................... Dana Cserepes

11.1. Election of New Chair

11.2. Policy B14: PLA and Transfer Credit

11.3. Policy C8: Student Academic Conduct

11.4. Policy G7: Qualifications for Faculty

11.5. Policy B2/B7: Alternative Assessment of Academic Performance

Senate Agenda September 27, 2010 Page 2

11.6. Establishment, Amalgamation & Discontinuance of Faculties Policy & Procedures

11.7. Selection, Appointment & Re‐Appointment of Senior Positions Policy & Procedures

11.8. For Elimination Policy L11: Program and Curriculum Development

11.9. Policy E19: Honorary Degrees / Awards

11.10. Policy L6: Student Academic Appeals

12. Senate Standing Committee on Program Review ....................................................... Kenneth Hughes

13. Senate Standing Committee on Tributes (No Report)

14. Senate Standing Committee on the University Budget (No Report) ........................... Harj Dhaliwal

15. Senate Task Force on Academic Rank & Advancement .............................................. Dana Cserepes

16. Approval of Graduates ................................................................................................ Robert Hensley

17. Items for Discussion

18. Next Meeting: October 25, 2010, 4:00 pm (Langley Campus Auditorium)

19. Adjournment

SENATE

MEETING DATE: September 27, 2010

AGENDA #: 3

PREPARED BY: Kerry Thompson

Issue: Approval of the minutes of the June 28, 2010 Regular Senate meeting, the minutes of the August 23, 2010 Extraordinary Senate meeting and the September 9, 2010 Special Senate Consultation meeting

For approval: That Senate approve the minutes of the June 28, 2010 Regular Senate meeting, the minutes of the August 23, 2010 Extraordinary Senate meeting and the September 9, 2010 Special Senate Consultation meeting

SENATE MINUTESRegular Meeting

Monday, June 28, 2010 4:00 pm Cedar Building 2110

Present Adamoski, Robert Androsiuk, Mary Ash, Kristan Atkinson, David (Chair) Cserepes, Dana (Vice Chair) Coren, Arthur Cunnin, Betty Davis, Bob Deisman, Wade Dhaliwal, Harj

Duggan, Barbara Fung, Maggie Goedbloed, Dana Guirguis, Mazen Haq, Aysha Howes, Stephanie Hughes, Kenneth Kelly, Claudette Kozak, Romy MacDonald, Cathy

McGillivray, Judith McIntyre, Ken Penhorwood, Jan Petrillo, Larissa Robertson, Carolyn Robertson, Derek Sandhu, Jaswinder Sato, Takashi (Vice Chair) Thom, Josephine Wade, Tally Wood, Robert

University Secretariat Klassen, Sandi

Thompson, Kerry (Recorder)

Regrets Bubber, Arvinder (Chancellor) Carr, Brian Dean, Geoff

Gordon, JodyMurray, Joel

Tebb, Wayne Taylor‐Eddy, Andrew

1. The meeting was called to order at 4:10 pm.

2. Confirmation of Agenda

Addition of Item 12.3, Approval of Senate Standing Committee on Program Review Chair

3. Approval of Minutes (May 31, 2010) Moved by Art Coren, seconded by Derek Robertson, to approve the minutes from May 31, 2010 with minor revisions:

Item 6.1, Senate Governance Committee

4. Chair’s Report President Atkinson extended the Senate’s appreciation to Senators who are at the end of their terms, or who are leaving Kwantlen, for their hard work and contributions to Senate and various standing committees over the years. Moved by Bob Davis, seconded by Derek Robertson, that Senate make a motion of recognition to all outgoing Senators. MOTION CARRIED Incoming Senators were welcomed to the meeting as guests. An additional Senate meeting will be added for September (September 9, 2010, tentative) to consult on the institutional vision statement being developed for the Board of Governors. It was stressed that there is urgency around the completion of full program proposals for degree programs. Deans were asked to notify their faculty degree development teams. The Standing Committee on Curriculum will be asked to hold an additional meeting at the beginning of September

to facilitate FPP’s that are ready for review. Approved FPP’s will then come forward to the September 27, 2010 regular Senate meeting.

5. Senate Executive Committee 5.1. Empower Executive for July and August

Moved by Derek Robertson, seconded by Arthur Coren, that Senate empower the Executive to act for Senate on urgent matters of regular business during the months of July and August. MOTION CARRIED

6. Senate Governance Committee (No Report)

7. Senate Nominating Committee (No Report)

8. Senate Standing Committee on Academic Planning & Priorities The committee will hold a retreat on July 23, 2010 to discuss the opportunities and ramifications of being a Polytechnic University.

9. Senate Standing Committee on Curriculum The committee held 2 meetings in June, 2010 to facilitate a high number of agenda items, program concepts and full program proposals. 9.1. University Academy ‐ Pilot Project with Maple Ridge/Pitt Meadows SD 42

Maple Ridge/Pitt Meadows SD 42 has proposed a University Academy concept with Kwantlen to create a transitional pathway for their students who wish to pursue post‐secondary studies while completing their Dogwood diploma requirements. The program would initially allow for 25 secondary school students from SD 42 to access four university courses per year at Kwantlen, over a two year period. Moved by Takashi Sato, seconded by Arthur Coren, that Senate approve within the terms of the proposal the commencement of the University Academy in September 2010 as a pilot project between the University and School District 42 under a formal Memorandum of Understanding. MOTION CARRIED Moved by Takashi Sato, seconded by Dana Goedbloed, that an annual report of progress and outcomes be tabled with Senate in June 2011 and June 2012 before the pilot project is approved as an ongoing secondary school to university transition offering of the University and before the Academy model is extended to include other school districts. MOTION CARRIED

9.2. Program Revision: Bachelor of Journalism The Bachelor of Journalism program has been revised to align more closely with the Bachelor of Arts Framework The revision will allow for more options for new students and offer existing students a cohesive transition plan into the new framework. Moved by Takashi Sato, seconded by Arthur Coren that Senate approve the revision to the Bachelor of Journalism program. MOTION CARRIED ACTION: Journalism to work with Business department on establishing acronyms for Communications Studies courses.

9.3. Program Revision: Associate of Arts in Anthropology Changes to the current program are a result of the formation of a separate Anthropology Department and the implementation of a BA Minor in Anthropology degree (September 2008) at Kwantlen. Moved by Takashi Sato, seconded by Larissa Petrillo, that Senate approve the revisions to the Associate of Arts in Anthropology. MOTION CARRIED

9.4. Full Program Proposal: Bachelor of Music in Musical Arts The program will provide students with comprehensive academic and applied knowledge in the field of musical arts. Moved by Takashi Sato, seconded by Barbara Duggan, that Senate approve the full program proposal for a Bachelor of Music in Musical Arts. MOTION CARRIED

9.5. Full Program Proposal: Bachelor of Arts Sociology Major Moved by Takashi Sato, seconded by Cathy MacDonald, that Senate approve the full program proposal for a Bachelor of Arts Sociology Major. MOTION CARRIED

10. Senate Standing Committee on the Library (No Report)

11. Senate Standing Committee on Policy Articulation (No Report)

12. Senate Standing Committee on Program Review Thanks were expressed to the outgoing Chair, Carolyn Robertson who chaired the SSCPR for five of the committee’s eight years. Moved by Carolyn Robertson, seconded by Mary Androsiuk, that Senate approve Kenneth Hughes as Chair of the Senate Standing Committee on Program Review. MOTION CARRIED 12.1. Action Plan: Psychology (4 Programs)

Moved by Carolyn Robertson, seconded by Derek Robertson, that Senate receive the action plan arising from the program review of the Psychology Department programs, with the understanding that the Dean of Social Sciences will report to Senate within one year regarding the implementation of the action plan. MOTION CARRIED

12.2. Action Plan: English Language Studies Program Moved by Carolyn Robertson, seconded by Kenneth Hughes, that Senate receive the action plan arising from the program review of the English Language Studies program, with the understanding that the Dean of Humanities will report to Senate within one year regarding the implementation of the action plan. MOTION CARRIED

13. Senate Standing Committee on Tributes (No Report)

14. Senate Standing Committee on the University Budget (No Report)

15. Senate Task Force on Academic Rank & Advancement The first meeting of the task force was held on June 18, 2010. Moved by Takashi Sato, seconded by Mary Androsiuk, that Senate approve Don Reddick as Chair of the Senate Task Force on Academic Rank and Advancement. MOTION CARRIED Moved by Mary Androsiuk, seconded by Arthur Coren, that Senate confirms that the mandate of the committee is to discuss, investigate and determine the rationale for Rank and Advancement, and based on that rationale, to develop a framework. Amendment moved by Bob Davis, seconded by Jan Penhorwood to remove the second clause of the motion “and based on that rational, to develop a framework.” MOTION TO AMEND DEFEATED MOTION CARRIED Bob Davis opposed.

16. Extended Reading Break Variance Review Panel The committee was formed in 2008 to review requests for variance from the 2010 Vancouver Olympic Winter Games reading break. The committee 's final report is attached. Moved by Takashi Sato, seconded by Jan Penhorwood, that Senate dissolve the Extended Reading Break Variance Review Panel. MOTION CARRIED

17. Approval of Graduates Moved by Judith McGillivray, seconded by Derek Robertson, that Senate approve the graduates to June 28, 2010. MOTION CARRIED

18. Presentation of the Dean’s Honour Roll Recipients Spring 2010 Presented for information.

19. Items for Discussion

Senate discussed that the Task Force on Academic Rank and Advancement make its next report to Senate no later than December 2010.

20. Next Meeting: September 9, 2010 , 4:00 pm (Extraordinary Meeting) Next Regular Meeting: September 27, 2010, 4:00 pm

21. The meeting was adjourned at 5:48 pm.

SENATE MINUTES

Extraordinary Meeting

Monday, August 23, 2010

10:00 am to 5:00 pm

Cedar Building 2110

Present Androsiuk, Mary Atkinson, David (Chair) Carr, Brian Cserepes, Dana (Vice Chair) Coren, Arthur Cunnin, Betty Dastur, Farhad Dean, Geoff Deisman, Wade

Duggan, Barbara Fung, Maggie Goedbloed, Dana Guirguis, Mazen Haq, Aysha Hensley, Robert Howes, Stephanie Hughes, Kenneth Kozak, Romy MacDonald, Cathy

McGillivray, Judith Nicolson‐Church, Jean Penhorwood, Jan Petrillo, Larissa (by phone) Robertson, Carolyn Robertson, Derek Wade, Tally


Merritt, Elizabeth Thompson, Kerry (Recorder)

Regrets Adamoski, Robert Ash, Kristan Bubber, Arvinder (Chancellor) Davis, Bob

Dhaliwal, Harj Murray, Joel McIntyre, Ken Sandhu, Jaswinder

Taylor‐Eddy, Andrew Tebb, Wayne Thom, Josephine Wood, Robert

1. Call to Order David Atkinson called the meeting to order at 10:05 am

2. Confirmation of Agenda Moved by Mazen Guirguis, seceonded by Brian Carr, that Senate approve the agenda. MOTION CARRIED

3. Senate Standing Committee on Curriculum – Full Program Proposals 10 Full Program Proposals were brought forward by the Senate Standing Committee on Curriculum for approval.

3.1. Bachelor of Arts Major in Anthropology

Moved by Judith McGillivray, seconded by Kenneth Hughes that Senate approve the Full Program Proposal for a Bachelor of Arts in Anthropology

MOTION CARRIED with revisions

3.2. Bachelor of Arts Minor in Counselling

Moved by Art Coren, seconded by Cathy McDonald that Senate approve the Full Program Proposal for a Bachelor of Arts Minor in Counselling


Senate Agenda August 23, 2010 Page 2

3.3. Bachelor of Design in Product Design

Moved by Farhad Dastur, seconded by David Wiens that Senate approve the Full Program Proposal for a Bachelor of Design in Product Design


3.4 Bachelor of Horticulture Science, Urban Systems Major, Plant Health Major

Moved by Jan Penhorwood, seconded by Arthur Coren that Senate approve the Full Program Proposal for a Bachelor of Horticulture Science, Urban Systems Major, Plant Health Major


3.6 Bachelor of Arts, Major in Philosophy

Moved by Derek Robertson, seconded by Brian Carr that Senate approve the Full Program Proposal for a Bachelor of Arts, Major in Philosophy

MOTION CARRIED with revisions 3.7 Bachelor of Science, Biology Major, Bachelor of Science, Biology Minor

Moved by Derek Robertson, seconded by Jan Penhorwood that Senate approve the Full Program Proposal for a Bachelor of Science, Major in Biology Amendment moved by Geoff Dean, seconded by Romy Kozak that references to the Bachelor of Science, Biology Minor be removed from the Full Program Proposal AMENDMENT CARRIED MOTION CARRIED with revisions

3.8 Bachelor of Science in Health Science Moved by Kenneth Hughes, seconded by Tally Wade, that Senate approve the Full Program Proposal for a Bachelor of Science in Health Science MOTION CARRIED with revisions

3.9 Bachelor of Trades and Technology Innovation Moved by Kenneth Hughes, seconded by Tally Wade, that Senate approve the Full Program Proposal for a Bachelor of Trades and Technology Innovation Amendment moved by Derek Robertson, seconded by Cathy McDonald, that the Bachelor of of Trades and Technology Innovation be renamed the Bachelor of Technology in Trades Innovation AMENDMENT CARRIED MOTION CARRIED with revisions

Senate Agenda August 23, 2010 Page 3

3.10 Bachelor of Arts in Policy Studies Moved by Cathy McDonald, seconded by Barb Duggan that Senate approve the Full Program Proposal for a Bachelor of Policy Studies MOTION CARRIED with revisions

4. Meeting was adjourned at 2:35 pm.

SENATE MINUTESSpecial Consultation Meeting

Thursday, September 9, 2010 4:00 pm Cedar Building 2110

Present Adamoski, Robert Atkinson, David (Chair) Cserepes, Dana (Vice Chair) Coren, Arthur Cunnin, Betty Daniels, Caroline Dean, Geoff Deisman, Wade Dhaliwal, Harj Duggan, Barbara

Fung, Maggie Guirguis, Mazen Haq, Aysha Hensley, Robert Hughes, Kenneth Kozak, Romy MacDonald, Cathy McKendry, John Nicolson‐Church, Jean Petrillo, Larissa

Rankin, Graham Robertson, Carolyn Scanlan, Lori Stadnyk, Pam Tebb, Wayne Velasco, Mae Wade, Tally Weins, David Wood, Robert


Thompson, Kerry (Recorder)

Merrit, Elizabeth

Regrets Androsiuk, Mary Ash, Kristan Bubber, Arvinder (Chancellor)

Davis, Bob Davison, Ann Marie McIntyre, Ken

Robertson, Derek Sandhu, Jaswinder Royal, Wendy

1. Call to Order

David Atkinson called the meeting to order at 4:00 pm.

2. Approval of Agenda

Moved by Kenneth Hughes, seconded by Robert Wood, that Senate approve the agenda.

3. Consultation Regarding the Kwantlen Polytechnic University Vision Statement

David Atkinson presented a draft Vision Statement for Senate’s advice. Senate thoroughly discussed the document and will send further feedback to the University Secretary.

4. Next Meeting: September 27, 2010, 4:00 pm – 7:00 pm, Cedar 2110

5. Meeting was adjourned at 6:22 pm.

Issue

For Inform

e:

mation:

Corresponde

Please see th

M

A

P

nce from the B

e attached lett

MEETING DA

AGENDA #:

PRESENTED B

Board of Gover

ter from the B

ATE: Se

4.

BY: D

rnors

oard of Govern

eptember 27

.1

avid Atkinso

nors

7, 2010

on

Septem

David Chair oKwant12666 Surrey Dear D SectionBoard Univer Accordthese develowhere We sumembpleasedBoard I look Sincer

Scott NChair,

mber 17, 2010

Atkinson of Senate tlen Polytechn72 Avenue

y BC V3W 2M

Dr. Atkinson:

n 35.2(6) of of Governor

rsity.

dingly, the Bissues. This

oping new goit must addre

uggest that thers of Senated to extend tconsiders of

forward to th

rely,

Nicoll Board of Gov

0

nic University

M8

the British Crs and the Se

Board of Govs exercise isvernance and

ess matters joi

he membersh, the Univershe Board’s incritical impor

he positive res

vernors

y

Columbia Unienate must co

ernors wishe timely, give

d administratiintly involvin

hip of the tasity President nvitation to Srtance in the d

sponse of the

iversity Act sooperate in th

s to strike a jen that the Uive policy forng the Board a

ask force incand the Univ

Senate to joindevelopment

Senate.

specifies a nuthe governanc

joint Board/SUniversity hr the Universiand the Senat

clude four mversity Provon this task for

of Kwantlen

Board of

umber of wayce of Kwantl

Senate task fhas over the ity, and is note.

members of thost and Vice Prce in an exeas a universi

Governors

ys in which tlen Polytechn

force to addrelast year be

ow at a positi

he Board, foPresident. I arcise which tty.

the nic

ess een ion

our am the

SENATE


AGENDA #: 5.1

PRESENTED BY: David Atkinson

Issue: Clerk of Senate

For information:

A Position Paper on the Clerk of Senate is submitted to Senate for information. It will be implemented for May 2011.

Position paper, Clerk of Senate

Since its inception, the University Senate has benefitted from the administrative and academic

guidance of its two Vice‐Chairs, each of whom is appointed on an annual basis. Given the

circumstances of how Senate currently operates, the First Vice‐Chair has over a relatively short

time become a fulltime administrator for Senate, although the incumbent does continue to

teach one course a semester. While the current circumstances have provided Senate with

exemplary leadership, they could very well deter future candidates from letting their name

stand for election. It is one thing to serve as Vice‐Chair and to stand‐in for the Chair when he is

not available; it is entirely another to take on what are substantial administrative and

leadership responsibilities. It is, further, unusual to leave what is a major administrative

position dependent on the availability of candidates to run in an election. While the current

short history of the Vice‐Chair’s position suggests that it might typically be filled by acclamation,

this may not always be the case and there is the likelihood that there might be no candidates

prepared to run. Further, the position of Vice‐Chair as an academic administrator does not

recognize the need for stability and predictability, and the importance of experience in fulfilling

the requirements of the job.

In this context, the current responsibilities of the Vice‐Chair should be regularized in the position

of Clerk of Senate, whose primary responsibility is to provide academic leadership and support

for the University Senate and its various committees. The Clerk of Senate should remain a

member of the Faculty, should have qualified for academic appointment in a particular

department, and should, accordingly, have a thorough understanding of academic matters and

policies. As an academic appointment, this position is committed ¾ time to Senate duties and ¼

time to teaching. It is expected that the incumbent would teach one course per semester (as is

Senate, September 27, 2010 Agenda item Page 2

currently the case for the First Vice‐Chair of Senate). The appointment of a Clerk of Senate

would not change the day‐to‐day activities and responsibilities of Senate Committee Chairs.

Given the need for a broad familiarity with the institution’s academic programs and policies, the

Clerk of Senate will be a seconded internal appointment for a period of two years; it can be

renewed for subsequent two‐year terms.

Reporting to the University President as Chair of Senate, the Clerk of Senate will ensure effective

liaison between Faculty Councils and Senate, and between Senate and the University’s

administration, will serve as a point of contact for all Senate matters, will be responsible for

managing Senate policies, and will work with the Associate Vice‐President (Academic) in

ensuring effective communication with outside agencies (e.g. DQAB). It is expected that the

Clerk of Senate would provide expert advice and guidance to the President and senior members

of the administration, to Committee Chairs and their committees, and to Senate on matters

properly the responsibility of Senate as defined in the University Act. Specifically, the Clerk of

Senate coordinates activities relating to decision‐making at Senate, expedites the flow of items

through the decision‐making process, tracks items; provides assistance in the planning and

preparation of agendas for all Senate Committees; provides editorial and content advice on

items coming before Senate; provides advice on jurisdiction, policy, process, and precedent as

they pertain to Senate; and oversees orientation for new members of Senate. The Clerk of

Senate would not Chair any Senate Committees, except in very unusual circumstances and only

with the approval of Senate, nor be a member of Senate. It is expected that the Office of the

University Secretary will continue to provide clerical and managerial support for Senate.

The ideal candidate will have been at Kwantlen for some time and will have a proven interest in

institutional governance. Good interpersonal skills are essential, given the possible need to

mitigate disagreement and find compromise.

SENATE


AGENDA #: 5.2


Issue: Vice President Academic Search Committee Representation

For information:

According to the Faculty Collective Agreement, the KFA has the right to appoint up to five faculty members to the Vice President Academic search committee. There are different ways to accomplish appointing faculty members required on the search committee over and above the “up to five” that the KFA can appoint. Since Senate has a strong belief in representation of all Faculties, two models are presented for Senate’s decision.

1. KFA appoints up to five faculty members and Senate appoints a faculty member from Faculties not represented within those five appointees OR

2. The KFA appoints up to five faculty members and Senate appoints one faculty member from every Faculty.

For Approval: Option 1

OR

Option 2

SENATE


AGENDA #: 5.4


Issue: Outstanding Faculty Bylaws

For information:

"As of November 30, 2010, Senate will not conduct the business of any Faculty which does not have Senate‐approved bylaws."

SENATE


AGENDA #: 5.5


Issue: Senate Bylaw 2.10

For information:

At its June 2010 meeting, Senate referred to the Executive Committee for review the matter of the number of working days prior to Senate that the meeting package is circulated.

Senate Bylaw 2.10 states:

“A proposed agenda and supporting material for any meeting shall be circulated to Senate members not fewer than two working days prior to any meetings.”

Current practice is to send the Senate meeting package to Senate members at least five working days prior to the meetings. Senators should receive the package at least three working days prior to Senate. The meeting package is also posted on the Senate website, making it accessible to Senators well in advance of the meeting.

The Executive Committee discussed the options and determined that the number of working days prior to Senate indicated in the Bylaw was sufficient. The Committee recommended taking a vote on two options for distribution of the meeting package instead.

These options are offered with a view to saving trees and enhancing the productivity of the University Secretariat. The current practice of printing hard copies of 50 Senate packages takes about eight hours of labour to produce. This only includes the copying and collation of the meeting packages.

Two day Express Service using ePrint from the office, home or anywhere using the web, is available for Student Handouts and Exams, Department or Administrative Materials.

For Approval: Option A: The meeting package is available electronically five working days prior to Senate. Senators have the option to send an order to eprint to have a package printed, which would be sent to them in inter‐campus mail within 48 hours. Alternatively, Senators could print their own package. A link to eprint could be placed on the Senate website.

Option B: The University Secretariat sends the meeting package to the print shop electronically for reproduction and distribution to Senators.

SENATE


AGENDA #: 5.6


Issue: Approval of Graduates

For information:

Currently, in May each year, Senate approves a motion giving the Registrar the authority to approve graduates from the May Senate meeting to the September Senate meeting.

In order to make it possible to include the names of graduates in the printed Convocation Program, which requires sufficient lead time for printing, the following motion is proposed.

For Approval: In those circumstances when Senate cannot meet in a timely fashion, the Registrar is granted the authority to approve graduates after first consulting with the Chair of Senate. The Registrar will report such approval to Senate at the next Senate meeting.

SENATE


AGENDA #: 6.1

PRESENTED BY: Dana Cserepes

Issue: Faculty of Social Sciences Bylaw Revision

For information:

The Senate Governance Committee considered revisions to the Faculty of Social Sciences Bylaws recommended them to Senate for approval

For Approval: THAT Senate approves revisions to the Faculty of Social Sciences Bylaws

SENATE


AGENDA #: 6.2


Issue: Educational Technology Committee

For information:

At its June 29, 2010 meeting, the Senate Governance Committee discussed whether a committee on Educational Technology was truly a standing committee of Senate or if it should be a sub‐committee of the Senate Standing Committee on Academic Planning & Priorities because its mandate deals with strategies and priorities in relation to educational technology. As well, since It was proposed that the committee report to Senate once a year, it was noted that all Senate standing committees make recommendations for Senate’s approval and do not just submit reports to Senate, which begs the question as to whether it is truly a standing committee of Senate.

Attached is the proposed mandate and composition of the committee, as presented to the Senate Governance Committee.

For Approval: THAT Senate approve the Educational Technology Committee as a sub‐committee of the Senate Standing Committee on Academic Planning & Priorities.

SENATE


AGENDA #: 7.1

PRESENTED BY: Mary Androsiuk

Issue: Nomination of Replacement Member (Senate Standing Committee on Policy Articulation)

For Information: Wendy Belter, a current member of the Senate Standing Committee on Policy Articulation, is working on the United Way Campaign from September to December, 2010. The Nominating Committee recommends that Izgy Gocer substitute for Ms. Belter during that period of time.

For Approval:

That Senate approve Izgy Gocer as a member of the Senate Standing Committee on Policy Articulation from September to December, 2010 inclusive.

Issue

For In

e:

nformation:

Senate Stan

The Senate

The commit Bachelor of Bachelor of Bachelor of Bachelor of The commitBiology. The Senate The commit Bachelor of Bachelor of Bachelor of Bachelor of Bachelor of Bachelor of

M

A

P

ding Commit

Standing Com

ttee approved

Arts Major inArts Minor inHorticulture Trades and T

ttee approved

Standing Com

ttee approved

Arts Major inArts Major inDesign in ProScience MajoScience in HeArts in Policy

MEETING DA

AGENDA #:

PREPARED B

ttee on Curric

mmittee on C

d Full Program

n Anthropologn CounsellingScience UrbaTechnology In

d the Program

mmittee on C

d Full Program

n Philosophyn Creative Wroduct Designor in Biologyealth Sciencey Studies

ATE: Se

9

Y: D

culum

urriculum me

m Proposals f

gy

an Ecosystemnnovation

m Concept for

urriculum me

m Proposals f

riting

eptember 27

ana Cserepe

et on August

for:

s Major, Plan

r a Bachelor o

et on August

for:

7, 2010

es

16, 2010.

nt Health Maj

of Science Ma

19, 2010.

or

ajor in

Senate


AGENDA #: 11.2


Issue: Policy B14: PLA and Transfer Credit

For Information No comments were received from the University community at Step 20, therefore PLA and Transfer Credit policy now goes to Senate for approval of Notice of Motion

For approval: That Senate approve a Notice of Motion for the PLA and Transfer Credit policy

1

1

Policy context Draft 10 05 06

Policy name: Prior Learning Assessment and Transfer Credit

Policy number: B14

Approving jurisdiction (board, senate, president): Senate

Context: If a new policy, describe the issues that have led to the need for a policy. If a modification of an existing policy, describe the issues that have arisen to justify the need for a modification; provide a history of the development and revision of the policy and its related procedures This revision to an existing policy is being carried out as part of the general review of the University’s policies and procedures initiated, in part, by the University’s new status as a “Polytechnic University”. Common to all policies being reviewed at this time has been the decision to modify the format by separating former policy documents into two separate, but linked documents: a Policy document and a Procedures document. The current policy became effective in December, 1996 and was revised in December, 2004. The revision of the Policy was identified by representatives of Senate and staff as a priority for review in order to better articulate the principles underlying the Policy as well to clarify the procedures to support the Policy.

Process: Describe the process that has been used to develop/modify the policy: research internal to the organization, meetings with individuals and groups, identification of best practices, process to review, etc. This Policy is now at a “Preliminary Draft” stage and has been revised through a process that includes:

o Individual interviews with key staff o A search of similar policies at other Universities with a reputation for high

quality policy development

2

2

o Development of an initial draft o Review and comment, both through meetings and individual reviews,

from a review group that includes: Jody Gordon, Rob Adamoski, Rob Fleming

o Comments from the meetings and individual review group members were incorporated into subsequent drafts which were then circulated to the entire review group for further review

o The draft has been reviewed by the Deans’ Council, the Senate Policy Articulation Committee and the Presidents’ Group; suggested changes have been incorporated into the most current draft.

Recommendation from person with administrative responsibility:

Prior Learning Assessment and Transfer Credit P & P Context 10 05 06.doc

1

KWANTLEN POLYTECHNIC UNIVERSITY

POLICY

Draft 10 05 19

POLICY NAME: PRIOR LEARNING ASSESSMENT AND TRANSFER CREDIT

POLICY NUMBER: B14

APPROVING JURISDICTION (Board, Senate, President): SENATE

SIGNATURE OF JURISDICTION HEAD

ADMINISTRATIVE RESPONSIBILITY: VICE-PRESIDENT ACADEMIC AND PROVOST

POLICY HISTORY (include dates policy became effective, revision dates, review dates; include date current version became effective): Effective: December, 1996 Revised: December, 2004 Revised: August, 2009

RELATED POLICIES, LEGISLATION: B.08 Credit for Advanced Placement Program Examinations B.09 Credit for International Baccalaureate Program Courses B.15 Transfer of Articulated Courses from other Post-Secondary Institutions to Kwantlen Polytechnic University

CONTEXT AND PURPOSE: This Policy has been developed to respond to individual requests from students who may have successfully completed course work at another post-secondary institution or have attained significant learning at a post-secondary level from work, training and other experiences outside the formal post-secondary education system. Those who have gained such learning may be able to receive credit for that learning and build on it in pursuing further education within Kwantlen. Credits granted for prior learning may be used to satisfy admission requirements to a program or the requirements for graduation.

2

SCOPE AND LIMITS: This Policy applies to all individual requests from students who wish to apply for a transfer credit for a specific Kwantlen course, or components of (a) course(s) or program, based on a course completed at another organization or who wish to apply for an assessment of a certain aspect of their learning when a transfer credit is inapplicable or inappropriate. Institutional-driven requests for recognition of courses and programs are addressed through a separate Policy.

DEFINITIONS: Refer to the related Procedures document for definitions which will enhance the reader’s interpretation of this Policy.

STATEMENT OF POLICY PRINCIPLES:

(1) Kwantlen wishes to recognize course work or life and work experiences gained by a student outside the University so that students are not required to repeat learning material which they have already mastered.

(2) This Policy is intended to respond to a request for an assessment of prior learning or transfer credit from individual students.

(3) Credit will be granted where prior learning experiences or transfer credit can be equated to the current learning outcomes or objectives of a course or components of (a) course(s) or program at Kwantlen.

(4) Kwantlen will assess such learning in a variety of ways as outlined in the Procedures section that accompanies this Policy.

(5) The University will provide a mechanism for a student or prospective student to appeal a decision regarding prior learning assessment or transfer credit should the student/prospective student disagree with the University’s decision.

RELATED PROCEDURES: Refer to Prior Learning Assessment and Transfer Credit Procedures B14

Prior Learning Assessment and Transfer Credit 10 05 19.doc

1

KWANTLEN POLYTECHNIC UNIVERSITY

PROCEDURE Draft 10 05 19

PROCEDURE NAME: PRIOR LEARNING ASSESSMENT AND TRANSFER CREDIT

PROCEDURE NUMBER: Procedures document to accompany Policy B14

APPROVING JURISDICTION (Board, Senate, President): SENATE

SIGNATURE OF JURISDICTION HEAD:

ADMINISTRATIVE RESPONSIBILITY: VICE-PRESIDENT ACADEMIC AND PROVOST

PROCEDURE HISTORY (include dates policy became effective, revision dates, review dates; include date current version became effective) These procedures were previously part of Policy B14: Effective: December, 1996 Revised: December, 2004 Revised: August, 2009

DEFINITIONS: Prior Learning Assessment (PLA): Prior learning assessment relates to knowledge that has been acquired inside or outside of a recognized postsecondary institution, professional organization or other agency. A request for PLA is initiated by an individual student and involves the l assessment of learning for which the granting of transfer credit is inapplicable, inappropriate or unavailable. If the assessor determines that appropriate learning is demonstrated to the requisite level, PLA assessments will normally result in credit being granted as assigned (i.e. equivalent to (a) Kwantlen course(s) or components of (a) Kwantlen course(s) or program) or unassigned (i.e. accepted at an appropriate year level in a subject or program area). Transfer Credit: Transfer credit refers to the granting of credit for a course or components of (a) course(s) or program completed successfully at another recognized postsecondary institution, professional organization or other agency. These course(s) or course/program components may be equivalent to (a)

2

course(s) or course/program components offered by Kwantlen (assigned credit) or at an appropriate year level in a subject or program area (unassigned credit).

PROCEDURES: TRANSFER CREDIT 1. The University will be guided by the Principles and Guidelines for Transfer

endorsed by the British Columbia Council on Admissions & Transfer (BCCAT) and published in the British Columbia Transfer Guide http://www.bccat.bc.ca/articulation/principles.cfm.

2. Students must request transfer credit in writing and provide an official

transcript from each post-secondary institution or professional organization or agency at which courses were taken, except in cases where an automated transfer of information process exists, e.g. Advanced Placement or International Baccalaureate.

3. When determining whether transfer credit is to be granted, one or more of the

following will be utilized:

a. Specific articulation agreements between Kwantlen Polytechnic University as receiving institution and other post-secondary institutions or professional organizations or other agencies as sending institutions

b. The B.C. Transfer Guide published in both print and electronic form

(on-line) by the British Columbia Council on Admissions & Transfer

c. Transfer guides published by other receiving institutions

d. Other on-line transfer guides (e.g. Council of Ministers of Education, Canada)

e. National Occupational Analyses for apprenticeable trades, as

recognized by appropriate provincial and federal licensing jurisdictions.

f. Ad hoc evaluation by subject or program faculty based on materials such as a course outline, course presentation, syllabus, reading list, textbook(s), final examination, etc.

4. In general, transfer credit granted will be based on the actual course content

taken by the student at the time of their studies at the sending institution as opposed to a different version of the course offered at another point in time.

5. The granting of transfer credit to any specific student based on the

aforementioned procedures is on a case by case basis only and will not

3

constitute a formal and/or ongoing course articulation agreement between Kwantlen Polytechnic University and the sending institution.

6. An applicant who disputes the results of a request for transfer credit

Assessment may appeal that decision under the normal appeals of academic decisions process as outlined in Policy L6 Student Appeals of Academic Decisions. The appeal will be referred to the dean responsible for the program in which the student is enrolled.

PRIOR LEARNING ASSESSMENT 1. The University will be guided by the Guidelines for Prior Learning Assessment

developed by the Provincial PLA Steering Committee and endorsed by the British Columbia Council on Admissions & Transfer.

2. Kwantlen Polytechnic University recognizes the following methods of prior

learning assessment:

a. Challenge Exam: A test or exam (written and/or oral) that is designed to validate the knowledge of the candidate as it relates to course requirements. A challenge exam may be the same test or exam given to students who formally attend the course. It is limited to questions that are directly related to the learning objectives/outcomes of the course.

b. Standardized Test: Similar to a Challenge Exam. However, this test or

exam is usually developed by someone other than the assessor. It is focused around widely recognized standards (as set by a department or professional/sectoral organization) that are equivalent to the course objectives.

c. Products/Portfolio: Documents or objects that have been produced by the

candidate and demonstrate tangible proof of accomplishment. These may include, but are not limited to, reports, computer printouts, videos, illustrations, prototype models, or an artist's portfolio. Students may be asked to demonstrate abilities or answer questions about the portfolio by the assessor.

d. Demonstration: Simulation or actual presentation of candidate's abilities,

which may be live, recorded, or videotaped. The demonstration may include, but is not limited to, such activities as presenting a speech, role-playing a situation, creating a document on computer, giving a musical performance, performing a lab experiment, interviewing a client, operating equipment, or completing a procedure.

e. Interview: Oral questioning. The PLA interview is focused around course

4

objectives and may include techniques such as open-ended questions, case studies, and prepared analyses. The interview is used to clarify areas of learning, and may be used in parallel with other methods, as a sole method of assessment, and/or as a means to ensure authenticity of products.

f. Worksite Assessment: Similar to a demonstration. The candidate is

observed performing tasks as a part of normal work routine, or as specifically assigned, in the place of work. Assessment is normally made by faculty assigned to a candidate, but may also be made by a work supervisor or field expert. If performed by an external assessor, it may be followed up by a self-assessment and/or interview with a faculty assessor.

g. Self-assessment: Assessment performed by the candidate, usually with the aid of an established form or questionnaire. Normally requires a parallel assessment by a field expert and/or faculty assessor.

h. External Evaluation: Assessment provided by an expert other than

Kwantlen faculty. Assessment method may include, but is not limited to, performance evaluation, letter of validation, or worksite assessment, and may require follow-up by faculty.

i. Other forms of assessment: As agreed on by the assessor and applicant

and relevant to the course/program outcomes or objectives.

For each course or group of courses, the Department responsible shall specify which methods of Prior Learning Assessment the Department recommends and maintain a record of these methods. The Faculty Curriculum Committee will review and approve these recommendations. The chosen assessment method(s) must be appropriate for the subject or skill area, targeted to the learning objectives, competencies, skills, or outcomes of the course, and reflective of the level of achievement expected of any student.

3. Applicants for Prior Learning Assessment must have been admitted to

Kwantlen and have applied for admission to a program, except in those instances where the PLA course in question is a prerequisite for admission to the program.

4. Kwantlen Polytechnic University will only award credit for prior learning that is

directly applicable to the student’s declared program of studies. As is always the case should a student change programs, all or some of the PLA credit previously awarded may no longer apply to a new program in which the student enrolls. Conversely, the student may be able to apply for additional PLA credit that was not appropriate under the previous program of studies.

5

5. Under normal circumstances, a student may not obtain credit through Prior Learning Assessment for any Kwantlen Polytechnic University course in which the student was registered and failed within the six-month period prior to applying for PLA.

6. Students wishing to apply for Prior Learning Assessment must meet initially with the appropriate department PLA Advisor to assess their options and then pay the required fee before making a formal application for PLA assessment..

7. Detailed information about the exact requirements and assessment criteria

should be shared with the applicant in preparation for the assessment. Methods other than those already identified may be considered through consultation among the education advisor, the assessor, and the applicant. However, alternative methods must be reviewed and approved by the Curriculum Committee of the Faculty involved.

8. Faculty or other appropriate instructional staff who have expertise in the

curriculum area will assess Prior Learning and assign a grade. The standards to be applied will be equivalent to those applied to students enrolled in (a) course(s) or course components for which credit is requested.

9. An applicant who disputes the results of a Prior Learning Assessment may appeal that decision under the normal appeals of academic decisions process as outlined in Policy L6 Student Appeals of Academic Decisions. The appeal will be referred to the dean responsible for the program in which the student is enrolled.

10. The credits and grade(s) achieved through PLA will appear on the student’s

transcript.

RELATED POLICY: Refer to Prior Learning Assessment and Transfer Credit Policy B14

6

Credit for Prior Learning Procedures 10 05 19.doc

Senate


AGENDA #: 11.3


Issue: Policy C8: Student Academic Conduct

For Information Comments were received from the University community, and as a result changes were made to Procedures only

For approval: That Senate approve a Notice of Motion for the Student Academic Conduct policy


Policy name: Student Academic Conduct (formerly Plagiarism and Cheating)

Policy number: C8

Approving jurisdiction (board, senate, president): Senate (University Act, Section 35.2 (5) (h))

Context: If a new policy, describe the issues that have led to the need for a policy. If a modification of an existing policy, describe the issues that have arisen to justify the need for a modification; provide a history of the development and revision of the policy and its related procedures This revision to an existing policy is being carried out as part of the general review of the University’s policies and procedures initiated, in part, by the University’s new status as a “Polytechnic University”. Common to all policies being reviewed at this time has been the decision to modify the format by separating former policy documents into two separate, but linked documents: a Policy document and a Procedures document. The current policy became effective in June/88, was revised in June/02 and reviewed again in September/03. The existing policy was identified by a number of individuals and groups as being due for a complete review to address such issues as:

Clarifying the nature and meaning of academic misconduct

Clarifying the University’s expectations of students

Clarifying the role of instructors and, deans and others in dealing with academic conduct issues

Clarifying the role of the President under Section 61 of the University Act (Suspension of a Student)

Clarifying the role of Senate under Section 35.2 (5) (h) (set criteria for…academic standards)

Clarifying time frames

Providing clear and consistent penalty measures

Providing an avenue for educating students regarding appropriate academic conduct


o Individual interviews with key staff o The University’s current Policy (C8 Plagiarism and Cheating) and an

earlier draft of a revision o A search of similar policies at other Universities with a reputation for high

quality policy development o Development of an initial draft o Review and comment, both through meetings and individual reviews,

from a review group that includes: Wayne Tebb, Brian Carr, Arthur Cohen, Jody Gordon, Catherine Dube, Rob Fleming, Dana Goedbloed


o Review by Deans’ Council; their comments were also incorporated into the current draft

.

Recommendation from Sponsor: Original signed by Judith McGillivray

Student Academic Conduct Context 10 05 18.doc

Page 1 of 2 Policy No. C8

Policy History

Policy No. C8

Revised: 2002 06 03 2003 09 03

Approving Jurisdiction Senate

Reviewed:

Signed By

Effective:

1988 06 29

Administrative Responsibility Provost & Vice President, Academic

Approved:

Student Academic Conduct Policy

CONTEXT AND PURPOSE

This Policy addresses issues of student academic conduct at Kwantlen Polytechnic University. It outlines:

(1) Expectations and requirements of appropriate student academic conduct (2) Consequences of student academic misconduct including, but not limited to plagiarism,

cheating, fabrication, facilitation of academic misconduct

Procedures to be followed when student academic misconduct has occurred are provided in a companion document, “Procedures related to Student Academic Conduct”.

SCOPE AND LIMITS

This policy addresses the behavior of all students enrolled in a Kwantlen Polytechnic University course or program as well as applicants to courses and programs, offered on or off campus and the academic conduct of all such students and applicants while engaged in University-related activities.

Issues of non-academic conduct are addressed in a separate policy, C21

STATEMENT OF POLICY PRINCIPLES

(1) The University wishes to support students in the pursuit of their academic goals and, therefore, expects students to show honesty in their academic work.

(2) Instructors and Faculties will ensure that students are informed about the University’s policies on student academic conduct and about any course-specific standards.

(3) Course-specific standards will not supersede the standards outlined in this Policy but, rather, will clarify the standards as they apply to an instructor’s particular course.

Page 2 of 2 Policy No. C8

(4) The University reserves the right to review all academic work that is submitted by a student for authenticity and originality; such review may include the use of software tools and third party services including internet-based services.

(5) The University will not tolerate student academic misconduct, will take action when it has occurred and will impose disciplinary consequences that reflect the nature and severity of the misconduct; these consequences are outlined in the Procedures document that relates to this Policy.

(6) The University may, as part of the disciplinary consequences, require a student to participate in a student academic conduct learning experience.

(7) The University is committed to providing students with a timely and fair appeal process to any disciplinary measures that it has imposed under this Policy and its related Procedures.

(8) The disciplinary measures imposed under this Policy and its related Procedures will remain in place while an appeal is considered.

DEFINITIONS Refer to the related Procedures document for definitions which will enhance the reader’s interpretation of

this Policy.

RELATED POLICIES & LEGISLATION

B2 Attendance and Performance in Individualized Continuous Intake programs

B7 Attendance and Performance in Semester and Other Term Based Courses

B18 Integrity in Research and Scholarship

C21 Code of Conduct

E20 Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy

G2 Human Rights

G27 Research Involving Human Participants

L6 Appeals of Academic Decisions

RELATED PROCEDURES

Refer to C8 Student Academic Conduct Procedure

Page 1 of 4 Procedure No. C8

Procedure History

Procedure No. C8

Revised: 2002 06 03 2003 09 03


Reviewed:

Signed By

Effective:

1988 06 29

Administrative Responsibility Provost & Vice President, Academic

Approved:

Student Academic Conduct

Procedure

DEFINITIONS

Student Academic Conduct Learning Experience: The University may, at its discretion, encourage a person who has been identified as violating the Student Academic Conduct Policy to engage in a Student Academic Conduct Learning Experience. The intent of the learning experience is to identify the issues that led to the violation of the Policy, the impact on the University and the identification of alternative ways of dealing with the issues that gave rise to the violation. A Student Academic Conduct Learning Experience may involve discussions with qualified University personnel or other external experts as identified by the University.

Student Academic Misconduct: Student academic misconduct includes, but is not limited to, plagiarism, cheating, fabrication and facilitation of academic misconduct Plagiarism: Plagiarism is the unacknowledged use of someone else’s words, ideas or data regardless of source (texts, internet, etc.). When a student submits work for credit that includes the words, ideas or data of others, the source of that information must be acknowledged through complete, accurate and specific references.

Cheating: Cheating is an act of deception by which students misrepresent that they or others have mastered information for an academic exercise. It includes, but is not limited to:

exchanging information with another person during an examination or using unauthorized material during an examination

representing or impersonating another or permitting oneself to be represented or impersonated by another in taking an examination or submitting academic work

submitting academic work containing a reference to a source which does not exist

submitting, without first obtaining approval of the person to whom it is submitted, all or part of any academic work which has been co-authored

submitting the same academic work more than once without instructor approval

purchasing or otherwise obtaining work prepared by another person and submitting all or a portion of the work as one’s own


use of any unauthorized device in the preparation of or completion of a text or exam

Fabrication: Fabrication is the use of false information or the falsification of research or other findings with the intent to deceive.

Facilitation of Academic Misconduct: Facilitation of academic misconduct is helping or attempting to help another to commit an act of academic misconduct.

Suspension: Suspension means that the student is not permitted to attend the University for a specified period of time.

PROCEDURES

This section outlines the stages that are involved in dealing with a matter of academic misconduct: o Informal process through the instructor

o Formal process through the instructor and the dean

o Formal process through the president

o Appeals process

INFORMAL PROCESS THROUGH THE INSTRUCTOR (1) When an instructor or invigilator (the term “Instructor will be used from this point forward to

signify either an instructor or invigilator) believes that a student(s) or applicant (henceforth, the term “student” will be used to include both students enrolled in courses and programs and applicants to courses and programs) has committed an act of academic misconduct, the instructor will provide the student(s) with an opportunity to provide an explanation of the events that led the instructor to make the allegation; this discussion will normally take place when the alleged act of academic misconduct occurs or is detected.

(2) The matter may be resolved at this point between the instructor and the student(s) with the result that the matter is dropped and no academic penalty is imposed.

FORMAL PROCESS THROUGH THE INSTRUCTOR AND THE DEAN (3) If the matter is not resolved to the satisfaction of the instructor, then the instructor will, within

5 working days, gather all available documentation (see Note on Page 4) and meet with the student(s) in person (where possible).

(4) The instructor, based on the evidence and the results of the meeting with the student(s), may decide to drop the matter or to recommend a penalty of a grade of zero on the entire assignment/test or a portion of the assignment/test in question or request that the student(s) participate in an academic conduct learning experience.

(5) The instructor will explain to the student(s) that the penalty will be reported to the dean of the Faculty responsible for the course and that the penalty is conditional on a review by the dean who may or may not impose a more severe penalty.

(6) Within ten working days of the meeting between the instructor and the student(s) the evidence, including notes of the meeting between the instructor and the student(s) (where


possible) and a statement outlining the recommended penalty, are forwarded to the dean responsible.

(7) If the student(s) fails to attend a meeting with the instructor, then the instructor will forward the evidence to the dean, as well as an outline of the instructor’s efforts to obtain a meeting with the student(s).

(8) The dean will review the material and determine whether the student(s) has committed previous academic misconduct offences.

(9) The dean may decide to seek clarification on the alleged act of academic misconduct by means which may include meetings or other forms of communication with the student(s) and/or the instructor and/or others who may be helpful in the dean’s understanding of the situation.

(10) If it is a First Offence but the dean determines that the offence is such that a more serious penalty is warranted (than that imposed by the instructor), then the dean will determine a more appropriate penalty; alternatively, the dean may decide that the evidence does not warrant the imposition of a penalty or that the evidence suggests that a lesser penalty is more appropriate or by requesting the student(s) to participate in a student academic conduct learning experience.

(11) If it is a Second Offence, then the dean may impose a penalty of zero for the course. (12) If it is a Third Offence, then the dean may request the Provost/Vice President, Academic to

make a recommendation to the President that the student(s) be suspended from the university. FORMAL PROCESS THROUGH THE PRESIDENT

(13) The President may decide to meet with the dean and Vice-President, Academic to review the

circumstances of the case and the related documentation. (14) The President may decide to resolve the matter at this point by determining that there is not

sufficient evidence or by deciding that the matter is of a minor nature or by requesting the student(s) to participate in a student academic conduct learning experience or by suspending the student from the University or by making other arrangements to address the matter.

(15) The student(s) will be notified of the decision in writing (first and second offence by the dean; third offence by the President) within 20 working days of the meeting between the student(s) and the instructor; a copy will be provided to the student(s), the Instructor, the Manager, Records (Registrar’s Office) and to the Manager, Organization Risk Management for retention in the appropriate files. The time frame of 20 days may be extended if the circumstances warrant such an extension.

(16) If the President exercises his/her authority to suspend a student from the University, then the President will promptly report the action, along with a statement of reasons to the Senate Standing Committee on Academic Appeals, as outlined under section 61 (2) of the University Act.

APPEALS PROCESS (17) The student(s) may appeal a decision or penalty to the Kwantlen University Senate Standing

Committee on Academic Appeals (Refer to L6 Appeals of Academic Decisions); all appeals must be initiated in writing within ten working days of the receipt of the decision from either the dean or the president.

(18) The Senate Standing Committee on Academic Appeals is the final authority on the matter of such appeals.


NOTE: Documentation will include, but will not necessarily be limited to: (1) A clear description of the offence including:

(a) the date when the incident occurred or was detected

(b) the course number and section

(c) the student’s name and identification number

(2) Evidence, as applicable, including (a) notes used for cheating purposes

(b) samples of plagiarized material

(c) copies (actual or photocopies) of prohibited aids or materials

(d) other material pertinent to the matter

(e) names and contact information for witnesses, where available

RELATED POLICY

Refer to Policy C8 Student Academic Conduct

Senate


AGENDA #: 11.4


Issue: Policy G7: Qualifications for Faculty

For approval: That Senate grant preliminary approval of the Qualifications for Faculty policy for distribution to the University community for comment


Policy name: Qualifications for Faculty Members

Policy number: G7

Approving jurisdiction (board, senate, president): Board, on advice of Senate

Context: If a new policy, describe the issues that have led to the need for a policy. If a modification of an existing policy, describe the issues that have arisen to justify the need for a modification; provide a history of the development and revision of the policy and its related procedures The development of this Policy is being carried out as part of the general review of the University’s policies and procedures initiated, in part, by the University’s new status as a “Polytechnic University”. Common to all policies being reviewed at this time has been the decision to modify the format by separating former policy documents into two separate, but linked documents: a Policy document and a Procedures document. This draft Policy, and its related Procedures, is, in part, a replacement for an existing Policy G7b “Minimum Qualifications / Faculty Positions”. In addition, the draft Policy responds to the requirement of the University Act, Section 35.2 (6), “The senate of a special purpose, teaching university must advise the board and the board must seek advice from the senate, on the development of educational policy for the following matters:

(i) The qualifications for faculty members”

Process: Describe the process that has been used to develop/modify the policy: research internal to the organization, meetings with individuals and groups, identification of best practices, process to review, etc. This draft policy was initially developed through an ad hoc Senate committee chaired by Tak Sato and has subsequently been reviewed and modified by the Office of the Provost as well as the Vice-President, Human Resources.


Qualifications for Faculty Policy Context 10 03 11 revised 1p.doc Qualifications for Faculty Policy Context 10 03 11.doc

Page 1 of 2 Policy No. G7

Policy History

Policy No. G7 New policy

Revised:

Approving Jurisdiction Board of Governors

Reviewed:

Signed By

Effective:

Administrative Responsibility Senate / Administration

Approved:

Qualifications for Faculty Members Policy

CONTEXT AND PURPOSE

This Policy exists in order to guide Kwantlen Polytechnic University in the appointment of faculty with the appropriate credentials, scholarly records and experience commensurate with the academic and professional standards of their disciplines, and the educational programs, courses, research activities, and / or services of which they are comprised.

SCOPE AND LIMITS

This Policy applies to the appointment of all faculty at Kwantlen Polytechnic University.


(1) The University is committed to the continuous assurance of program quality and the success of its students through graduation and mobility into areas of further study.

(2) The credibility and sustainability of the University’s programs require faculty who are appropriately qualified and who possess the necessary scholarly preparation and currency to meet external peer expectations of accreditation, program approval and program review bodies.

(3) Faculty qualification standards will vary in accordance with the academic and professional expectations appropriate to the University’s diverse disciplines and departments, and the specific educational program, course, research, and / or service responsibilities of any particular faculty appointment.


this Policy.

Page 2 of 2 Policy No. G7


B12 Program Review L10 Principles of Program Prioritization

University Act RSBC 1996 Chapter 468 Section 35.2 (6) “The senate of a special purpose, teaching university must advise the board, and the board must seek advice from the senate, on the development of educational policy for the following matters:

(i) the qualifications for faculty members”

Section 40 “A faculty has the following powers and duties: (e) subject to an order of the president to the contrary, to prohibit lecturing and teaching in the faculty by persons other than appointed members of the teaching staff of the faculty and persons authorized by the faculty, and to prevent lecturing or teaching so prohibited (f) subject to the approval of the senate, to appoint for the examinations in each faculty examinrs who, subject to an appeal to the senate, must conduct examinations and determine the results;”

RELATED PROCEDURES

Refer to Procedure G7, Qualifications for Faculty Members

Page 1 of 2 Procedure No.

Procedure History

Procedure No. G7 New Procedure

Revised:


Reviewed:

Signed By

Effective:

Administrative Responsibility Senate / Administration

Approved:

Qualifications for Faculty Members

Procedure

DEFINITIONS

Academic Unit: Any unit of activity within the University which offers either teaching or research activities; for example, Faculties, departments, schools, colleges, institutes, etc

PROCEDURES

(1) In keeping with appropriate academic and professional standards of their disciplines, all departments and programs within an academic unit will recommend the qualifications required for faculty appointments.

(2) For academic units operating under the authority of a Faculty Council, these recommendations will be reviewed by the Faculty Council and the Dean. If endorsed by the Dean and the Faculty Council, the Dean’s office will send the recommendations to the Senate for approval.

(3) For academic units not operating under the authority of a Faculty Council, these recommendations will be reviewed by the academic unit authority and administrative head that normally deal with such matters.

(4) Each academic unit or its Faculty Council will review its list of qualifications for faculty positions within its area of jurisdiction on an annual basis and present the results to the Senate for its consideration. Information to be provided should include, but are not limited to, the following:

- Name of Academic Unit - Name of Department - Name of Program - Qualifications Required

(5) Lists of general qualifications for appointments to faculty positions within any academic unit require Senate approval; however, determinations of required credentials, scholarly experiences and areas of expertise necessary for specific faculty appointments and assignments are the purview of the academic units and their search committees.

(6) At the request of an academic unit, the Human Resources Department will make the list of qualifications for faculty members in the academic unit available for viewing on the University’s web-site.

Page 2 of 2 Procedure No.

RELATED POLICY

Refer to Policy G7 Qualifications for Faculty Members

Senate


AGENDA #: 11.5


Issue: Policy B2/B7: Alternative Assessment of Academic Performance

For approval: That Senate grant preliminary approval to the Alternative Assessment of Academic Performance policy for distribution to the University community for comment

1


Policy name: ALTERNATIVE ASSESSMENT OF ACADEMIC PERFORMANCE (formerly two policies: B2, Attendance and Performance in Individualized Continuous Intake Programs and B7, Attendance and Performance in Semester and Other Term-Based Courses

Policy number: Formerly B2 and B7


Context: If a new policy, describe the issues that have led to the need for a policy. If a modification of an existing policy, describe the issues that have arisen to justify the need for a modification; provide a history of the development and revision of the policy and its related procedures

Policy B2, Attendance and Performance in Individualized, Continuous Intake Programs was developed in March, 1988 and revised in November, 1994; B7, Attendance and Performance in Semester and Other Term-Based Courses was developed in November, 1991 and revised in April, 2005.

These policies were identified for review as part of the general review of policies carried out during 2009 and 2010. It was felt that the policies essentially address the same issues and that they should be combined in one. More specifically, it was felt that the intent of the policies was not clear, that policies were being used inappropriately to require student attendance, that there is a heightened need to recognize experiential learning and that procedures for informing students about attendance and related requirements were unclear.

2

Process: Describe the process that has been used to develop/modify the policy: research internal to the organization, meetings with individuals and groups, identification of best practices, process to review, etc.

The policies were reviewed through a process that included:

Initial review with the Associate Vice-President, Student Services and Registrar, staff and several deans; this group felt that the policies could be combined and that a review group should be formed

A review group was formed composed of Arthur Coren, Wayne Tebb, Jody Gordon, Catherine Dube, Dana Goedbloed, Brian Carr, Rob Fleming

A search of similar policies at other universities with a reputation for high quality policy development

Development of an initial draft

Review and comment on several versions of the draft through review group and individual meetings


Alternative Assess Context 10 05 26.doc

1

Policy History

Policy No. (This Policy combines former Policies B2 and B7)

Revised:

Approving Jurisdiction (President) Senate?

Reviewed:

Signed By

Effective:

Administrative Responsibility Provost and Vice President Academic

Approved:

ACADEMIC BEHAVIOR EXPECTATIONS ALTERNATIVE ASSESSMENT OF ACADEMIC

PERFORMANCE POLICY

Draft 10 04 08

CONTEXT AND PURPOSE Evaluation of students by instructors in most courses offered at Kwantlen Polytechnic University relies, to a greater or lesser extent, on the results of tests, exams, academic reports, essays and oral presentations in a controlled setting. However, instructors in certain courses may also rely on other forms of student evaluation such as attendance, participation in discussions, group work or field trips, hands-on manipulation of equipment, laboratory simulations and other, similar activities. This is referred to as “Alternative Assessment of Academic Performance” for the purposes of this Policy. This Policy and its related Procedures provides the principles and procedures that will guide the use of “Alternative Assessment of Academic Performance” addresses the academic behaviors of students while they are enrolled in a particular course. and instructor expectations about those behaviors. This Policy is not meant to be prescriptive but, rather, acknowledges the broad range of measures of academic performance behaviors that may be appropriate for different subject areas and different teaching and learning styles. While a broad range of behaviors measures may be appropriate it is critical that, if these behaviors measures are to be reflected in a student’s course grade, the instructor make this clear makes this explicit in the approved Course Outline and approved Course

2

Presentation documentation forms. Clarity involves describing the appropriate behavior(s) measure(s) to be used, providing a rationale for requiring such behavior(s) linking the measure(s) to the course learning outcomes and assigning a reasonable portion of the student’s grade to reflect the student’s actual behaviors. performance on those measures In cases where a student is sponsored by an external agency, that agency may require that students follow certain patterns of behavior as a condition of the student’s sponsorship. In addition to addressing the assignment of grades to these measures, assigning grades for a student’s behavior, this Policy and related Procedures also describes the conditions under which an instructor may impose a Performance Contract on a student who is not fulfilling the requirements of the measures as outlined in the course documentation. This Policy does not address issues of inappropriate student academic conduct involving such behaviors as cheating and plagiarism. These issues are addressed in a separate Student Academic Conduct Policy C8. Nor is this Policy intended to address student conduct of a non-academic nature such as theft or the obstruction of University activities. These behaviors and their consequences are included in a separate Code of Conduct Policy C21.

SCOPE AND LIMITS This Policy and its related Procedures applies to all courses offered through Kwantlen Polytechnic University.


1. The University recognizes that, for student success in certain courses, instructors may deem that certain alternative performance measures will be required. Examples include but are not limited to: students may be expected to meet certain academic behavior objectives which may include attendance in class, participation in discussions, participation in group work, in-class reports, hands-on manipulation of equipment, laboratory simulations, etc. These behaviors alternate measures may be expected in addition to the more traditional assessment modes of achievement through tests, exams, papers, essays and other, similar work. and essays.

2. The University accepts that such alternate measures behaviors will, in certain courses, indicate the degree to which students are meeting the learning outcomes objectives of a course; as such, the University accepts that, for some

Comment [H1]: I believe this is the type of report that Brian Carr was referring to in our recent meeting.

3

courses, a portion of a student’s overall grade will be reflective of the student’s success in meeting the requirements of these alternate measures. se academic behavioral objectives.

3. The University expects that the grades assigned to such alternative measures behaviors will be reasonable and reflective of their relative value within the overall context of the course.

4. The University recognizes that when students do not follow the requirements of these alternate measures, academic behavior objectives are not being followed this may necessitate require an intervention on the part of the instructor such as requiring an interview with the instructor, an interview with a counselor or imposing a performance contract.

5. The course instructor is expected to meet the reasonable requests of students with disabilities for accommodation according to the Services for Students with Disabilities Policy C37.

4.6. The course instructor is required to consider all reasonable student requests for accommodation under all grounds in the BC Human Rights’ legislation (in addition to students with disabilities) including race, colour, ancestry, place of origin, religion, family status, sex, sexual orientation or age.

DEFINITIONS Refer to the related Procedures document for definitions which will enhance the reader’s interpretation of this Policy.

RELATED POLICIES & LEGISLATION C8 Student Academic Conduct C21 Code of conduct L6 Student Appeals of Academic Decisions

RELATED PROCEDURES Refer to “Alternate Assessment of Academic Performance” Procedures xxxx Alternative Assessment of Academic Performance Policy 10 04 08

1

Procedure History

Policy No. (This Policy combines former Policies B2 and B7)

Revised:

Approving Jurisdiction (President) Senate?

Reviewed:

Signed By

Effective:

Administrative Responsibility Provost and Vice President Academic

Approved:

ALTERNATIVE ASSESSMENT OF ACADEMIC PERFORMANCE PROCEDURES Draft 10 04 083 31

DEFINITIONS Academic Behavior Expectations: Alternate Assessment of Academic Performance: Alternate Assessment of Academic Performance Academic behavior expectations refers to the determination, by an instructor, that certain alternate measures of student performance student behaviors are necessary in order for the student to meet the objectives of a course. Examples may include (but are not limited to) attendance in class, arrival on time for class, participation in discussions, participation in group work, hands-on manipulation of equipment, laboratory simulations, oral reports and other, similar activities. Performance Contract: A Performance Contract is a document initiated by an instructor whereby the instructor makes a professional determination that a student is not meeting the academic performance measures behavior expectations articulated in the course outline and/or course presentation documentation form The Contract will specify why the student is not meeting the academic behavior expectations performance measures identified in the course outline, the actions the student must take to resolve the situation and the consequences if the student fails to meet the requirements of the contract.

PROCEDURES

1. A UniversityThe instructor will determine whether or not a course under her/his area of responsibility will include alternate performance measures. academic

2

behavior objectives. It is acceptable for a course not to include alternate performance measures. specify academic behavior objectives

2. If alternate performance measures academic behavior objectives are specified in

the course outline and course presentation forms and are reflected in a portion of the grade assigned to a student, then the instructor must include the following in the course outline and the course presentation forms: - A clear description of the alternate performance measurers academic

behavior objective(s) expected with links to the course learning outcomes - A rationale for requiring the academic behavior objective(s) - A clear indication of the portion of the grades that will be assigned to the

alternative performance measures academic behavior objectives and how those grades will be determined

3. If certain third party sponsors of students (such as HRSDC or Apprentice) require

certain academic behavior objectives (such as attendance) then the University will include such objectives in the course outline and course presentation forms whether or not the instructor agrees that the behaviors are required for his/her course.

4.3. Alternate performance measures Student academic behavior objectives will be reviewed and approved as part of the University’s established course approval process.

5.4. An instructor who, in her/his their judgment, determines that the student is not meeting the requirements of the alternate performance measures demonstrating academic behavior objectives and is unlikely to succeed that will lead to success in the course may impose an intervention that may involve a meeting between the student and the instructor, a meeting between the student and a counselor or the imposition of a Performance Contract. .

6.5. A Performance Contract will be documented prepared in writing and will include, but not be limited to, the following data: - Student name and number - Program and course - Instructor name and department unit - Period of time that the contract is in effect - Specific requirements for improving performance linked to the academic

behavior objectives identified in the course outline or course presentation form

- Instructor’s signature - Student’s signature

3

- Conditions for readmission - Instructor’s summary of student’s efforts (at conclusion of performance

contract period) - Instructor’s actions in the case of the assignment of a grade or

recommendations to the Dean in the case of actions beyond the authority of the instructor (at conclusion of performance contract period)

- Date of resolution and signature of instructor signifying this A copy of the Performance Contract will be provided to the Deans’ office.

7. The instructor may recommend the following:

8.6. In the case of a recommended action beyond the authority of the instructor, the Dean responsible for the course will consider the recommendation of the instructor and take the appropriate action. Action resulting out of the instructor’s recommendations will…………………..

7. The instructor is expected to meet the reasonable requests of students with disabilities for accommodation as outlined in the Services for Students with Disabilities Policy C 37 Special Needs students for accommodation or exemption as outlined in………………..

8. The course instructor is required to consider all reasonable student requests for accommodation under all grounds in the BC Human Rights’ legislation (in addition to students with disabilities) including race, colour, ancestry, place of origin, religion, family status, sex, sexual orientation or age. Examples include accommodations for religious requirements that prohibit students from completing assessments on a particular date, or in a manner that is contrary to their beliefs; required assessment during day-care pick-up, etc.

9. Students who wish to appeal the imposition of a Performance Contract or its consequences must should follow the University “Student Appeals of Academic Decisions”, Policy and Procedures, L6.

RELATED POLICY Refer to Alternative Assessment of Academic Performance Academic Behavior Expectations Policy xxx.doc

4

Alternate Assessment of Academic Performance Procedures 10 0 4 08

Senate


AGENDA #: 11.6


Issue: Establishment, Amalgamation & Discontinuance of Faculties Policy & Procedures

For approval: That Senate grant approval of the Establishment, Amalgamation and Discontinuance of Faculties Policy and Procedures, for distributioin to the University community for comment

1


Policy name: ESTABLISHMENT, AMALGAMATION AND DISCONTINUANCE OF FACULTIES Policy number: NEW, TO BE ASSIGNED Approving jurisdiction (board, senate, president): JOINT BOARD AND SENATE (Senate recommends and Board decides) Context: If a new policy, describe the issues that have led to the need for a policy. If a modification of an existing policy, describe the issues that have arisen to justify the need for a modification; provide a history of the development and revision of the policy and its related procedures This Policy has been developed as a result of the desire of the University to establish a clear Policy on the establishment, amalgamation and discontinuance of Faculties. Such a Policy did not exist previously. The University Act, sections 27 (2) (i) and (j) and 35.2 (6) (e) outline the respective responsibilities of the Board and Senate in this regard. Process: Describe the process that has been used to develop/modify the policy: research internal to the organization, meetings with individuals and groups, identification of best practices, process to review, etc The policy was developed through a process that included:

Initial discussions with senior academic staff

A search of similar policies at other universities with a reputation for high quality policy development

Development of an initial draft

Review and comment on several versions of the draft from senior academic staff Review and comments from Deans’ Council and President’s Group Review and comments from Senate Standing Committee on Academic Planning

2

and Priorities Recommendation from person with administrative responsibility:

Est, Amalg, Disco of Faculties Context 10 07 26.doc

Page 1 of 2 Policy No. BD018

Policy History

Policy No. BD018

Revised:

Approving Jurisdiction Board

Reviewed:

Signed By

Effective:

Administrative Responsibility Senate and Provost and Vice President, Academic

Approved:

Establishment, Amalgamation and Discontinuance of Faculties

Policy

CONTEXT AND PURPOSE

The University Act states that the Board of a University has the power “to consider recommendations from the senate for the establishment of faculties and departments with suitable teaching staff and course of instruction” (27 (2) (i)) and “subject to section 29 and with the approval of the senate, to provide for the establishment of faculties and departments the board considers necessary;” (27 (2) (j)). Sections (i) and (j) can be thought of as a two-step process: the first assesses the relative academic and operational reasons for and against the creation of a proposed new Faculty; the second assesses the operational and budget implications concomitant with the creation of a proposed new Faculty in order to determine whether or not to proceed. (“The board must not incur any liability or make any expenditure in a fiscal year beyond the amount unexpended of the grant made to the university and the estimated revenue of the university from other sources up to the end of and including that fiscal year, unless an estimate of the increased liability or over-expenditure has been first approved by the minister and Minister of Finance,” section 29 (1)).Section 35.2 (6) (e) outlines the Senate’s responsibility to advise the Board on the development of educational policy for “the establishment or discontinuance of faculties…”.

This policy and the related procedures, contained in a separate document, outline the principles and procedures governing the establishment, amalgamation and discontinuance of Faculties.

SCOPE AND LIMITS

This policy covers the establishment, amalgamation and discontinuance of all Faculties (further defined in the related Procedures section) within the University.

Page 2 of 2 Policy No. BD018


(1) The University organizes its teaching, learning and scholarly activities in order to maximize the quality and effectiveness of its educational programs, courses and services.

(2) The University may establish Faculties to act as academic administrative divisions for its educational programs, courses and services; alternative terms for Faculties may include Schools, Colleges, etc.

(3) There may be instances when it is necessary to discontinue a Faculty for a variety of reasons; for example, to reflect a new direction in academic priorities..

(4) There may also be instances when it is considered desirable to amalgamate two or more faculties; for example, improving effectiveness by combining Faculties with similar educational programs, courses and services in order to strengthen academic departmental relationships and/or to improve student learning opportunities and experiences

(5) An academic dean will provide administrative leadership for each Faculty. (6) The establishment, amalgamation or discontinuance of a Faculty(ies) will be determined by a

number of factors as outlined in the Procedures document related to this Policy:


this Policy.


University Act [RSBC 1996] Chapter 468; Sections 27 (2) (i) and (j) and Section 35.2 (6) (e)

RELATED PROCEDURES Refer to Procedure BD018 Establishment, Amalgamation and Discontinuance of Faculties

Page 1 of 3 Procedure No. BD018

Procedure History

Procedure No. BD018

Revised:

Approving Jurisdiction Board

Reviewed:

Signed By

Effective:

Administrative Responsibility Senate and Provost and Vice President, Academic

Approved:

Establishment, Amalgamation and Discontinuance of Faculties

Procedure

DEFINITIONS

Faculty: (to be determined by Senate)

Department: (to be determined by Senate)

PROCEDURES

ESTABLISHMENT OF A FACULTY (1) Any member of the University may initiate the creation of a new Faculty; however, the Provost

and Vice-President, Academic, in consultation with the Senate Standing Committee on Academic Planning and Priorities, is responsible for reviewing the initial proposal and deciding whether or not to send it forward to the Senate for consideration.

(2) If the Senate Standing Committee on Academic Planning and Priorities and Provost and Vice-

President, Academic agree that the creation of a new Faculty warrants further consideration, then the Provost and Vice-President, Academic, or designate(s), will prepare a summary proposal with rationale for presentation to Senate. The summary proposal will include, but not be limited to the following (the format and content of the summary proposal is subject to the review and approval of Senate):

list of current Faculties

name and functions of proposed new Faculty

academic and operational rationale for creation of proposed new Faculty

organizational structure details of proposed new Faculty: number and names of proposed departments and / or other academic units

names of programs, subject areas, and educational services, indicating whether these are new or transfers from existing Faculties


an initial assessment of the impact on current and future students as well as existing Faculties and departments resulting from the creation of the proposed new Faculty.

(3) If Senate agrees that a full proposal should be developed for further consideration, Senate will direct the Provost and Vice-President Academic and/or a Task Force to carry out a thorough consultative process with stakeholders leading to a full written proposal which will include, but not be limited to, the following (the format and content of the summary proposal is subject to the review and approval of Senate):


name and functions of proposed new Faculty

academic and operational rationale for creation of proposed new Faculty

organizational structure details of proposed new Faculty: number and names of proposed departments and / or other academic units

names of programs, subject areas, and educational services, indicating whether these are new or transfers from existing Faculties

a detailed assessment of the impact on current and future students as well as existing Faculties and departments resulting from the creation of the proposed new Faculty

a thorough review of related Faculty structures at other Universities in Canada and elsewhere to inform discussion on best practices

five year projection of the number of students expected to be enrolled in courses and programs taught within the proposed Faculty

five year projection of the capital budget for the proposed new Faculty

five year projection of the sustainability of the proposed new Faculty based on projected tuition and other revenues as well as operating costs.

(4) The Provost and Vice-President, Academic and/or the Task Force will present the proposal to the Senate of the University, which will consider the proposal by addressing the academic and operational reasons for and against the creation of a proposed new Faculty and will make a recommendation to the Board concerning the proposal.

(5) The Board will consider Senate’s recommendations as well as the budgetary and operational

reasons for and against the creation of a proposed new Faculty and will make the final decision. DISCONTINUANCE OF A FACULTY (1) Any member of the University may initiate the discontinuance of an existing Faculty; however,

the Provost and Vice-President, Academic, in consultation with the Senate Standing Committee on Academic Planning and Priorities, is responsible for reviewing the initial proposal and deciding whether or not to send it forward to the Senate for consideration.

(2) If the Provost and Vice-President, Academic and the Senate Standing Committee on Academic Planning and Priorities agree that the discontinuance of a Faculty warrants further consideration, then the Provost and Vice-President, Academic, or designate(s), will prepare a summary proposal with rationale for presentation to Senate. The summary proposal will include, but not be limited to, the following (the format and content of the summary proposal is subject to the review and approval of Senate):



name of Faculty to be considered for discontinuance

academic and operational rationale for discontinuance of a Faculty

preliminary plan for realignment of academic departments and / or programs within other Faculties

an initial assessment of the impact on students, staffing, facilities, operating and capital budgets as a result of the discontinuance of the Faculty

an initial assessment of the impact on existing Faculties and departments resulting from the discontinuance of the Faculty.

(3) If Senate agrees that a full proposal should be developed for consideration, Senate will direct

the Provost and Vice-President Academic and/or a Task Force to carry out a thorough consultative process with stakeholders leading to a full, written proposal which will include, but not be limited to, the following (the format and content of the full proposal is subject to the review and approval of Senate):

list of current faculties

name of Faculty to be considered for discontinuance

academic and operational rationale for discontinuance of a Faculty

a detailed plan for realignment of academic departments and / or programs within other Faculties

a detailed assessment of the impact on students, staffing, facilities, operating and capital budgets as a result of the discontinuance of the Faculty

a detailed assessment of the impact on existing Faculties and departments resulting from the discontinuance of the Faculty

a thorough review of related Faculty structures at other universities in Canada and elsewhere to inform discussion on best practices.

(4) The Provost and Vice-President, Academic and/or the Task Force will present the proposal to the

Senate of the University which will consider the proposal by addressing the academic and operational reasons for and against the discontinuance of the Faculty and will make a recommendation to the Board concerning the proposal.

(5) The Board will consider Senate’s recommendation as well as the budgetary and operational

reasons for and against the discontinuance of the Faculty and will make the final decision.

AMALAGAMATION OF A FACULTY A parallel set of procedures will be followed by the University in the consideration of the amalgamation of two or more faculties.

RELATED POLICY

Refer to Policy BD018, Establishment, Amalgamation and Discontinuance of Faculties

Senate


AGENDA #: 11.7


Issue: Selection, Appointment & Re‐Appointment of Senior Positions Policy & Procedures

For Information: As stated in the University Act, Section 27 (2) (f) and (g), the board has the power: (f) "with the approval of senate, to establish procedures for the recommendation and selection of candidates for president, deans, librarians, registrar and other senior academic administrators as the board may designate; (g) "subject to section 28, to appoint the president of the university, deans of all faculties, the librarian, the registrar, the bursar, the professors, associate professors, assistant professors, lecturers, instructors and other members of the teaching staff of the university, and the officers and employees the board considers necessary for the purpose of the university, and to set their salaries or remuneration, and to define their duties and their tenure of office or employment," Board Policy 2.2, Accountability of the President" states: "With the exception of the President and Vice Presidents, the board delegates responsibility to the President regarding the appointment of positions for senior academic administrative positions." Consequently, the Board seeks the approval of Senate for the Selection, Appointment & Re‐appointment of Senior Administrators Policy and Procedures. Attached are the Policy Context, Policy and Procedures for review.

For approval: That Senate grant preliminary approval of the Selection, Appointment & Re‐appointment of Senior Administrators Policy and Procedures for distribution to the University community for comment

1

Policy History

Policy No.

Revised:


Reviewed:

Signed By

Effective:

Xxxx xx xx

Administrative Responsibility President

Approved: Xxxx xx xx

SELECTION, APPOINTMENT AND RE-APPOINTMENT OF SENIOR POSITIONS

POLICY Draft 10 09 09

CONTEXT AND PURPOSE The University Act specifies that the powers of the Board include: Section 27 (2) (f) “with the approval of the senate, to establish procedures for the recommendation and selection of candidates for president, deans, librarians, registrar and other senior academic administrators as the board may designate;” Section 28 (2) (g) …”to appoint the president of the university, deans of all faculties, the librarian, the registrar, the bursar, the professors, associate professors, assistant professors, lecturers, instructors and other members of the teaching staff of the university, and the officers and employees the board considers necessary”… Section (f) addresses procedures for selection of a candidate while section (g) addresses the actual appointment of an individual to a position. The Board has determined that it will delegate the above powers to the President except for the position of President and Vice Presidents. This Policy and its related Procedures is intended to outline the principles and specific procedures which will be used by the University in the selection, appointment and re-appointment of senior academic and non-academic positions within the University.

SCOPE AND LIMITS This Policy governs the selection, appointment and re-appointment of all senior academic and non-academic positions within the University with the exception of the President. The positions covered by this Policy include but are not limited to:

Vice Presidents

Associate Vice Presidents

Deans

Associate Deans

Chief Librarian

2

And other positions as may be identified from time to time The appointment and re-appointment of the President will be governed by a separate Board policy.

STATEMENT OF POLICY PRINCIPLES (1) The University will use a well-defined set of procedures for the selection, appointment

and re-appointment of senior positions; there will be an unique set of procedures for each senior position, reflecting its particular characteristics; these procedures will be published and widely available to the University community and broader community served by Kwantlen through the University’s Policy and Procedures website.

(2) The University will appoint Advisory Committees to oversee the process of attracting, interviewing and selecting appropriate candidates for senior positions; the composition of Advisory Committees, which may vary with each position, will be broad-based and representative of the University community, commensurate with the nature and level of the position being considered; membership on each Advisory Committee will be published and available to the University and broader community served by Kwantlen.

(3) The proceedings of each Advisory Committee and all communication to and from the Committee will be held in strict confidence, both during the life of the Committee and thereafter.

(4) The education, knowledge, experience, abilities and traits of each position will be determined by the appropriate University staff in consultation with the pertinent Advisory Committee.

(5) The search process for each position will be designed to elicit an appropriate level of interest and response, commensurate with the type and nature of the position.


RELATED POLICIES & LEGISLATION University Act, sections 27 (2) (f) and 27 (2) (g)

RELATED PROCEDURES Refer to Selection, Appointment and Reappointment of Senior Positions Procedures XXX

Selection, Appointment Reappointment of Senior Positions Policy.doc

1

Procedure History

Procedure No.

Revised:


Reviewed:

Signed By

Effective:

Xxxx xx xx


Approved: Xxxx xx xx

SELECTION, APPOINTMENT AND REAPPOINTMENT OF

SENIOR POSITIONS PROCEDURES

Draft 10 09 09

DEFINITIONS Senior Positions: Senior positions, for the purpose of this Policy and related Procedures, will include the Vice Presidents, Associate Vice Presidents, Deans, Associate Deans, Librarian and other positions as may be determined from time to time.

PROCEDURES PREAMBLE The University will develop a unique set of procedures (position-specific procedures) for each position or cluster of positions covered by this Policy and Procedures. These position-specific procedures will share a number of common elements while other elements will be unique to a position. The following describes the common elements that should be included in each set of position-specific procedures (PSP).

TERM OF OFFICE The position-specific procedures (PSP) should identify the

o Initial term of appointment, where applicable o Provisions for extension of appointment, where applicable o Provisions for reappointment/renewal of appointment, where applicable

2

ADVISORY COMMITTEE The selection, appointment and reappointment for each position will be handled through an Advisory Committee appointed for that specific position. The position-specific procedures will identify the

o lead time for formation of an Advisory Committee o chair of the Advisory Committee o membership of the Advisory Committee

Membership of each Advisory Committee should be representative of the broader University community as well as the constituents served by the position. The terms of reference of each Advisory Committee will include the following:

o Prospective members of the Advisory Committee must agree, in writing and as a

condition of membership, that they will not be candidates for the position under consideration

o Membership of each Advisory Committee, once established, will be made public and will be circulated to members of faculty, staff and the Student Association

o All proceedings of the Advisory Committee and all communication to and from the Committee shall be held in strict confidence, both while the Committee is active and subsequent to being disbanded

o Only the Chair is authorized to release information about the proceedings of the Advisory Committee

o The President shall discharge, from the Committee, any member who fails to comply with the requirements for confidentiality

o The Advisory Committee shall give careful consideration to the need to communicate with the University community regarding the review or search process

REVIEW PROCESS (academic positions only) A “review process” will be undertaken for academic positions only; this review process will include the following steps:

o After the establishment of the Advisory Committee, the person the incumbent reports to will write to the incumbent to determine whether he/she wishes to stand for reappointment

o If the incumbent does not wish to continue in the position, a search will commence immediately

o If the incumbent wishes to stand for reappointment, the person the incumbent reports to will meet with the incumbent to discuss the review process

o Subsequent to this meeting, the Advisory Committee will assess the performance of the incumbent, using the criteria employed by the Advisory Committee for the original search as well as the outcomes of annual performance reviews

o The appropriate segment of the University community will also be invited to make individual or collective, written submissions (to be held in confidence) and/or to meet with the Committee if they so wish

3

o The Advisory Committee may consult, as appropriate, with members of the University community concerning the reappointment of the incumbent

o The Advisory Committee will request the incumbent to write an evaluation that (i) comments on the achievements of the incumbent’s current term and (ii) outlines the challenges and opportunities of a future term

o The Advisory Committee will meet with the incumbent and provide the incumbent with a fair summary of any comments received by the Committee pertaining to his/her performance; the incumbent will be invited to respond to the summary comments

o The Advisory Committee will evaluate the information received and inform the person the incumbent reports to of their findings; for certain position levels, if the person the incumbent reports to disagrees with the findings, he/she may communicate their views to the person they, in turn, report to

o The person the incumbent reports to will meet in confidence with the incumbent to review the findings of the Advisory Committee and its recommendation

o The person the incumbent reports to and, where appropriate, the person at the next reporting level will either accept or reject the recommendation of the Advisory Committee and, accordingly, either make an appointment or direct the Advisory Committee to proceed with a search

SEARCH PROCESS The following outlines, in general terms, the elements of a search; these elements may vary depending on the level of position being recruited

o Normally, both an internal and external search will be conducted unless the University deems that only an internal search is desirable or necessary

o For certain position levels, the Advisory Committee may engage the services of a highly-qualified search consultant specializing in the positions being recruited

o For certain position levels, the position will be widely advertised with applications and nominations being invited by a specific date

o Applications shall be made in confidence, although applicants must be informed early in the process that the University’s search procedures require that the names of the short-listed candidates be made public

o The Advisory Committee may invite specific individuals to apply o The Advisory Committee shall take care that qualified members of visible minorities are

given consideration o The Advisory Committee shall compile a short list of candidates. A Curriculum vitae for

each of the short-listed candidates shall be made available for consultation and comment by members of the University community

o When necessary, the Advisory Committee may undertake further consultation on a confidential basis

o For some positions, the Advisory Committee shall invite the short-listed candidates to the University Campus to meet with various university groups (for example, President’s Group, Deans’ Council, Kwantlen Faculty Association, BCGEU, Kwantlen Students’ Association, etc.); the groups are to be determined by the Advisory Committee

o Each candidate will deliver a public address to the University community commenting, to the extent possible, on the challenges and opportunities facing the University, the

4

particular challenges and opportunities of the position and the experience and background that he or she brings to the position

o The University community or an appropriate area of the University will be allowed time to express their views, in writing, on each candidate

o The Advisory Committee shall make its recommendation to the person that the position reports to.

o The person the position reports to, in consultation with other staff as appropriate, will either accept or reject the majority view of the Advisory Committee

o If the recommendation is rejected then the Advisory Committee will be asked to continue with the search (in the case of an internal/external search) or initiate a search (in the case of an internal only search)

o If the recommendation is accepted then, depending on the position, further approvals and/or consultations may be required

FACULTY APPOINTMENT (academic positions only)

o The incumbent must qualify and be appointed to a department/program of the University

o This position will be considered supernumerary and is not intended to replace already established positions within a department

o During his/her term of office, the incumbent will not be a member of the Kwantlen Faculty Association.

o In the case of an external appointment, candidates will meet with the academic department in which a faculty appointment will be made

APPOINTMENT OF ACTING POSITION

o The appropriate person to which the position reports may appoint someone to an acting position for a period of up to one year

o This appointment shall use the same procedures as in extending the term of an incumbent

POSITION-SPECIFIC PROCEDURES A separate set of “position-specific” procedures have been developed for each of the following positions (attached to this document):

Provost and Vice President Academic, Exhibit A

Vice President Finance and Administration, Exhibit B

Associate Vice President Human Resource Services, Exhibit C

Associate Vice President, Academic, Exhibit D

Deans, Exhibit E

Associate Deans, Exhibit F

Associate Vice President, Student Affairs, Exhibit G

Associate Vice President, Student Enrollment Management, Exhibit H

Chief Librarian, Exhibit I

5

RELATED POLICY Refer to Selection, Appointment and Reappoint of Senior Positions Policy XXX

6

EXHIBIT A

Appointment and Reappointment of Provost and Vice President, Academic

The Board, on the recommendation of the President and Vice-Chancellor, appoints the Provost and Vice President, Academic, who shall act in the absence of the President, and who shall have such other powers and duties as may be conferred upon him or her by the President.

Term of Office

A. Term of Appointment

The Provost and Vice President, Academic shall normally hold office for an initial term not to exceed five years. B. Extension of Term

The term of office of the Provost and Vice President, Academic may be extended for a one year period, provided that, prior to making a recommendation to the Board of Governors, the President has: i) Consulted with the Deans’ Council and President’s Group,

ii) Advised Senate and the Board of the pending extension.

C. Reappointment/Renewal The Provost and Vice President, Academic may be a candidate for a subsequent term.

Advisory Committee

At least 12 months in advance of the date of appointment for the Provost and Vice President, Academic, the President, in consultation with the Human Resources Committee of the Board will determine the members of an Advisory Committee for the appointment of the Provost and Vice President, Academic. The Advisory Committee shall be chaired by the President and shall consist of: i) one regular faculty member from each Faculty, five of whom are appointed by the

Kwantlen Faculty Association and the remainder appointed by the Senate

ii) one community member of the Board of Governors, appointed by the Board

iii) one student Senator or student Board member, appointed by the Senate,

iv) two regular staff members appointed by the BCGEU,

v) one excluded staff member, appointed by the Senate,

vi) two senior administrative officers of the institution, one of whom must be a Dean,

appointed by the Senate.

7

The Advisory Committee will adhere to the following: Before the Advisory Committee is announced, potential members of the Committee must agree, in writing, as a condition of membership, that they will not be candidates for the position under consideration. The membership of the Advisory Committee, once established, will be made public and will be circulated to members of faculty, staff and the Student Association. All proceedings of the Advisory Committee and all communication to and from the committee shall be held in strict confidence, both during the life of the Committee and thereafter. Only the Chair is authorized to release information about the proceedings of the Advisory Committee. The President shall discharge from the Committee any member who fails to comply with this requirement. The Advisory Committee shall give careful consideration to the need to communicate with the community regarding the review or search process.

The Review Process

Once the Advisory Committee is established, the President shall write to the incumbent to determine whether he/she wishes to stand for reappointment. If the incumbent does not wish to continue, a search (as outlined below) shall commence at once. If the incumbent wishes to stand for reappointment, the President shall meet with the Provost and Vice President, Academic to discuss the review process. Subsequent to this meeting, the Advisory Committee shall assess the performance of the incumbent, using the criteria employed by the Advisory Committee for the original search and the outcomes of annual performance reviews. This assessment will also include information gathered for the purpose of review, specifically, the Chair of the Committee shall invite members of the University community to make individual or collective confidential submissions, in writing, to the Committee, c/o the Office of the President, and/or to meet with the Committee if they so wish. The Advisory Committee may consult, as deemed appropriate, with members of the University community concerning the reappointment of the incumbent.

8

The Advisory Committee shall evaluate the information received and shall request that the incumbent Vice President write an evaluation that i) comments on the achievements of the incumbent’s current term, ii) outlines the challenges and opportunities of a future term. The Advisory Committee will meet with the incumbent Provost and Vice President, Academic. The incumbent Provost and Vice President, Academic will be provided with a fair summary of any comments received by the Committee pertaining to his or her performance. The incumbent will be invited to respond to these submissions. Upon receiving the Advisory Committee’s views, the President shall meet in confidence with the Provost and Vice President, Academic to review the general findings of the Committee and the recommendation of the Committee. The President shall make his or her recommendation to the Board, outlining reasons for the recommendation.

If the decision of the Board is that the incumbent not be reappointed, procedures as outlined below shall be followed.

The Search Process

Normally, a general (internal and external) search will be conducted. The Committee shall engage the services of a highly-qualified search consultant who specializes in senior-level institutional searches for academic administrators. The position shall be widely advertised with applications and nominations being invited by a specific date. Applications shall be made in confidence, although applicants forwarded from any initial screening process must be informed early in the process that the University’s search procedures require that the names of the short-listed candidates be made public. The Advisory Committee may invite specific individuals to apply. The Advisory Committee shall take care that qualified members of visible minorities are given consideration. The Advisory Committee shall compile a short list of candidates. A curriculum vitae for each of the short-listed candidates shall be made available for consultation and comment by members of the University community. When necessary, the Advisory Committee may undertake further consultation on a confidential basis.

9

The Advisory Committee shall invite the short-listed candidates to campus to meet with various university groups (President’s Group, Deans’ Council, Kwantlen Faculty Association, BCGEU, Kwantlen Students’ Association, etc.) to be determined by the Committee.

Each candidate will deliver a public address to the University community commenting, to the extent possible, on the challenges and opportunities facing the University, the particular challenges and opportunities of the position of Provost and Vice President, Academic, and the experience and background that he or she brings to the position. The University community will be allowed time to express their views, in writing, on each candidate. The President will either accept or reject the majority view of the Advisory Committee. If the President rejects the majority view of the Advisory Committee, the search will continue.

If the President accepts the recommendation of the Advisory Committee, he/she will forward this recommendation to the Board of Governors. Before making a recommendation to the Board of Governors, the President will consult in confidence with the President’s Group, the Deans’ Council and the Senate (in camera).

Faculty Appointment

The Provost and Vice President, Academic must qualify for a faculty position in a department/program of the University. The faculty appointment will take effect when the Provost and Vice President, Academic vacates the position. The faculty appointment is considered supernumerary. During his/her term of office as Provost and Vice President Academic, the incumbent will not be a member of the Kwantlen Faculty Association.

Appointment of an Acting Provost and Vice President Academic

The President may appoint an Acting Provost and Vice President, Academic for a period of up to one year. This appointment shall use the same procedures as in extending the term of an incumbent.

10

EXHIBIT B

Appointment and Reappointment of Vice President, Finance and Administration

The Board, on the recommendation of the President and Vice-Chancellor, appoints the Vice President, Finance and Administration, who may, from time to time, act in the absence of the President and who shall have such other powers and duties as may be conferred upon him or her by the President. Term of Office


The Vice President, Finance and Administration serves at the pleasure of the Board.

Advisory Committee

As soon as reasonably possible after the resignation or departure of the incumbent Vice President, Finance and Administration, the President, in consultation with the Human Resources Committee of the Board, will determine the members of an Advisory Committee for the appointment of the Vice President, Finance and Administration. The Advisory Committee shall be chaired by the President and shall consist of: i) two faculty members, appointed by the Senate

ii) two community members of the Board of Governors, appointed by the Board

iii) one student Senator or student Board member, appointed by the Senate

iv) three persons from units for which the Vice President, Finance and Administration, is

responsible, one of whom can be a direct report, appointed by the Senate

v) two regular staff appointed by the Senate

vi) two senior administrative officers of the institution, one of whom must be a Dean,


Before the Advisory Committee is announced, potential members of the Committee must

agree, in writing, as a condition of membership, that they will not be candidates for the

position under consideration.

11

The membership of the Advisory Committee, once established, will be made public and will

be circulated to members of faculty, staff and the Student Union.

All proceedings of the Advisory Committee and all communication to and from the

committee shall be held in strict confidence, both during the life of the Committee and

thereafter.

Only the Chair is authorized to release information about the proceedings of the Committee.

The Chair shall discharge from the Committee any member who fails to comply with this

requirement.

The Advisory Committee shall give careful consideration to the need to communicate with the community regarding the review or search process.

The Search Process

Normally, a general (internal and external) search will be conducted. The Advisory Committee shall engage the services of a highly-qualified search consultant who specializes in senior-level institutional searches for university administrators. The position shall be widely advertised with applications and nominations being invited by a specific date. Applications shall be made in confidence, although applicants forwarded from any initial screening process must be informed early in the process that the University’s search procedures require that the names of the short-listed candidates be made public. The Advisory Committee may invite specific individuals to apply. The Advisory Committee shall take care that qualified members of visible minorities are given consideration. The Advisory Committee shall compile a short list of candidates. A curriculum vitae for each of the short-listed candidates shall be made available for consultation and comment by members of the University community. The Advisory Committee will meet with each short-listed candidate.

When necessary, the Advisory Committee may undertake further consultation on a confidential basis.

12

The Advisory Committee shall invite the short-listed candidates to campus to meet with various university groups (President’s Group, Deans’ Council, Kwantlen Faculty Association, BCGEU, Kwantlen Students’ Association, etc.) to be determined by the Committee.

Each candidate will deliver a public lecture to the University community commenting, to the extent possible, on the challenges and opportunities facing the University, the particular challenges and opportunities of the position of Vice President, Finance and Administration, and the experience and background that he or she brings to the position. The University community will be allowed time to express their views in writing on each candidate. The President shall either accept or reject the majority view of the Advisory Committee. If the President rejects the majority view of the Advisory Committee, the search will continue. If the President accepts the majority view of the Advisory Committee, he/she will forward this recommendation to the Board of Governors. Before making a recommendation to the Board of Governors, the President will consult in confidence with the President’s Group, The Deans’ Council and the Senate.

Appointment of an Acting Vice President Finance and Administration

The President may appoint an Acting Vice President, Finance and Administration for a period of up to one year.

13

EXHIBIT C

Appointment and Reappointment of Associate Vice President, Human Resource Services

Term of Office


The Associate Vice President, Human Resource Services serves at the pleasure of the President.

Advisory Committee

As soon as reasonably possible after the resignation or departure of the incumbent Associate Vice President, Human Resource Services, the Vice President, Finance and Administration, with the approval of the President, will determine the members of an Advisory Committee for the appointment of the Associate Vice President, Human Resource Services. The Advisory Committee shall be chaired by the Vice President, Finance and Administration and shall consist of: i) two faculty members appointed by the Senate

ii) one student Senator or student Board member, appointed by the Senate

iii) three persons from Human Resource Services, one of whom can be a direct report,

appointed by the President

iv) two regular BCGEU staff members appointed by the President

v) two senior administrative officers of the institution, one of whom must be a Dean,






be circulated to members of faculty, staff and the Student Association.

14



thereafter.


The Chair of the Committee shall discharge from the Committee any member who fails to

comply with this requirement.


The Search Process

An internal and/or external search may be conducted. The Committee may engage the services of a search consultant who specializes in senior-level institutional searches for university positions. Should an external search be conducted, the position shall be widely advertised with applications and nominations being invited by a specific date. Applications shall be made in confidence, although applicants forwarded from any initial screening process must be informed early in the process that the University’s search procedures require that the names of the short-listed candidates will be made public. The Advisory Committee may invite specific individuals to apply. The Advisory Committee shall take care that qualified members of visible minorities are given consideration. The Advisory Committee shall compile a short list of candidates. A curriculum vitae for each of the short-listed candidates shall be made available for consultation and comment by members of the University community. The Advisory Committee will meet with each short-listed candidate. When necessary, the Advisory Committee may undertake further consultation on a confidential basis. The Advisory Committee shall invite the short-listed candidates to campus to meet with various university groups (President’s Group, Deans’ Council, Kwantlen Faculty Association, BCGEU, Kwantlen Students’ Association, etc.) as determined by the Committee. The University community will be allowed time to express their views in writing on each candidate.

15

The Advisory Committee shall make a recommendation to the Vice President, Finance and Administration. In consultation with the Vice President, Finance and Administration, the President will either accept or reject the recommendation of the Advisory Committee, and accordingly make an appointment or direct the Advisory Committee to continue with the search. Before making a recommendation, the President will consult in confidence with the President’s Group and the Deans’ Council.

Appointment of an Acting Associate Vice President, Human Resource Services

The Vice President, Finance and Administration, with the approval of the President, may appoint an Acting Associate Vice President, Human Resource Services for a period of up to one year.

16

EXHIBIT D

Appointment and Reappointment of Associate Vice President, Academic Term of Office


The Associate Vice President, Academic shall normally hold office for an initial term not to exceed five years. B. Extension of Term

The term of office of the Associate Vice President, Academic may be extended for one year periods, subject to the approval of the President, provided that prior to making a decision, the President has advised Senate and the Board of the pending extension. C. Reappointment/Renewal

The Associate Vice President, Academic may be a candidate for a subsequent term.

Advisory Committee

At least 12 months in advance of the date of appointment for the Associate Vice President, the Provost and Vice President, Academic will determine, with the approval of the President, the members of an Advisory Committee for the appointment of the Associate Vice President, Academic. The Advisory Committee shall be chaired by the Vice President and shall consist of: i) six regular faculty members, two of whom are appointed by the Kwantlen Faculty

Association and the remainder appointed by the Senate

ii) one student Senator or student Board member, appointed by the Senate

iii) one regular BCGEU staff member, appointed by the BCGEU

iv) one excluded staff member, appointed by the Senate






17





thereafter.


The Chair of the Committee shall discharge from the Advisory Committee any member who

fails to comply with this requirement.


The Review Process

Once the Advisory Committee is established, the Vice President shall write to the incumbent to determine whether he/she wishes to stand for reappointment. If the incumbent does not wish to continue, a search (as outlined below) shall commence at once. If the incumbent wishes to stand for reappointment, the Vice President shall meet with the Associate Vice President to discuss the review process. Subsequent to this meeting, the Advisory Committee shall assess the performance of the incumbent, using the criteria employed by the Advisory Committee for the original search and the outcomes of annual performance reviews. In addition to the above assessment procedures, the Chair of the Committee shall invite members of the University community to make individual or collective confidential submissions, in writing, to the Committee, c/o the Office of the Vice President, and/or to meet with the Committee if they so wish. The Advisory Committee may consult, as deemed appropriate, with members of the University community concerning the reappointment of the incumbent. The Advisory Committee shall evaluate the information received and shall request that the incumbent Associate Vice President write an evaluation that i) comments on the achievements of the incumbent’s current term, ii) outlines the challenges and opportunities of a future term.

18

The incumbent Associate Vice President, Academic will be provided with a fair summary of any comments received by the Committee pertaining to his or her performance. The incumbent will be invited to respond to these submissions. The Provost and Vice President, Academic will receive the views of the Advisory Committee. Upon receiving the Vice President’s recommendation, the President shall meet in confidence with the Provost and Vice President, Academic and the Associate Vice President, Academic to review the general findings of the Committee and the recommendation of the Committee. In consultation with the Provost and Vice President, Academic, the President shall either accept or reject the recommendation of the Advisory Committee, and accordingly make an appointment or direct the Advisory Committee to proceed with a search. The Search Process

An internal and/or external search may be conducted. The Committee may engage the services of a search consultant who specializes in senior-level institutional searches for university administrators. Should an external search be conducted, the position shall be widely advertised with applications and nominations being invited by a specific date. Applications shall be made in confidence, although applicants must be informed early in the process that the University’s search procedures require that the names of the short-listed candidates will be made public. The Advisory Committee may invite specific individuals to apply. The Advisory Committee shall take care that qualified members of visible minorities are given consideration. The Advisory Committee shall compile a short list of candidates. A Curriculum vitae for each of the short-listed candidates shall be made available for consultation and comment by members of the University community. When necessary, the Advisory Committee may undertake further consultation on a confidential basis. The Advisory Committee will meet with each short-listed candidate. The Advisory Committee shall invite the short-listed candidates to campus to meet with various university groups (President’s Group, Deans’ Council, Kwantlen Faculty Association, BCGEU, Kwantlen Students’ Association, etc.) as determined by the Committee.

19

Each candidate will deliver a public address to the University community commenting, to the extent possible, on the challenges and opportunities facing the University, the particular challenges and opportunities of the position of Associate Vice President, Academic, and the experience and background that he or she beings to the position. The University community will be allowed time to express their views in writing on each candidate. The Advisory Committee shall make its recommendation to the Provost and Vice President, Academic. In consultation with the Provost and Vice President, Academic, the President shall either accept or reject the recommendation of the Advisory Committee, and accordingly make an appointment or direct the Advisory Committee to continue with the search.

Faculty Appointment The Associate Vice President, Academic must qualify for a faculty position in a department/program of the University. The faculty appointment will take effect when the Associate Vice President, Academic vacates the position. The faculty appointment is considered supernumerary. During his/her term of office as Associate Vice President, Academic, the incumbent will not be a member of the Kwantlen Faculty Association. Appointment of an Acting Associate Vice President Academic

The Provost and Vice President, Academic, with the approval of the President, may appoint an Acting Associate Vice President, Academic for a period of up to one year. This appointment shall use the same procedures as in extending the term of an incumbent.

20

EXHIBIT E

Appointment and Reappointment of Deans Term of Office


The Dean shall normally hold office for an initial term not to exceed five years. B. Extension of Term

The term of the Dean may be extended for one year periods, subject to the approval of the President, provided that prior to making a decision, the President has advised Senate and the Board of the pending extension. C. Reappointment/Renewal

The Dean may be a candidate for a subsequent term.

Advisory Committee Membership

At least 12 months in advance of the date of appointment for the Dean, the President, in consultation with the Nominating Committee of Senate, will determine the members of an Advisory Committee for the appointment of the Dean. The Advisory Committee shall be chaired by the Provost and Vice President, Academic and shall consist of i) six regular faculty members, four of whom must be from the Faculty of the Dean,

appointed by the Senate and two appointed by the Kwantlen Faculty Association

ii) one student majoring in a program offered by the Faculty, appointed by the Senate

iii) two regular staff members appointed by the BCGEU, preferably selected from the

Faculty, appointed by the Senate,

iv) one excluded staff member appointed by the Senate






21





thereafter.



requirement.


The Review Process

Once the Advisory Committee is established, the Provost and Vice President, Academic shall write to the incumbent to determine whether he/she wishes to stand for reappointment. If the incumbent does not wish to continue, a search (as outlined below) shall commence at once. If the incumbent wishes to stand for reappointment, the Vice President shall meet with the Dean to discuss the review process. Subsequent to this meeting, the Advisory Committee shall assess the performance of the incumbent, using the criteria employed by the Advisory Committee for the original search and the outcomes of annual performance reviews. In addition to the above assessment procedures, the Chair of the Committee shall invite members of the University community to make individual or collective confidential submissions, in writing, to the Committee, c/o of the Office of the Provost and Vice President, Academic, and/or to meet with the Committee if they so wish. The Advisory Committee may consult, as deemed appropriate, with members of the University community concerning the reappointment of the incumbent. The Advisory Committee shall evaluate the information received and shall request that the incumbent Dean write an evaluation that i) comments on the achievements of the incumbent’s current term, ii) outlines the challenges and opportunities of a future term.

22

The incumbent Dean will be provided with a fair summary of any comments received by the Committee pertaining to his or her performance. The incumbent will be invited to respond to these submissions. The Advisory Committee shall recommend to the Provost and Vice President, Academic either that the incumbent be reappointed for a specified term or that a search be conducted as outlined below. Upon receiving the Vice President’s recommendation, the President shall meet in confidence with the Provost and Vice President, Academic and with the incumbent Dean to review the general findings of the Committee and the recommendation of the Committee. The President shall either accept or reject the recommendation of the Advisory Committee, and accordingly make an appointment or direct the Advisory Committee to proceed with a search.

The Search Process

Normally, a general (internal and external) search will be conducted. The Committee shall engage the services of a highly-qualified search consultant who specializes in senior-level institutional searches for university administrators. The position shall be widely advertised with applications and nominations being invited by a specific date. Applications shall be made in confidence, although applicants must be informed early in the process that the University’s search procedures require that the names of the short-listed candidates will be made public. The Advisory Committee may invite specific individuals to apply. The Advisory Committee shall take care that qualified members of visible minorities are given consideration. The Advisory Committee shall compile a short list of candidates. A Curriculum vitae for each of the short-listed candidates shall be made available for consultation and comment by members of the University community. When necessary, the Advisory Committee may undertake further consultation on a confidential basis. The Advisory Committee will meet with each short-listed candidate. The Advisory Committee shall invite the short-listed candidates to campus to meet with various university groups (President’s Group, Deans’ Council, Department Chairs of Faculty

23

departments, Kwantlen Faculty Association, BCGEU, Kwantlen Students’ Association, etc.) as determined by the Committee. Each candidate will deliver a public address to the University community commenting, to the extent possible, on the challenges and opportunities facing the Faculty, the particular challenges and opportunities of the position of Dean, and the experience and background that he or she beings to the position. The University community will be allowed time to express their views in writing on each candidate. The Advisory Committee shall make its recommendation to the Provost and Vice President, Academic. In consultation with the Provost and Vice President, Academic, the President shall either accept or reject the recommendation of the Advisory Committee, and accordingly make an appointment or direct the Advisory Committee to continue with the search.

Faculty Appointment

The Dean must qualify for a faculty position in a department/program of the University. The faculty appointment will take effect when the Dean vacates the position. The faculty appointment is considered supernumerary. During his/her term of office as Dean, the incumbent will not be a member of the Kwantlen Faculty Association.

Appointment of an Acting Dean The President, on the recommendation of the Provost and Vice President, Academic, may appoint an Acting Dean for a period of up to one year. This appointment shall use the same procedures as in extending the term of an incumbent.

24

EXHIBIT F

Appointment and Reappointment of Associate Deans Term of Office


The Associate Dean shall normally hold office for an initial term not to exceed three years. B. Extension of Term

The term of the Associate Dean may be extended for one year periods, subject to the approval of the President, provided that prior to making a decision, the President has advised Senate and the Board of the pending extension. C. Reappointment/Renewal

The Associate Dean may be a candidate for a subsequent term.


At least six months in advance of the date of appointment for the Associate Dean, the Dean, in consultation with the Provost and Vice President, Academic, will determine the members of an Advisory Committee for the appointment of the Associate Dean. The Advisory Committee shall be chaired by the Dean and shall consist of:

i) five regular faculty members, three of whom must be from the Faculty of the Associate

Dean, appointed by the Senate and two appointed by the Kwantlen Faculty Association

ii) one student majoring in a program offered by the Faculty, appointed by the Senate,

iii) one regular BCGEU or Excluded staff member from the Faculty, appointed by the

Senate.

iv) one Dean or Associate Dean from another Faculty, appointed by the Senate.




The membership of the Advisory Committee, once established, will be made public to the

Faculty.

25



thereafter.





The Review Process

Once the Advisory Committee is established, the Dean shall write to the incumbent to determine whether he/she wishes to stand for reappointment. If the incumbent does not wish to continue, a search (as outlined below) shall commence at once. If the incumbent wishes to stand for reappointment, the Dean shall meet with the Associate Dean to discuss the review process. Subsequent to this meeting, the Advisory Committee shall assess the performance of the incumbent, using the criteria employed by the Advisory Committee for the original search and the outcomes of annual performance reviews. In addition to the above assessment procedures, the Chair of the Committee shall invite members of the Faculty to make individual or collective confidential submissions, in writing, to the Committee, c/o of the Office of the Dean, and/or to meet with the Committee if they so wish. The Committee may consult, as deemed appropriate, with members of the University community concerning the reappointment of the incumbent. The Advisory Committee shall evaluate the information received and shall request that the incumbent Associate Dean write an evaluation that i) comments on the achievements of the incumbent’s current term, ii) outlines the challenges and opportunities of a future term. The incumbent Associate Dean will be provided with a fair summary of any comments received by the Committee pertaining to his or her performance. The incumbent will be invited to respond to these submissions. The Advisory Committee shall recommend to the Dean either that the incumbent be reappointed, or that a search be conducted as outlined below.

26

Should the Dean disagree with the majority views of the Committee, he/she shall communicate these views in writing to the Provost and Vice President, Academic. If he/she accepts the Advisory Committee’s recommendation, the Dean shall meet in confidence with the Associate Dean to review the general findings of the Committee and the recommendation of the Committee. In consultation with the Dean, the Provost and Vice President, Academic shall either accept or reject the recommendation of the Advisory Committee, and accordingly make an appointment or direct the Advisory Committee to proceed with a search.

The Search Process

Normally, an internal search will be conducted. Applications shall be made in confidence, although applicants must be informed early in the process that the University’s search procedures require that the names of the short-listed candidates will be made public. The Advisory Committee may invite specific individuals to apply. The Advisory Committee shall take care that qualified members of visible minorities are given consideration. The Advisory Committee shall compile a short list of candidates. A Curriculum vitae for each of the short-listed candidates shall be made available for consultation and comment by members of the University community. When necessary, the Advisory Committee may undertake further consultation on a confidential basis. Each candidate will deliver a public address to the University community commenting, to the extent possible, on the challenges and opportunities facing the Faculty, the particular challenges and opportunities of the position of Associate Dean, and the experience and background that he/she brings to the position. Members of the Faculty will be allowed time to express their views in writing on each candidate. The Advisory Committee shall make its recommendation to the Dean. In consultation with the Dean, the Provost and Vice President, Academic shall either accept or reject the majority view of the Advisory Committee, and accordingly make an appointment or direct the Advisory Committee to continue with the search.

27

Faculty Appointment

The Associate Dean must qualify for a faculty position in a department/program of the University. The faculty appointment will take effect when the Associate Dean vacates the position. The faculty appointment is considered supernumerary. During his/her term of office as Associate Dean, the incumbent will not be a member of the Kwantlen Faculty Association

Appointment of an Acting Associate Dean

The Provost and Vice President, Academic may appoint an Acting Associate Dean for a period of up to one year. This appointment shall use the same procedures as in extending the term of an incumbent.

28

EXHIBIT G

Appointment of Associate Vice President, Student Affairs Term of Office


The Associate Vice President, Student Affairs serves at the pleasure of the President.

Advisory Committee

As soon as reasonably possible after the resignation or departure of the incumbent Associate Vice President, Student Affairs, the Provost and Vice President, Academic will determine, with the approval of the President, the members of an Advisory Committee for the appointment of the Associate Vice President, Student Affairs. The Advisory Committee shall be chaired by the Provost and Vice President, Academic and shall consist of: i) four regular faculty members, appointed by the Senate

ii) two student Senators or student Board members, appointed by the Senate

iii) four regular BCGEU staff members in Student Affairs, two of whom may report directly

to the Associate Vice President, Student Affairs, appointed by the Senate

iv) two senior administrative officers of the institution, one of whom must be a Dean,









thereafter.


29




The Search Process

An internal and/or external search may be conducted. The Committee may engage the services of a highly-qualified search consultant who specializes in senior-level institutional searches for university administrators. Should an external search be conducted, the position shall be widely advertised with applications and nominations being invited by a specific date. Applications shall be made in confidence, although applicants must be informed early in the process that the University’s search procedures require that the names of the short-listed candidates will be made public. The Advisory Committee may invite specific individuals to apply. The Advisory Committee shall take care that qualified members of visible minorities are given consideration. The Advisory Committee shall compile a short list of candidates. A Curriculum vitae for each of the short-listed candidates shall be made available for consultation and comment by members of the University community. When necessary, the Advisory Committee may undertake further consultation on a confidential basis. The Advisory Committee will meet with each short-listed candidate. In the case of an external search, the Advisory Committee shall invite the short-listed candidates to campus to meet with various university groups (President’s Group, Deans’ Council, Kwantlen Faculty Association, BCGEU, Kwantlen Students’ Association, etc.) as determined by the Committee. Each candidate will deliver a public address to the University community commenting, to the extent possible, on the challenges and opportunities facing the University, the particular challenges and opportunities of the position of Associate Vice President, Student Affairs, and the experience and background that he or she beings to the position. The University community will be allowed time to express their views in writing on each candidate.

30

The Advisory Committee shall make a recommendation to the Provost and Vice President, Academic. In consultation with the Provost and Vice President, Academic, the President will either accept or reject the recommendation of the Advisory Committee, and accordingly make an appointment or direct the Advisory Committee to continue with the search. Before making a recommendation, the President will consult in confidence with the President’s Group and the Deans’ Council.

Appointment of an Acting Associate Vice President, Student Affairs The Provost and Vice President, Academic, with the approval of the President, may appoint an Acting Associate Vice President, Student Affairs for a period of up to one year.

31

EXHIBIT H

Appointment of Associate Vice President, Student Enrollment Management

Term of Office

B. Term of Appointment

The Associate Vice President, Student Enrollment Management serves at the pleasure of the President.

Advisory Committee

As soon as reasonably possible after the resignation or departure of the incumbent Associate Vice President, Student Enrollment Management, the Provost and Vice President, Academic will determine, with the approval of the President, the members of an Advisory Committee for the appointment of the Associate Vice President, Student Enrollment Management. The Advisory Committee shall be chaired by the Provost and Vice President, Academic and shall consist of: v) four regular faculty members, appointed by the Senate

vi) two student Senators or student Board members, appointed by the Senate

vii) two regular BCGEU staff members in Student Enrollment Management, one of whom

may report directly to the Associate Vice President, Student Enrollment Management,

appointed by the Senate

viii) one member of the excluded group, appointed by the Senate

ix) two senior administrative officers of the institution, one of whom must be a Dean,







32



thereafter.





The Search Process

An internal and/or external search may be conducted. The Committee may engage the services of a highly-qualified search consultant who specializes in senior-level institutional searches for university administrators. Should an external search be conducted, the position shall be widely advertised with applications and nominations being invited by a specific date. Applications shall be made in confidence, although applicants must be informed early in the process that the University’s search procedures require that the names of the short-listed candidates will be made public. The Advisory Committee may invite specific individuals to apply. The Advisory Committee shall take care that qualified members of visible minorities are given consideration. The Advisory Committee shall compile a short list of candidates. A Curriculum vitae for each of the short-listed candidates shall be made available for consultation and comment by members of the University community. When necessary, the Advisory Committee may undertake further consultation on a confidential basis. The Advisory Committee will meet with each short-listed candidate. In the case of an external search, the Advisory Committee shall invite the short-listed candidates to campus to meet with various university groups (President’s Group, Deans’ Council, Kwantlen Faculty Association, BCGEU, Kwantlen Students’ Association, etc.) as determined by the committee.

33

Each candidate will deliver a public address to the University community commenting, to the extent possible, on the challenges and opportunities facing the University, the particular challenges and opportunities of the position of Associate Vice President, Student Enrollment Management, and the experience and background that he or she beings to the position. The University community will be allowed time to express their views in writing on each candidate. The Advisory Committee shall make a recommendation to the Provost and Vice President, Academic. In consultation with the Provost and Vice President, Academic, the President will either accept or reject the recommendation of the Advisory Committee, and accordingly make an appointment or direct the Advisory Committee to continue with the search. Before making a recommendation, the President will consult in confidence with the President’s Group and the Deans’ Council.

Appointment of an Acting Associate Vice President, Student Enrollment Management The Provost and Vice President, Academic, with the approval of the President, may appoint an Acting Associate Vice President, Student Enrollment Management for a period of up to one year.

34

EXHIBIT I

Appointment and Reappointment of Chief Librarian Term of Office

D. Term of Appointment

The Chief Librarian shall normally hold office for an initial term not to exceed five years. E. Extension of Term

The term of the Chief Librarian may be extended for one year periods, subject to the approval of the President, provided that prior to making a decision, the President has advised Senate and the Board of the pending extension. F. Reappointment/Renewal

The Chief Librarian may be a candidate for a subsequent term.


At least 12 months in advance of the date of appointment for the Chief Librarian, the President, in consultation with the Nominating Committee of Senate, will determine the members of an Advisory Committee for the appointment of the Chief Librarian. The Advisory Committee shall be chaired by the Provost and Vice President, Academic and shall consist of vi) six regular faculty members, four of whom must be from the Library, appointed by the

Senate

vii) one student, appointed by the Senate

viii) two regular staff members appointed by the BCGEU, preferably selected from the

Library, appointed by the Senate,

ix) two senior administrative officers of the institution, one of whom must be a Dean,





35





thereafter.



requirement.


The Review Process

Once the Advisory Committee is established, the Provost and Vice President, Academic shall write to the incumbent to determine whether he/she wishes to stand for reappointment. If the incumbent does not wish to continue, a search (as outlined below) shall commence at once. If the incumbent wishes to stand for reappointment, the Vice President shall meet with the Chief Librarian to discuss the review process. Subsequent to this meeting, the Advisory Committee shall assess the performance of the incumbent, using the criteria employed by the Advisory Committee for the original search and the outcomes of annual performance reviews. In addition to the above assessment procedures, the Chair of the Committee shall invite members of the University community to make individual or collective confidential submissions, in writing, to the Committee, c/o the Office of the Provost and Vice President, Academic, and/or to meet with the Committee if they so wish. The Advisory Committee may consult, as deemed appropriate, with members of the University community concerning the reappointment of the incumbent. The Advisory Committee shall evaluate the information received and shall request that the incumbent Chief Librarian write an evaluation that i) comments on the achievements of the incumbent’s current term, ii) outlines the challenges and opportunities of a future term. The incumbent Chief Librarian will be provided with a fair summary of any comments received by the Committee pertaining to his or her performance. The incumbent will be invited to respond to these submissions.

36

The Advisory Committee shall recommend to the Provost and Vice President, Academic either that the incumbent be reappointed for a specified term or that a search be conducted as outlined below. Upon receiving the Vice President’s recommendation, the President shall meet in confidence with the Provost and Vice President, Academic and with the incumbent Chief Librarian to review the general findings of the Committee and the recommendation of the Committee. The President shall either accept or reject the recommendation of the Advisory Committee, and accordingly make an appointment or direct the Advisory Committee to proceed with a search.

The Search Process

Normally, a general (internal and external) search will be conducted. The Committee shall engage the services of a highly-qualified search consultant who specializes in senior-level institutional searches for university administrators. The position shall be widely advertised with applications and nominations being invited by a specific date. Applications shall be made in confidence, although applicants must be informed early in the process that the University’s search procedures require that the names of the short-listed candidates will be made public. The Advisory Committee may invite specific individuals to apply. The Advisory Committee shall take care that qualified members of visible minorities are given consideration. The Advisory Committee shall compile a short list of candidates. A Curriculum vitae for each of the short-listed candidates shall be made available for consultation and comment by members of the University community. When necessary, the Advisory Committee may undertake further consultation on a confidential basis. The Advisory Committee will meet with each short-listed candidate. The Advisory Committee shall invite the short-listed candidates to campus to meet with various university groups (President’s Group, Deans’ Council, Department Chairs of Faculty departments, Kwantlen Faculty Association, BCGEU, Kwantlen Students’ Association, etc.) as determined by the Committee.

37

Each candidate will deliver a public address to the University community commenting, to the extent possible, on the challenges and opportunities facing the Library, the particular challenges and opportunities of the position of Chief Librarian, and the experience and background that he or she beings to the position. The University community will be allowed time to express their views in writing on each candidate. The Advisory Committee shall make its recommendation to the Provost and Vice President, Academic. In consultation with the Provost and Vice President, Academic, the President shall either accept or reject the recommendation of the Advisory Committee, and accordingly make an appointment or direct the Advisory Committee to continue with the search.

Appointment of an Acting Chief Librarian The President, on the recommendation of the Provost and Vice President, Academic, may appoint an Acting Chief Librarian for a period of up to one year. This appointment shall use the same procedures as in extending the term of an incumbent.

Selection, Appointment Reappointment of Senior Positions Procedures 10 07 28.doc

Senate


AGENDA #: 11.8


Issue: Policy L11: Program and Curriculum Development

For Information: Matters of Program and Curriculum Development policy fall under section 35.2(6) of the University Act, therefore Senate must provide advice to the Board regarding elimination of the Program and Curriculum Development policy. See attached document for the rationale for elimination.

For approval: That Senate recommends to the Board of Governors that it approve the elimination of the Program and Curriculum Development policy

Senate


AGENDA #: 11.9


Issue: Policy E19: Honorary Degrees / Awards

For Information: This policy comes to Senate for final approval

For approval: That Senate approve the Honorary Degrees / Awards policy

Policy context

Policy name: HONORARY DEGREES / AWARDS

Policy number: E19

Approving jurisdiction (board, senate, president): SENATE

Context: If a new policy, describe the issues that have led to the need for a policy. If a modification of an existing policy, describe the issues that have arisen to justify the need for a modification; provide a history of the development and revision of the policy and its related procedures This revision to an existing policy is being carried out as part of the general review of the University’s policies and procedures initiated, in part, by the University’s new status as a “Polytechnic University”. Common to all policies being reviewed at this time has been the decision to modify the format by separating former policy documents into two separate, but linked documents: a Policy document and a Procedures document. The current policy became effective in August, 1996 and was revised in September, 2007. More specifically, the changes in the policy and related procedures are related to bringing consistency and organization to the process of nomination and selection of award candidates.


o A search of similar policies at other Universities with a reputation for high quality policy development


from a review group that includes: Senate Standing Committee on Tributes, Senate Standing Committee on Policy Articulation.



1

Policy History

Policy No. E19

Revised: 2007 09


Reviewed:

Signed By

Effective: 1996 08 26


Approved:

HONORARY DEGREES AND AWARDS POLICY

Draft 10 03 18

CONTEXT AND PURPOSE The University wishes to recognize the outstanding contributions and accomplishments of individuals both within and outside the University. This Policy and related Procedures provide a means whereby the University can recognize these contributions and accomplishments through the awarding of various honours.

SCOPE AND LIMITS This Policy provides the principles and procedures which will govern the awarding of all honorary degrees and awards conferred by the University. Examples of such awards include honorary degrees, distinguished service awards, distinguished teaching awards, emeritus/emirita designations.


1. The University wishes to recognize the outstanding contributions and accomplishments of individuals both within and outside the University.

2. It is expected that the excellence of these individuals will reflect positively upon Kwantlen Polytechnic University.

3. The University uses various honors such as honorary degrees, distinguished service awards, distinguished teaching awards and emeritus/emirita

2

designations as a way of drawing attention to the contributions and accomplishments of the individuals the University wishes to recognize.

4. The contributions and accomplishments that the University wishes to recognize include but are not limited to:

Community and public service

Contributions to the arts, humanities, social sciences, science and technology

Long-standing service to Kwantlen Polytechnic University and/or the educational community served by Kwantlen

Examples of outstanding teaching 5. The University will ensure a fair and open nomination process with a

requirement that nominations be supported by evidence of broad support. 6. Selection of these individuals will be accomplished through (an) independent

body(ies) established within the University for that purpose.


RELATED POLICIES & LEGISLATION G5 Service Recognition I1 Gift Acknowledgement and Donor Recognition

RELATED PROCEDURES Refer to Honorary Degrees and Awards Procedures E19 Honorary Degrees Awards Policy 10 02 25.doc

1

Procedure History

Policy No. E19

Revised: 2007 09


Reviewed:

Signed By

Effective: 1996 08 26


Approved:

HONORARY DEGREES AND AWARDS PROCEDURES

Draft 10 03 18

DEFINITIONS Distinguished Service Award

Distinguished Service Awards honour and recognize exceptional, long-standing service to Kwantlen Polytechnic University and/or the educational community that Kwantlen serves. The receipt of this Award will bring honour and distinction to Kwantlen as well as to the recipient.

Distinguished Teaching Award Outstanding teaching is a core element of Kwantlen Polytechnic University and, accordingly, the University recognizes and celebrates outstanding examples of teaching. The Kwantlen Polytechnic University Award for Distinguished Teaching is intended to recognize remarkable teaching as demonstrated by activities such as the development of new courses and curricula, contributions to the scholarship of teaching, development of effective teaching methods, enrichment of the learning environment at Kwantlen, and contributions that improve the teaching of colleagues.

Emeritus/Emerita Designation Emeritus/Emerita is an honorary appointment awarded to a retired employee for distinguished service and commitment to Kwantlen Polytechnic University for a minimum period of ten years before retirement and establishes a relationship that is both symbolic and active.

Honorary Doctorate Degree:

The Honorary Doctorate Degree is the highest form of recognition granted by Kwantlen Polytechnic University to recognize persons who are distinguished by their significant contributions and accomplishments and whose excellence will reflect

2

positively upon Kwantlen Polytechnic University. The authorized degrees are as follows: a. Doctor of Laws (Honoris Causa), (LL.D.), awarded in recognition of community

and public service.

b. Doctor of Letters (Honoris Causa), (D.Litt.), awarded in recognition of contributions to the arts, humanities and social sciences.

c. Doctor of Technology (Honoris Causa), (D.Tech.), awarded in recognition of contributions to science and technology.

PROCEDURES Honorary Doctorate Degree 1. Definition

The Honorary Doctorate Degree is the highest form of recognition granted by Kwantlen Polytechnic University to recognize persons who are distinguished by their significant contributions and accomplishments and whose excellence will reflect positively upon Kwantlen Polytechnic University. The authorized degrees are as follows: a. Doctor of Laws (Honoris Causa), (LL.D.), awarded in recognition of community

and public service.

b. Doctor of Letters (Honoris Causa), (D.Litt.), awarded in recognition of contributions to the arts, humanities and social sciences.

c. Doctor of Technology (Honoris Causa), (D.Tech.), awarded in recognition of contributions to science and technology.

2. Nominations Members of the University community and the community-at-large are invited to nominate honorary degree candidates. Normally, nominations will not be accepted from members of the nominee’s family.

3. Eligibility All persons who are distinguished by their significant contributions and accomplishments and whose excellence will reflect positively upon Kwantlen Polytechnic University are eligible for nomination. Honorary degrees are not normally awarded to those who currently hold political office, including senators, or to current Kwantlen employees. Awards will not normally be granted posthumously.

4. Evidence Nominations must include two to five letters of support and a completed Honorary Degree Nomination Form (http://www.kwantlen.ca/__shared/assets/Honorary_Degree_Nomination_Form10790.pdf )

3

Letters of support will not normally be accepted from members of the nominee’s family. It is in the best interest of the nominator to supply as much information as is relevant and available. Please note: All information submitted on behalf of the nominee will be kept confidential.

5. Criteria The criteria for the Award are significant contribution, accomplishment, and excellence. Nominees must be exceptionally distinguished: scholars, creative artists, public servants, persons prominent in the community and the professions, and others who have made significant contributions locally, nationally, or globally. In approving candidates for honorary degrees, the Senate values diversity of backgrounds, disciplines, and spheres of contribution. The committee should bear in mind that controversial Awards may bring unintended consequences and should be prepared to defend their selection. Honorary degrees are intended to honour individuals who are widely recognized for one or more of the following: a. Outstanding and sustained achievements in their areas of expertise

b. Noteworthy public service

c. A standard of excellence in one or more fields of endeavour

d. Distinguished and noteworthy achievement in their field of study or service during their career

e. Dedication to and recognition of academic excellence

f. Entrepreneurship;

g. A legacy of respect and understanding toward others;

h. A legacy of humanitarian contribution(s).

Honorary degrees may be awarded for meritorious service to education or to Kwantlen Polytechnic University, where the service has brought distinction and honour to Kwantlen.

6. Selection Process All individuals nominated as candidates will be considered by the Senate Standing Committee on Tributes. Recommendations of the Senate Standing Committee on Tributes will be forwarded to Senate for its consideration and selection.

7. Recognition Awards will be acknowledged at one of the Convocation Ceremonies. Nominations will be retained for a period of seven years, including the year nominated.

4

Distinguished Service Award

1. Definition Distinguished Service Awards honour and recognize exceptional, long-standing service to Kwantlen Polytechnic University and/or the educational community that Kwantlen serves. The receipt of this Award will bring honour and distinction to Kwantlen as well as to the recipient.

2. Nominations Members of the University community and the community-at-large are invited to nominate Distinguished Service Award candidates. Normally nominations will not be accepted from members of the nominee’s family.

3. Eligibility All persons who have retired or ceased to be actively involved at Kwantlen Polytechnic University are eligible for nomination. Except in unusual circumstances, the Distinguished Service Award will not normally be given to current Kwantlen employees, Board Members, or Senators. This will allow nominees’ total contribution to the University to be better evaluated.

4. Evidence Nominations must include a completed Distinguished Service Award Nomination Form. It is in the best interest of the nominator to supply as much information as is relevant and available. Please note: All information submitted on behalf of the nominee will be kept confidential.

5. Criteria The criteria of this Award are one or more of the following: a. Significant contributions to Kwantlen over many years of service

b. Outstanding accomplishments that have benefited Kwantlen and/or the community

c. Important contributions to Kwantlen’s mandate, mission, and values

6. Selection Process All individuals nominated as candidates will be considered by the Senate Standing Committee on Tributes. Recommendations of the Senate Standing Committee on Tributes will be forwarded to Senate for its consideration and selection.

7. Recognition Awards will be acknowledged at one of the Convocation Ceremonies. Nominations will be retained for a period of seven years, including the year nominated.

5

Distinguished Teaching Award 1. Definition

Outstanding teaching is a core element of Kwantlen Polytechnic University, and accordingly, the University recognizes and celebrates outstanding examples of teaching. The Kwantlen Polytechnic University Award for Distinguished Teaching is intended to recognize remarkable teaching as demonstrated by activities such as the development of new courses and curricula, contributions to the scholarship of teaching, development of effective teaching methods, enrichment of the learning environment at Kwantlen, and contributions that improve the teaching of colleagues.

2. Nominations Nominations for the Award can be made by any faculty or staff member of Kwantlen Polytechnic University to the Provost and Vice President Academic by March 31 of each year. Written permission of the nominees is required. There will be one Award per year.

3. Eligibility All members of faculty are eligible, except for those sitting on the Distinguished Teaching Award Adjudication Committee.

4. Evidence Nominations should be in the form of a dossier that includes some or all of the following:

a. a curriculum vitae b. a statement of teaching philosophy c. a list of courses taught over the last five years d. other evidence of teaching excellence e. a statement that articulates the case for the nomination f. demonstrated evidence of the scholarship of teaching and learning

5. Criteria There are no fixed criteria for selection of the Award, although generally nominees will

a. be outstanding teachers;

b. be successful in several areas of teaching;

c. have contributed to the learning environment of their students, their departments, and their disciplines (e.g., by showing a consistent commitment to developing methodologies, materials, and processes that have contributed to student success);

d. have a demonstrated interest in teaching and pedagogy;

e. have been a role model for colleagues and students;

f. have had a recognized and substantial impact on students, colleagues, and the institution (e.g., through letters of support).

6

6. Selection Process There will be an Adjudication Panel consisting of one faculty member from each Faculty, chaired by the Director of Educational Development, which will make a recommendation to the Senate Standing Committee on Tributes, who will make recommendations to Senate for approval. The winner of the Distinguished Teaching Award will serve on the following year’s Adjudication Committee.

7. Recognition The Award will be acknowledged at one of the Spring Convocation Ceremonies by the presentation of a citation and monetary award presented as a professional allowance, which will further support the recipient in his or her teaching activities.

Nominations will be retained for a period of three years.

Emeritus/Emerita Designation

1. Definition Emeritus/Emerita is an honorary appointment awarded to a retired employee for distinguished service and commitment to Kwantlen Polytechnic University for a minimum period of ten years before retirement and establishes a relationship that is both symbolic and active. The emeritus/emerita appointment anticipates the continuation of that commitment past retirement. Emeritus/Emerita appointments are for life. The designation may be terminated by Senate if the individual brings Kwantlen Polytechnic University into disrepute.

2. Nominations Members of the University community are invited to nominate candidates for the designation.

3. Eligibility All persons who have demonstrated commitment to Kwantlen or the appropriate Faculty, school, or department and have a minimum of ten years service before retirement are eligible for nomination.

4. Evidence Nomination for the designation must include a letter of nomination signed by a minimum of five signatories clearly outlining the value of the appointment to the department, the Faculty, and/or the University. It may also include an up-to-date curriculum vitae, if appropriate.

7

5. Criteria There are no fixed criteria for the selection of the designation, although generally nominees will have demonstrated commitment to Kwantlen or the appropriate Faculty, school or department.

6. Selection Process Given current evolving definitions of Faculty, the Kwantlen Senate Standing Committee on Tributes will consider each nomination on a case-by-case basis. Recommendations of the Senate Standing Committee on Tributes will be forwarded to Senate for its consideration and selection.

7. Recognition Awards will be acknowledged at one of the Convocation Ceremonies.

8. Other Information The appointees will a. be eligible to apply for grants from external agencies through the established

University routes of approval. Collaborative applications between the appointee and Kwantlen are encouraged;

b. have access to library, secretarial, technical, and computing services consistent with Kwantlen's activities and policies, resources permitting;

c. be eligible to accept assignments or contracts for special projects beneficial to the University;

d. be entitled to represent the University at social or fundraising events;

e. be invited to Kwantlen events and receive recognition for contributions to the University;

f. be eligible to supervise graduate students and honours thesis students.

RELATED POLICY Refer to Honorary Degrees and Awards Policy E19 Honorary Degrees Awards Procedures 10 03 18.doc

Senate


AGENDA #: 11.10


Issue: Policy L6: Student Academic Appeals

For approval: That Senate grant preliminary approval of the Student Academic Appeals policy for distribution to the University community for comment

1

Policy context

Policy name: Student Appeals of Academic Decisions

Policy number: L6


Context: If a new policy, describe the issues that have led to the need for a policy. If a modification of an existing policy, describe the issues that have arisen to justify the need for a modification; provide a history of the development and revision of the policy and its related procedures This revision to an existing policy is being carried out as part of the general review of the University’s policies and procedures initiated, in part, by the University’s new status as a “Polytechnic University”. Common to all policies being reviewed at this time has been the decision to modify the format by separating former policy documents into two separate, but linked documents: a Policy document and a Procedures document. The current policy became effective in October, 1988 and was revised in January, 2004 and January 2009. There was a broad consensus among staff that this Policy is due for a review. It is felt that the Procedures are unclear, that the roles of various individuals in the appeal process are unclear and that the appeal process has too many steps.


o Individual interviews with key staff o A search of similar policies at other Universities with a reputation for high

quality policy development

2


from a review group that includes: Brian Carr, Wayne Tebb, Dana Cserepes, Dana Goedbloed, Rob Fleming, Catherine Dube, Jody Gordon, Wendy Belter


This draft Policy and Procedures are now ready to be reviewed by the Deans’ Group.


Student Appeals of Academic Decisions Context 10 02 23.doc

Page 1 of 2 Policy No. L6

Policy History

Policy No. L6

Revised: December 2004 January 2009


Reviewed:

Signed By

Effective:

October 1988

Administrative Responsibility Senate / Provost and Vice President Academic

Approved:

Student Appeals of Academic Decisions Policy

CONTEXT AND PURPOSE

This Policy and its related Procedures provides a mechanism to address those situations where a student wishes to appeal a grade or other academic decision made by a University employee. Notwithstanding this fact, matters relating to student conduct or plagiarism and cheating are not considered under the general purview of this Policy.

SCOPE AND LIMITS

This Policy applies to all Kwantlen Polytechnic University students and addresses appeals relating to academic decisions but not matters relating to complaints, student conduct or plagiarism and cheating. Appeals involving these other matters are addressed through separate policies as identified above.


(1) The University wishes to ensure that all students are treated fairly with respect to academic matters and thus will provide a timely response to address any concerns that a student may have about academic decisions.

(2) The appeal process must respect the academic integrity and expertise of the academic unit within which an appeal originates; changes of grades and other decisions involving the resolution of academic matters can only be effected by staff within the academic unit.

(3) It is critical that any instructor or other academic staff member whose academic decisions are challenged be given the first opportunity, on an informal basis, to consider the concerns of the student and determine whether a modification to the original academic decision is warranted

(4) The University will ensure that the appeal process includes an opportunity whereby an academic decision can be reviewed, and modified, if warranted, by at least one senior academic person

Page 2 of 2 Policy No. L6

within the same academic unit. This will be someone other than the academic staff person originally named in the appeal.

(5) If the student believes that the decision made by the senior academic person within the academic unit is unfair based on procedural grounds, the University will ensure that the appeal will be handled by an appeal body outside of the academic unit with broad representation from across the University community.

(6) It is understood that matters of appeal being considered under this policy will be handled in a confidential manner by all individuals involved in the matter, recognizing that discussions may be held with other members of the University community who may be able to assist in resolving the matter.



B2 Attendance & Performance in Individualized Continuous Intake Programs B7 Attendance & Performance in Semester and Other Term Based Courses C6 Complaints About Instruction, Services, Employees or University Policies C8 Plagiarism and Cheating C21 Student Conduct C34 Compassionate Withdrawal C39 Refunds and Fee Adjustments L7 Minimum Academic Standards for Programs in which Letters Grades are Assigned G2 Human Rights

The University Act section 35.2 (5) (j) specifies that “the senate of a special purpose, teaching university has the power and duty to…set policies and procedures for appeals by students on academic matters and establish a final appeal tribunal for these appeals”.

RELATED PROCEDURES

Refer to Procedure XXX

Page 1 of 5 Procedure No. L6

Procedure History

Procedure No. L6

Revised: December 2004 January 2009


Reviewed:

Signed By

Effective:

October 1988

Administrative Responsibility Senate / Provost and Vice President Academic

Approved:

Student Appeals of Academic Decisions

Procedure

DEFINITIONS

Grade Appeal: A grade appeal addresses a student’s concern about a grade assigned by an instructor on a test, exam, assignment or any other form of evaluation that becomes part of the student’s overall grade.

Non-Grade Appeal: A non-grade appeal addresses a student’s concern about the position that an instructor has taken about a student’s academic work where the concern does not involve the assignment of a grade but, nevertheless, does involve issues that are likely to impact on the student’s overall academic performance in the course. Issues to be considered under this category will include student or prospective student appeal of prior learning assessment or transfer credit issues.

PROCEDURES

PREAMBLE:

It is imperative that the student enter into a discussion with the instructor in order to attempt to reach a resolution prior to proceeding to the first stage of the appeal process, unless there are exceptional circumstances where discussion is not possible or advisable. The student is encouraged to consult with a University counselor in order to become better informed about the appeal process.

These Procedures address both issues of grade appeals and non-grade appeals as defined above. The Procedures include a separate process at the first stage for each of the grade and non-grade appeals and a combined process at the second stage for both types of appeals.. .

.

First Stage Appeal: Filed through the office of the Director of Enrolment Services which refers the matter to the Dean of the appropriate Faculty for resolution. .

Second Stage Appeal: Heard by the Senate Standing Committee on Academic Appeals (SSCAA).


It is important to recognize that a change to an academic decision can only be effected by the academic area involved in the appeal, i.e. at the First Stage Appeal. Second Stage Appeals can only address an alleged unfairness on procedural grounds at the First Stage. An allegation of unfairness on procedural grounds that is validated at the Second Stage will lead to a request to the dean to review the situation taking into account this new information.

Appeals that address academic issues involving more than one student (e.g. group projects; to be referred to as “group work”) will be handled as follows:

1. The University will permit a grade or non-grade appeal to be filed by one or more of the students involved in the group work being appealed.

2. All of the students involved in the group work will be notified that an appeal has been filed and will be invited to be part of the appeal process.

3. If the appeal leads to a change of grade, then the grade change will be effected for all students involved in the group work whether they participated in the appeal process or not.

It is understood that matters of appeal being considered under this policy will be handled in a confidential manner by all individuals involved in the matter, recognizing that discussions may be held with other members of the University community who may be able to assist in resolving the matter.

FIRST STAGE GRADE APPEAL

1. In order to initiate a grade appeal, the student must obtain an “Appeal Form” from Enrolment

and Registrar Services (ERS) and submit the completed form to the ERS office on any campus. The form must be submitted within twenty business days of the occurrence of the matter giving rise to the appeal or within twenty business days of an attempt to achieve an informal resolution through the instructor.

2. The form requires the student to describe which aspect of their work they wish to have reviewed along with a rationale for why the work merits a review. Any work pertaining to the appeal must be submitted, in hard copy format, with the Appeal Form. The form will also ask the student to provide details of any attempts to resolve the matter with the instructor prior to initiating the appeal. .

3. The Appeal Form will be forwarded to the Director of Enrolment Services who will collect and review all relevant information and forward the Appeal Form, along with the information collected, to the appropriate dean.

4. If the director or the dean requires additional information from the student, that information must be provided within ten business days of the request; if the student fails to provide the information on a timely basis, the appeal will be viewed as abandoned and the original grade will stand.

5. The dean will notify the instructor responsible about the appeal as soon as possible after the Appeal Form is received and will verify whether or not an attempt was made by the student and instructor to achieve resolution prior to the appeal being filed. The dean, in consultation with the instructor, will confirm that the merits of the appeal are limited to the re-evaluation of the student’s work and do not involve a complaint about the nature of instruction received or issues of academic honesty. These latter issues must be addressed separately as outlined in policies C6 and C8. A University counselor can assist the student in determining which Policy applies to a particular student’s situation.


The instructor will also be required to verify that the body of work submitted by the student is authentic, accurate and complete. The instructor may be required to submit, to the dean, all additional course work completed by the student that was not returned to the student and any additional instructional materials that were provided by the instructor to the student.

6. The dean will determine whether or not adequate merit has been demonstrated in order for the appeal to proceed.

7. The dean will inform the student and the instructor, in writing, of his/her decision as to whether the appeal will be allowed or not.

8. If the decision is to not allow the appeal, the student may take this to the next stage as outlined in the “Second Stage …....” section below..

9. If the appeal requires a re-grading of the assignment, test or exam in question, the dean will appoint two independent reviewers, drawn from faculty members in the same or related disciplines either from within Kwantlen or from another institution. The reviewers will be requested to review the student’s work to determine whether or not a change in grade is warranted.

10. Each of the investigating reviewers will be provided with copies of the work that the student has requested be reviewed. Any marks, comments or notations made by the original instructor will be removed from the work; if necessary, the work will be retyped. The reviewers may, at any point in the review, request to see all of the body of work completed by the student (also free of marks, comments and notations). However, this does not require the reviewer to re-evaluate the additional course work. .

11. The reviewers will review the work and arrive at an independent assessment within ten business days of receipt of the appeal material; a delay in timing will be considered only if there are extenuating circumstances. The reviewers will, independently and in writing, submit the reasons for the grade determination on the re-graded work and forward this to the dean. Neither reviewer will share or discuss their findings with the other reviewer.

12. Upon receipt of the assessments from the two reviewers, the dean will consider whether a change in grade is warranted. The decision may involve raising or lowering the grade or leaving it unchanged.

13. If a re-grading of the assignment is not required, then the Dean will take whatever steps are required to assess the situation. This may involve consultation with instructors and staff within or outside the University.

14. The dean will make all reasonable efforts to expedite the process of review so that the results can be reported to the student and the instructor as quickly as possible. The dean will report the results of his/her findings to the student and to the instructor, in writing.

FIRST STAGE NON-GRADE ACADEMIC APPEAL 1. In order to initiate a non-grade appeal, the student must obtain an “Appeal Form” from

Enrolment and Registrar Services (ERS) and submit the completed form to ERS on any campus. The form must be submitted within twenty business days of the occurrence of the matter giving rise to the appeal or within twenty business days of an attempt to achieve an informal resolution through the instructor.

2. The form requires the student to describe the issue that has led them to file a non-grade appeal. Any documentation in support of the appeal must be submitted, in hard copy format, with the


Appeal Form. The form will also ask the student to provide any details of attempts to resolve the matter with the instructor prior to initiating the appeal.

3. The Appeal Form will be forwarded to the Director of Enrolment Services who will collect and review all relevant information and forward the Appeal Form, along with the information collected, to the appropriate Dean.

4. If the director or the dean requires additional information from the student, that information must be provided within ten business days of the Director’s request; if the student fails to do so, the appeal will be viewed as abandoned and the original decision will stand.

5. The dean will notify the instructor responsible about the appeal as soon as possible after the Appeal Form is received and will verify whether or not an attempt was made by the student and instructor to achieve resolution prior to the appeal being filed. The dean, in consultation with the instructor, will confirm that the merits of the appeal are limited to the re-evaluation of the student’s work and do not involve a complaint about the nature of instruction received or issues of academic honesty. These latter issues must be addressed separately as outlined in policies C6 and C8. Where applicable, the instructor may also be required to verify that the Documentation submitted by the student is authentic, accurate and complete. The instructor may be required to submit, to the dean, all additional course work completed by the student that was not returned to the student and any additional instructional materials that were provided by the instructor to the student.

6. The dean will determine whether or not adequate merit has been demonstrated in order for the appeal to proceed.

7. The dean will inform the student and the instructor, in writing, of his/her decision as to whether the appeal will be allowed or not. If the decision is not to allow the appeal, the student may take this to the next “Second Stage…” section outlined below...

8. If the appeal proceeds, the dean will consider whether to direct the instructor to modify their decision in a variety of ways; for example, permitting the student to submit a work that was previously disallowed.

9. The Dean will make all reasonable efforts to expedite the process of review so that the results can be reported to the student and the instructor as quickly as possible. The dean will report the results of his/her findings to the student and to the instructor in writing.

SECOND STAGE GRADE APPEAL AND NON-GRADE ACADEMIC APPEAL 1. A student has the right to request an appeal of the dean’s decision on a grade appeal or a non-

grade academic appeal but only on the basis of an alleged unfairness on procedural grounds at the First Stage Grade or First Stage Non-Grade Appeal. To initiate this stage, the student must inform the Director of Enrolment Services within ten working days from the date of the postmark on the letter informing the student of the dean’s decision by submitting relevant details, in writing, specifically indicating how and why alleged unfairness on procedural grounds has occurred.

2. The Senate Standing Committee on Academic Appeals, or a sub-set of the Committee, will meet as required to handle appeals as expeditiously as possible.


3. A member of the Senate Standing Committee on Academic Appeals, or a member of a sub-set of the Committee, shall not take part in an appeal where to do so would involve the Committee member in a real or perceived conflict of duty and interest.

4. The Director of Enrolment Services will collect and review documentation provided by the dean, the instructor and the student with the Chair of the Senate Standing Committee on Academic Appeals in order to determine if there is an adequate case of alleged unfairness on procedural grounds shown to exist in the First Stage process. The Chair of the Senate Standing Committee on Academic Appeals or a sub-set of the Committee will make the decision on whether or not to hear the appeal.

5. Subsequent to this decision, the student, instructor and dean will be informed in writing by the Director of Enrolment Services whether or not the Appeal Committee will hear the appeal at the second stage.

6. The Chair may, of his or her own volition, or at the request of the student or the person who made the decision under appeal, extend the time limits provided for in these procedures.

7. The Chair will determine who will be invited to the appeal hearing in addition to the student and the instructor; for example, it may be helpful to have the dean and, where applicable, the independent reviewers attend the meeting.

8. Both the student and the instructor may bring a support person to the second stage appeal hearing. However, all questions will be directed to the student and the instructor and the student and instructor must answer all questions directly.

9. Detailed information regarding processes prior to and at the hearing will be provided to all parties ahead of the appeal meeting or may be obtained from the University’s web-site.

10. At the conclusion of the hearing, whenever possible the Senate Standing Committee on Academic Appeals or a sub-set of the Committee will render its decision and supporting reasons orally to both parties. A written decision and explanation will be mailed to all parties within ten working days from the date the decision was rendered. Copies of the decision will be sent to Enrolment and Registrar Services and included in the student’s file.

11. The decision of the SSCAA (or its designated Sub-Committee) will be final. 12. Whether an appeal is granted or denied, the Committee may make recommendations to the

University relating to the broader issues raised by the appeal. 13. Written records of the appeal, a brief summary of the reasons for the decision and

documentation used during the appeal will be kept on file in the offices of Enrolment and Registrar Services.

RELATED POLICY

Refer to Policy L6 Student Appeals of Academic Decisions

��

��

� ��

��

�� !��"�!�

�

�""#��

$��

�!%�� &�!��

��

�� !�

• �� "��#��$��

�� %�&$� �� '��

• �� & ��

��$�($��

• � �� ! �� $��(��

��$�)��& ��(��*��$�� #��$�� $$�(��

��($��$��+�$$��

• �� !� �� $��

��(�� (��$�)�� $�� $$�

��

• " ��!�� #!�� " ��

��$�� %��"�,#��$�� -�� (��

��(� �� $�� $$�(��($�� $�)��& ��

� ��#��$��

• ��!��" ��!� ��$�� $$�(�� &$��

�� $�)�� (��

• &��!��!�� +� �$�� &$��

.��(��(�� $$�(�� +�$$��

� ��

• ' � �� (��/�� (��&��&��

� ��(�� +�$$��

• " ��"!�� !��$�)��

� �� &$�� &$�� (�� &$��(��

��

• " ��"!�� &! ��!��

��*� �� $$��%��&$� �� $�� (��&� ��

&� ��

PAGE 2

• " ��)�*�� 0� �&�� $$��

��&�� (�� &$��

• �� .�� %�� &��&$�� %�

&$� ��

�

+ ��

��/ � ��$��1 ��2��+ $$ � )�&��& �� &��

(�!�

� ��$ � &��

� 3� ��$ �� *��+�� $ ��$��&� ��

� 3� ��$ �� 4��

/$$��+ $$ � )�&��& �� &�� %� � $��

��(��$�&� ��(��

�

�� $� ��&&� �� $$ � )�&�� 3� ��$ �� .��

*��/� ��)�� $�� $$�� / � ��$��+ $$ � )�&�+�� $$�

��$$5��$�� &&$ �� $$�(��4 �� (��

�

� �

��

SENATE


AGENDA #: 16

PRESENTED BY: Robert Hensley

Issue: Approval of graduates to September 27, 2010.

For approval: That Senate approve the graduates to September 27, 2010.

Graduates for Senate Approval

SENATE MEETING: Monday, 27‐Sep‐2010

Graduates from the Faculty of Academic & Career Advancement Diploma Diploma in English Language Proficiency Natsumi Akiyama Sze Man Chan Homa Gharibshahi Yazdi

Ghalia Koudsi‐Al‐Houssini Hailey Lam Haoyi Su

Certificate of Completion Certificate of Completion in Vocational Skills Training ‐ Childcare Aide Option ‐ Access Programs for People with Disabilities Kenneth Paul Eschbach Rachel Kathryn Hartwick

Developmental Credential Adult Graduation Diploma Brent Michael Cassidy

Graduates from the Faculty of Business Post Baccalaureate Diploma Post Baccalaureate Diploma in Human Resources Management Tara Marie Coil Amy Davidson Jacquelyne Diane Graham With Distinction Yan Ho Lee

Amandeep Kaur Sandhu Jane Christine Schumann With Distinction Jaspreet Kaur Tatla

Baccalaureate Degree Bachelor of Business Administration in Accounting Nichole Lynn Crowe Xuan Luo Jasmit Sekhon

Arianwen Villena Graysen Albert Wadsworth

Bachelor of Business Administration in Accounting, Cooperative Education Option Jessie Mei‐Ju Hou Bachelor of Business Administration in Entrepreneurial Leadership Ravinder Bagry Trudy Anne Blair John David Buchanan Laura Robertson Butcher Lyle Kenji Davies Ryan James Ferguson Stephanie Linda Gibbs Sundeep Singh Johal Seul Ki Kim

Adam Spencer Krahn Louis Bob‐Man Kwan Mathew Gin‐Fei Lin Claire Christine Michaels Kaiwan Rumi Mistry Maryna Mushlovina Rachel Anne Priest Chelsea Mary Williams David Earl Wood

Bachelor of Business Administration in Entrepreneurial Leadership, Cooperative Education Option Jennifer Elizabeth Bailey Harman Bedi

Bachelor of Business Administration in Human Resources Management Sachi Adhikari Selena Alyse Barichello Nicole Stella Bonneteau Celine Robertson Butcher Samantha Bernice Chen Jagmaan Singh Dhaliwal Harjinder Kaur Dhatt Priya Kaur Dhillon Ramandeep Kaur Dhillon Lisa Kristine Gledhill Christina Dawn Goldie Melissa Gomez Jenny Amrit Gosal Surinder Cindy Khatkar Isaac Nathaniel LaFontaine

Su Hung Lai Ashley Laurel Elizabeth Mann Brittany Dawn Mann Christy Lynn Jennifer Mann Karolyn Elizabeth Mellis Ka Yee Ng Kimberly Blair Pattison Greg Kevin Procknow Abhishaek Ramesh Rawal Tamanna Sekhon Colleen Shum Navjyot Kaur Toor Simon Alexander Wong Travis Woolf

Bachelor of Business Administration in Human Resources Management, Cooperative Education Option Sarah Moore Hancock Pavanjit Kaur Nijjar Sukhjinder Kaur Nijjar Bachelor of Technology in Information Technology Shane Robert Beacom Kenneth Eric Young Bachelor of Technology in Information Technology, Cooperative Education Option Timothy James Juren Ramit Satish Mathur

Diploma Diploma in Accounting Nghi Duy Chau Neil Elliot Clarkson Angela Do Brinderjeet K Grewal Charlee Hong Jiang Yuan Li Ying Lin Jade Chiate Lung Xiao Ma With Distinction Amrit Kaur Matharu

Janna Rudetsky With Distinction Kristina Joy Na Sampang With Distinction Anushka Sharma Matthew Sousa Hendy Tirta Suhendra Bing Liang Wei Geoffrey Woo Dong Ping Wu Xiao Yin Xu

Diploma in Business Administration Lauren Elizabeth Blake Cheuk Yan Chan Chih‐Wei Chen Azucena Rosa Cheng Law Su Tien Chiu Edward Gar‐Chun Chow

Terence Goyel Aisha Batool Jilani Mon‐Chun Lai Natthamon Lawkobkit Szu‐Chi Liu Joseph Lomarda

Jeremy Robert McKeown Gurpreet Sandhu Himanshu Sharma Chia Hsien Shen

Jian Xin Tan Cindy Sin Yee Wan Ting Zou

Diploma in Business Management Amber Ramona‐Diane Hopps Erzsebet Institorisz Brett Matthew Jones Ravneet Kang Joseph Hong Ming Leung

Christopher Clark Millner Brian Anh Tuan Tran Loan Thi Nhu Vo Mahhum Wali Shu Li Zhao

Diploma in General Business Studies Sandeep Kaur Dhillon Hillary Faye McMann Rachel Anne Priest John Yao Diploma in Marketing Management Lyle Kenji Davies Scott James Fierbach Nicole Christina Skura Alex Wong

Certificate Certificate in Accounting Weihua Deng Terence Wing Chan Kam Zhixuan Li

Thuy Dien Thi Nguyen Yi Zhang With Distinction

Certificate in Business Management Patricia Lorraine Arnold Murilo Gerdes Chalita Niall De Burca

Imraj Johal Praneil Prabhakar Sundar Amarinder Singh Virk

Certificate in Computer Information Systems Josue De Ramos Nafisa Ibrahim Elshazly Andrew Harvie Thomas Patrick Gordon Mickie Kelvin Ka chun Ng

Kerry John O'Brien Sang‐Hoon Park Byron Ribble Sundeep Singh Sangha Qin Wu

Certificate in General Business Studies Tyler Carlson Yogita Kataria Tianhao Wang Certificate in Legal Administrative Studies Terri Lynn Covin Meghan Elizabeth Freill Nicole Deepinti Nair

Certificate in Marketing Diana Amy Joan Hancock

Graduates from the Faculty of Community and Health Studies Post Baccalaureate Certificate Post Baccalaureate Certificate in Critical Care Nursing Johanna Doreen Bowie With Distinction Nicholas Denis Gueret With Distinction Krystyna Julia Nex With Distinction Lana Medeiros Saunders Baccalaureate Degree Bachelor of Psychiatric Nursing Jacklyne Rea With Distinction Bachelor of Science in Nursing Miguel Antonio Asistio Agustin Sarah Alasaly Gurleen Atwal With Distinction Harpreet Kaur Bains Susan Butler With Distinction Hania Kaur Chahal Jennifer Ann Michelle Cory Kirandeep Kaur Dhillon Penny Lynn Donovan Eric D'Souza Vera Santos Felicio Lindsay Marie Fraser With Distinction Inderdeep Kaur Gill With Distinction Feven Haile With Distinction Laura Anne Harvey Thi Hang Hua

Karl Olof Hystad Manpreet Kaur Jagdeo Ashlynn Ashwini Kishore Karen Patricia Konings With Distinction Corinna Leah Krop Kevin Jay Lardizabal Jennifer Celine Laverty Cassandra Brigitte Lee Sarah Nadene Lysholm With Distinction Meghan Anna MacLean Hana Minarikova Joanna Erin Mulder With Distinction Lisa Marie Peacey With Distinction Kayleigh Catherine Ross Joanne Marie See Vy Thanh Hoang Trinh

Certificate Certificate in Gerontology‐Based Therapeutic Recreation Jennifer Lynn Remillard With Distinction

Certificate in Graduate Nurse, Internationally Educated Re‐entry Lawrence Almeda Clifford Ang Gagandeep Kaur Bhullar With Distinction Rowena Paglinawan Chico Aleza Ellen Cabang Corpuz With Distinction Sherry Ras Dayrit With Distinction Ligia Cornelia Dragomir Priscilla Dutt Kulwinder Kaur Gill Ugochi Uloma Ibediro Gay Izquierdo Rosine Viray Jugueta Yeong‐Yi Kao With Distinction Zhila Khoubsirat

Ligi Kuriakose Gurmeet Kaur Lail Gursevak Kaur Lotey Karen Anne Mella Christopher Jalandoon Perez Haleh Rahman‐Setayesh Rhoda Mae Diamzon Rodgers Rebecca Sharda Charity Granados Solamo Jayson Nava Tamayo Martina Tekelova With Distinction Mary Jean Tomo Tingzon Lailani Sablay Utayde Xiao Lei Wang Mei‐Hua Wu Pei Hong Xu With Distinction

Certificate in Health Care Assistant Stacey C Armstrong With Distinction Daniela Bagiu With Distinction Aida Mateo Bangkig With Distinction Celine Therese Barnsley Christopher Ryan Claur Maggie Dung With Distinction Peggy Lynn Gladiuk With Distinction Shannon Maria Herrington Duangjai Koch‐Schulte With Distinction Nelly Koopmans With Distinction Yen Yi Lo With Distinction Nicoleta Catherine Mavritsakis With Distinction Paige Elizabeth Nelmes With Distinction Ana Maria Padron‐Garcia With Distinction

Sharon Shobba Prasad With Distinction Azita Rafat Sharwanti Raj With Distinction Jennifer Lauren Robertson With Distinction Pritpal Kaur Saini With Distinction Eshwari Sami With Distinction Ashley Lynn Smuk Casey Marie Stephens Edwin Redota Tolopia Gina D Trono With Distinction Irene Van Diermen With Distinction Debra Watters With Distinction Michelle Victoria Wruck With Distinction Maggie Yang With Distinction

Certificate in Health Unit Coordinator Gina Luree Deacon With Distinction

Certificate in Home Support/Resident Care Attendant Tanner Cole Busche Justin Keith Holliday Stefanie Johanna Kargut With Distinction Roxanne Palma Ninalga Certificate in Special Education Teacher Assistant Tiffany Ann Burns With Distinction Gursimran Kaur Claire Judy Allison Colgan With Distinction Aleshia Marie Fiolleau Kiranpreet Kaur Jammu With Distinction Brittany Michelle Jang Shelley Ruth Laird With Distinction Pui Kei Lau With Distinction Deborah Dianna Mahon With Distinction

Poonam Kaur Pannu Doris Panovic With Distinction Leanne Marie Pavletic Daniel Allen Penner Brandi Aleisha Petursson With Distinction Thoralea Jean Pilton With Distinction Cristina Rossi Sandeep Kaur Sandhu Jennifer Lynne Thiel With Distinction Cristi Alene Wong With Distinction

Citation Citation in Graduate Nurse Re‐Entry Linda Marie Adair With Distinction Mary Elaine Boyco With Distinction Lynda Kathleen Champoux With Distinction Debra Lynn Harding With Distinction

Arlene Gail Hunter With Distinction Heather J Miller With Distinction Cynthia Lois Rintoul With Distinction Elizabeth Helena Wilson With Distinction

Graduates from the Faculty of Design Baccalaureate Degree Bachelor of Applied Design in Interior Design Aaron David Winskill Bachelor of Design, Fashion and Technology Justina Nicole Anzulovich Nina Chen

Certificate Certificate in Fashion Marketing Carolyn Heather Digby Katrina Fekete Jody Cheryl Lau

Graduates from the Faculty of Humanities Baccalaureate Degree Bachelor of Arts ‐ Major in English Kylie Marie Van Eaton

Associate Degree Associate of Arts Degree in English Rita Shahi Diploma Diploma in Music ‐ General Studies Hui‐Ting Chen Charles Arlington Secord

Certificate Certificate in Music Jennifer Elizabeth Mamchur Charles Arlington Secord With Distinction

Graduates from the Faculty of Science and Horticulture Associate Degree Associate of Science Degree in General Science Deepak Bhangu With Distinction Shaun Clifford Drummond Sajan Dilip Gidwani

Diploma Diploma of Technology in Electronics Engineering Jason Loc Le Diploma of Technology in Environmental Protection, Cooperative Education Option Timo Hess Travis Daniel Jensen Ryan Cameron Lebek Laura Denise Pettersen Russell Thompson

Graduates from the Faculty of Social Sciences Baccalaureate Degree Bachelor of Applied Journalism Jackelaine Louise Humber Bachelor of Applied Journalism ‐ Honours Deanna Louise Scott Bachelor of Arts ‐ Double Minor in Philosophy and Psychology Alexander Joseph Kudzin Bachelor of Arts ‐ General Studies Bonnie Kai Chi Li Ta Ming Peng Bachelor of Arts ‐ General Studies, Minor in Philosophy Leland Royce Harper Bachelor of Arts ‐ Major in Criminology Ellen Jane Adams Karandeep Singh Badesha Jasbir Singh Bal Karuna Vasudeo Belani Matthew E Faddegon Michela Vittoria Fiorido With Distinction Courtney Lynn Gardiner Rahela Hasanzadeh Karen Khunkhun

Kimberly Dayle Lachuk Musarrat Sheerin Malawiya With Distinction Tania Joyce Rosier Daria Saric Tracy Lyn‐Ann Scott With Distinction Parmvir Jawanda Singh Rupinder Kaur Uppal

Bachelor of Arts ‐ Major in Criminology ‐ Honours Sukhjit Dhesi Bachelor of Arts ‐ Major in History Suneil Kyle Sangha Deki Lhamo Tsering Bachelor of Arts ‐ Major in Psychology Jaskaran Kaur Bola With Distinction Nafeeza Marounek Ashley Danielle Millman Valerie Jean Smith Cheryl Lynn Walker Bachelor of Arts in Community Criminal Justice Selina Chima Anna Katrina Bercero Flores Bachelor of Journalism Paul Clifford Andrew Khya Fellingham

Associate Degree Associate of Arts Degree in Anthropology Munisha Kailley Associate of Arts Degree in Criminology Traci Rani Kim Colby Flutura Dema Sarina Hiar Zachary Dean Robinson Hassan Aziz Wahla Associate of Arts Degree in General Studies Rikki Leah Emilienne Boechler Sheena Nand Kulbir Kaur Randhawa Associate of Arts Degree in Psychology Diana Obcena Apuada Holly Jane Base Daniel Maurice Bobyk Amelia Joan Brown Renee Eva Bussmann Jonathan Dear

With Distinction Leslie May Deck Mandip Kaur Heer Autumn Lynn Maltby Nicole Allison Striemer

Diploma Diploma in Criminology Deanna Y.T. Choi Brendan James Skinner Jennifer Nicole Tomney Diploma in General Studies Clinton Robert Letain Mark Henry Merlin Styles Edward Everett Wilson

Certificate Certificate in Arts Austin De Chai Cooper With Distinction

Sajan Dilip Gidwani Certificate in Criminology Carol Jane Frydenlund

Graduates from the Faculty of Trades and Technology Certificate Certificate in Advanced Farrier Training Merissa Jill Hewitt Amanda Patricia Mayer With Distinction Alyssa Christina Ruscheinski

Kara Leanne Salmond Justin Phillip Thorne Gregory Scott Wilson With Distinction

Certificate in Appliance Servicing Inderjit Bhela Bruce Wade Crick With Distinction Mithan Gandhal With Distinction John Michael Goodchild David Allen Jaklin With Distinction Douglas A. Kurek With Distinction Emil Lo With Distinction Zach Lyle With Distinction Jeff Jacob Mathew

With Distinction Jeffrey Miller With Distinction Gregory Steven Mitchell With Distinction Varinder Singh Sehra With Distinction Gordon Stewart With Distinction Alexander Tsapin Tao Yuan With Distinction Auyez Zhilkibayev With Distinction

Certificate in Computer Aided Design and Drafting ‐ Manufacturing

David Matthew Gray With Distinction Dominic Jan Jaworski Khen Van Luu

Bernie Ragudo Macalanda With Distinction Lauren Anna Mufford Mitchell Scott Pennimpede Kjell Joseph Sadowski With Distinction

Certificate in Public Safety Communications Chad Dean Palmer With Distinction Certificate in Welding ‐ Level C James McGregor Archibald With Distinction Darren A Bridge With Distinction Leanna Marie Chatten With Distinction William Joesph Clegg With Distinction Satwant Dhaliwal With Distinction

Theodore Sean Huisman Jake Johnathan Allan Jut Patricio Leonardo Millan Zachary Alexander Nadeau Danson Migwe Njogu Ronald Sarabia Pastores Tyson James Ratzlaff With Distinction Corey Blake Sargent With Distinction

William Andrew Small With Distinction Justin Sutherland

With Distinction Bjorn Monrad Alvin White

Certificate in Welding ‐ Level C (ACE‐IT) Adam Donald Beaton Roy Crossman Jared Dale Ellis Aaron Kishan Goundar Tyler David Kragt With Distinction Rhyon Lidder Thomas Jay Lutke Anthony Donald McRae

Trevor Charles Nicholson Corey Lee Oremek Devon Robert Patton Martin Ryan Pullen Angel Emilio Sandoval With Distinction Jordan Thomas Shore Matthew Rodolfo Tecson Shane Donald Thompson

Citation Citation in Carpentry/Building Construction David Grant Bates Robert Leslie Gray With Distinction Tirza Elizabeth Hillery Justin Sung Jin Kim Seungbeom Ko With Distinction Drew Walter Lescisin

Natasha Rae‐Ann Nelson Devon Jefferson Ratzlaff Michael John Walter Scott With Distinction Christopher Adam St. Cyr Tyler Robert Wallace Jesse David Zaurrini

With Distinction Citation in Carpentry/Building Construction (ACE‐IT) Nickolas Alten Ames Brody Malone Anderson James Michael Antoniak Robert Frederick Anweiler With Distinction Chico Manuel Araujo Alexander Nicholas Baldwinson Melwin Jonas Baloy Aaron Michael Barker Tony Norman Bevilacqua Craig Benjamin Bird Derick Boag Jesse Trey Bohmer Spencer Thomas Boileau With Distinction Michael Allan Bosch Trevor Thomas Boyd Shabnampreet Singh Brar Thomas Breckwoldt Jordan Lucas Butler With Distinction Bradley Daniel Chila With Distinction

Nicholaus Alexandre Coberg Prince Carvin Cordeta Ross William Coulter Allister James Cox Ryan Grant Davey Bradley John Demke Tyler Benjamen Desjardins Kenneth Alan Dick Emmanuel Mzwandile Dlamini William Gene Dorn Frankie Lee Doyle Jonathan Edward Dvorak With Distinction Colton Don East Michael Wilson Emery Kai Robert Freitag Lloyd Ian Goligher Adam Bradley Grainger Dakota James Griscowsky Leslie Wayne Groening Trevor James Groening Bryan Andrew Harding Bryan Jonathan Harlaar

Dylan Alexander Hauser Trevor Douglas Heiling Satoshi Thomas Hill Curtis Reed Huseon Richard Ernest Hydon David James Ironside With Distinction Dane Samual Jensen Nicholas Keith Johnston Max Frederick Keown Dusten Singh Khabra With Distinction Steven Pavel Kopacek Kurt Eric Kristianson Thomas Gordon Lassam Mitchell Craig Magee Terence Jackson McCarthy Steven Earl McKenna Julie Claudia Mikes Brock Isaak Mitzel Michael Edvardo Najera Adam Fausto Paolella David Willem Parkinson With Distinction Jonathan Derek Pawsey With Distinction Albert Phan With Distinction Scott Raymond Rae‐Douglas Devon Rian Raines Dylan Kyle Richard Brett Spence Robinson Maxwell Alexander Robinson

With Distinction Hayden John Rowan Derrick James Rushton Coddi Michaell Ryane Justin Dean Ryley Tyrone Thomas Sattler Preston Kent Scott Dylan Glenn Sheffer With Distinction Lucais Dain Simpson Nick Leonard Steneker Scott Thomas Stewart Braden Mathew Strelezki Christopher William Sunnus Taylor Christian Tai Shawn Douglas Taylor With Distinction Stephanie Janis Ternowski Brandon Dalton Thibert Andrew Reuben Thomas Cora Noelle Tonn With Distinction Carson John Warner With Distinction Taylor Charles Watt With Distinction Logan Robert Weiss Connor Robert Wells Alexander Kenneth Dirk Werring Tyron Drew Wheatley Dakota John Willams Jeffrey Steven Winfield Todd Jon Tyler Zukiwsky

Citation in Computer Aided Design and Drafting David Matthew Gray With Distinction Khen Van Luu With Distinction Bernie Ragudo Macalanda With Distinction Mitchell Scott Pennimpede Citation in Computer Aided Design and Drafting (High School Partnership Program) Shenesse Breneigh Walker With Distinction Citation in Masonry Jose Armando Hernandez With Distinction Daryl Holm With Distinction

Joshua David Long With Distinction Michael Lloyd Machado With Distinction

Austin Metcalf With Distinction Colin Andrew Nickerson With Distinction

Adam John Shook With Distinction Jeffrey Thomas Woelke With Distinction

Citation in Masonry (ACE‐IT) Bo Jartved Jorgensen With Distinction Jordan David McDonald Parmbir Singh Nijjar

Tamas Varga With Distinction Andrew Barry Zaplotinsky With Distinction

Citation in Metal Fabrication (ACE‐IT) Brian Chen Aaron Cole With Distinction Wilbert Flores Danielle Marie Fromme Christian Hardie Christopher Michael Kearns Kevin Phillip Lee With Distinction

Tyler Wade Lussier Cord Mitchell Samuel Molendijk With Distinction Amadeus Munz With Distinction Nick John Stankov Shea Wells

Citation in Millwright/Industrial Mechanic Michael Darcy Frost Aaron Thomas Kaetler With Distinction Tsung‐Hsien Kuo

With Distinction Alexander Salazar With Distinction Samantha Rose VanSantvoord

Citation in Millwright/Industrial Mechanic (ACE‐IT) Mitchell Sidney Baxfield Kyle Matthew Donovan Ryan Taylor Laturnus Travis Owen Moffatt

Justin Pierre Rovtar With Distinction Gareth Samuel Stahl Dylan John Worden‐Stibbs

Citation in Welding ‐ Level A Matthew Michael Goriak With Distinction Citation in Welding ‐ Level B Amanjyot Singh Bahia With Distinction Keifer Jordan Cairns Zachary Cole Chitty Dave Jack Coomer Kriston Daniel Ference With Distinction Christopher Robert Hamilton Champika Higgoda Gamage

With Distinction Leonardo Alexis Lombardo With Distinction Kevin Daniel McArdon Christopher James McWilliams Giovanni Kyle Romegioli Cameron Steven Rosset Jordan Eric Thys With Distinction