Senate passes omnibus motion
Katherine Harding

Laurier is just one step away from adopting a four point grade system, abolishing the distinction between full- and part-time status for undergraduate students, and recasting all regulations that refer to the year of a program.

These recommendations were part of five recommendations the Academic Planning Committee (APC) presented to the University Senate last Thursday. A sixth motion, that would have had the University include all attempts, including all attempts at repeated courses, when calculating the cumulative grade point average for all degrees and programs, was withdrawn by the committee before the motions were tabled.

The committee's report, which detailed rationale for each of the motions, stressed that "if approved, these motions be in a form that allows for them to be implemented at the least disruptive time for all affected and in a manner that does not create unnecessary expense."

The five motions, which were presented as an omnibus mo-tion, produced a flurry of response from members of the Senate.

Contentious motion

One of the most contentious motions for senators was the motion to recast all regulations that refer to the year of a program. The APC felt that presently it is not always clear what the University means by "year." The committee cited in their report that while the Calender often refers to year, it contains no clear definition of the term. The report suggested that "most if not all of the work done by a reference to year can be done in base Banner (the University's computer system) using prerequisites and references to class."

Other concerns

Other senators were troubled Laurier would have to adopt the American terminology the Banner system employs to describe year of study (freshman, sophomore, junior, senior).

University Vice-President: Academic Rowland Smith dispelled those fears saying, "the motion does not suggest we adopt American terms."

"What confidence do we have that we won't have more problems as this is built into the system," asked Senator Doug Witmer, whose question evoked laughter from Senate.

"This is a way of avoiding spending money," said University Registrar and member of the Academic Planning Committee Dr. John Metcalfe.

Student Senator Will Chung was concerned about the significance of the motion and the seemingly abrupt way it was being presented to Senate. "Shouldn't there have been a notice of motion because of its significance," asked Chung.

The five part omnibus motion was eventually passed by Senate and will now go to the University's Board of Governors for final approval.

After the motion was passed Rosehart remarked, "this obviously requires a leap of faith ... the debate demonstrates there is some anxiety.

The aftermath

Student Senator Will Chung is still dissatisfied with the process used to present and pass the motion. "I think that the apparent lack of consultation with students and faculty on such major academic decisions reflects poorly on the administration and it speaks of the level of importance that they place on the opinion of students at this university." said Chung. "It is clear that the administration places a greater emphasis on expediency than hearing what students and faculty have to say by the fact that no notice for these motions was given at the previous meeting and that they were moved as an omnibus motion."

Student Senator Jeff Burrow disagreed with Chung.

"I had no problems with the motion," said Burrow. "I understand what they are trying to do."

"I'm glad they scratched the motion about calculating cumulative grade point averages because that one sounded like one of convenience rather than necessity," he added.