Policies and Procedures
Policy Statements and Procedures are adopted by the Council of the Faculty of Environmental Studies under Standing Rules 3.6 and 3.7 and 3.8. They are supplementary to the Standing Rules (which take precedence) and as recorded here are not intended to be comprehensive or exhaustive.
Every effort has been made to ensure that these Policies and Procedures are complete and accurate. In the event that these published Policies and Procedures are not fully consistent with FES-approved legislation, then the duly approved legislation shall take precedence.
Section C – Committee of Instruction and subcommittees
Section C1 – Committee of Instruction
Section C2 – MES Program and Curriculum Subcommittee
Section C3 – PhD Program, Curriculum and Admissions Subcommittee
Section C4 – MES Admissions Subcommittee
Section C5 – MES Awards Subcommittee
Section C6 – Grade Assessment Subcommittee
Section C7 – MES/JD Program Subcommittee
Section C8 – Planning Programs Subcommittee
Section C9 – Undergraduate Program and Curriculum Subcommittee
Section C10 – Undergraduate Academic Review and Admissions Subcommittee
Approved by the Faculty of Environmental Studies Faculty Council on May 17, 2012
Approved by Senate on September 27, 2012
Table of Contents
A1.1 CATEGORIES OF FES ‘FACULTY MEMBERS’
(a) Full-time faculty member whose home Faculty is FES.
i. Full-time faculty member.
100% time commitment in FES; 100% in FES budget including all benefits.
ii. Full-time faculty member on reduced load.
Less than 100% time and budget commitment in FES; benefits may be at 100%.
iii. Full-time faculty member, joint-appointed with another Faculty.
Base is in FES; less than 100% time commitment in FES with remainder of time commitment in another Faculty; budget commitment shared with other Faculty.
iv. Contractually limited full-time faculty member.
Appointed full-time in FES for specified period; not in tenure stream; budgetary terms negotiated. [All full-time faculty members whose home Faculty is FES are members of FES Council.]
(b) Part-time faculty member.
Hired by FES for specified period and for specified proportion of time, to offer courses and/or to advise students; entirely in FES budget. [Two part-time faculty members are elected each year to be members of FES Council.]
(c) Joint-appointed faculty member whose home Faculty is other than FES.
Base is in another Faculty; less than 100% time commitment in FES; budget commitment shared with other Faculty. [50% of joint-appointed faculty members are elected each year to be members of FES Council.]
(d) Seconded faculty member.
Faculty member in another Faculty appointed in FES for specified period to be course director and/or to advise students; there may or may not be budget commitment in FES. [Seconded faculty members are not represented on FES Council.]
(e) Sessional course director.
Person from outside York hired by FES to offer a specified course during a specified term; budgeted entirely in FES. [Sessional course directors are not represented on FES Council.]
(f) Affiliated faculty member.
Faculty member in another Faculty who is prepared to be available to advise FES students and/or to supervise individual FES student activity; no FES budget commitment. [Affiliated faculty members are not represented on FES Council.]
(g) Visiting faculty member.
Person from outside York, appointed in FES for specified period with one or other of the following titles: Visiting Professor, Visiting Associate Professor, Visiting Assistant Professor, Visiting Scholar, Senior Fellow*; there may or may not be budgetary commitment; FES may provide office space and/or support services. [Visiting faculty members are not represented on FES Council.] [*Distinct from the category of Senior Fellow, a ‘Fellow’ is defined by FES Council as being neither a faculty member nor a student. ]
A2.1 The term of the Council, its members and its officers is twelve months, from September 1st to August 31st.
A2.2 The term of office of elected faculty members on standing committees is twenty-four months and if a committee includes more than one elected faculty member the terms shall be staggered.
A2.3 The term of office for elected members of standing committees, other than faculty members, is twelve months.
A2.4 If an elected member of a standing committee fails to attend three consecutive meetings of the committee without reason acceptable to the committee, the chair of the standing committee shall report the situation to the Executive Committee.
If any member of the FAAC fails to attend three consecutive meetings of the Committee, without reason acceptable to a majority of the voting members of the Committee, that person shall withdraw from the Committee. If any member of FAAC fails to attend one of the short-listed candidate’s interviews or presentations, without reason acceptable to a majority of voting members of the Committee, that person shall withdraw from the FAAC.
A2.5 The Executive Committee shall determine whether any position on the Council or on its standing committees and subcommittees is vacant. By-elections shall be conducted to fill vacancies.
A2.6 Elections for the forthcoming year will be held in April each year.
A2.7 PhESSA, GESSA and BESSA shall establish their own procedures for nomination and election of student members of the Council and of standing committees and subcommittees. The student organizations may choose to hold open a proportion of student positions to be filled from among the incoming cohorts of students through by-election in the Fall term.
A2.8 Nomination and election procedures for non-student positions shall be as follows:
(a) by April 1st the Nominations Subcommittee shall, for all open positions, determine and post not less than a minimum slate of nominees who have agreed to stand for election;
(b) a copy of the slate shall forthwith be given to each member of the Faculty together with a call for additional nominations;
(c) additional nominations of candidates who have agreed to stand for election may be submitted, in writing, by any member of the Faculty and nominations shall close on April 15th;
(d) the Secretary shall conduct a written ballot, using a voter’s list to check off electors as they submit their ballots;
(e) the Secretary shall post the outcome of the election via email.
A2.9 By-elections for non-student positions shall follow the same sequence and intervals of activities as outlined in A2.8 above.
A2.10 Electorates for positions on the Council and its committees and subcommittees shall be as follows:
(a) for the Chair of the Council — the members of the Council;
(b) for the faculty member Vice-Chair of the Council – the FES faculty members of Council;
(c) for student positions — as determined by PhESSA, GESSA and BESSA;
(d) for faculty member positions – the FES faculty members of Council;
(e) for support staff member positions – the support staff members of the Faculty;
(f) for Fellow members of the Council – the Fellows of the Faculty;
(g) for Teaching Assistant positions – GESSA.
A2.11 (a) The electorate for elected faculty member Senators shall be the FES Faculty members of Council.
(b) Electorates for other positions outside the Council shall be determined in each instance by the Executive Committee.
A3.1 During the Fall and Winter Terms regular meetings of the Council shall normally be held once each month.
A3.2 The chairs of standing committees, all Faculty Senators, and all Faculty representatives on Senate committees are expected to attend each meeting of the Council and be prepared to report and to respond to questions.
A4.1 Unless otherwise specified, Council will follow the latest edition of Bourinot’s Rules of Order for parliamentary procedures.
A4.2 All voting will be by a show of hands counted by the Officers of Council. All questions will be decided by a simple majority of those voting, unless otherwise specified.
A4.3 Only one motion or question can be considered at a time. Apart from questions of privilege, order and information, all motions must be seconded. Ordinarily only one amendment and one amendment to the amendment will be allowed to each motion. Additional amendments may be entertained by the Chair.
A4.4 When a question is under debate only the following motions will be entertained:
(a) To amend the main motion or amend the amendment
(b) To table the motion
(c) To postpone debate on the motion to a subsequent meeting
(d) To proceed to another item of business
(e) To extend the time limit of the meeting
(f) To recess the meeting
(g) To adjourn debate on the motion
(h) To adjourn the meeting
(i) For the previous question.
Only (a) may be amended and only (a), (b), (g), and (i) may be debated.
A4.5 The previous question is a means for limiting debate. It can only be put in full Council (not the Committee of the Whole) and cannot be put when an amendment is being debated. If it is passed, no further amendments are possible to the main motion and Council shall vote immediately on the main motion without further debate. If the previous question fails, the main motion may not be put, but may be revived at a subsequent meeting.
A4.6 Motions to move into the Committee of the Whole or out of the committee may not be amended or debated. Motions to move out of the committee should indicate what is to be reported out to the full Council. The Committee of the Whole will be chaired by the Vice-Chair of Council.
A4.7 The following motions are debatable:
(a) The main motion, amendments and amendments to amendments
(b) Concurrence in a report of a Standing Committee or Task Force
(c) For the previous question
(d) The appointment of a committee or Task Force
(e) References to a committee
(f) Suspension of any Standing Order
(g) Points of Order
(h) Consideration of a motion by paragraph seriatim
(i) Appeals from a decision by the Chair.
Only (a), (b), (d), (e) may be amended.
A4.8 The following motions are not debatable:
(a) To postpone debate on the motion to a subsequent meeting
(b) To proceed to another item of business
(c) To extend the time limit of the meeting
(d) To recess the meeting
(e) To adjourn the meeting
(f) To add an item to the agenda
(g) To concur in any resolution from the Committee of the Whole
(h) That a decision of the Chair or chair of a committee be confirmed
(i) That debate on a question in Committee of the Whole not be adjourned or postponed
(j) That any member now be heard.
A4.9 The order of precedence of motions is:
(a) To fix a time for adjournment
(b) To adjourn
(c) To recess
(d) To extend the time limit of the meeting
(e) Questions of privilege
(f) The following motions are next in line of precedence but do not take any particular precedence over each other
i. Objections and appeals
ii. Points of information
iii. Points of order
iv. Withdrawal of a motion (requires unanimous consent)
(g) The previous question
(h) To postpone debate to a subsequent time or meeting
(i) To refer to a committee
(j) To amend the amendment
(k) An amendment
(l) To postpone debate indefinitely
(m) The main motion.
End of Section A
Approved by the Faculty of Environmental Studies Faculty Council on May 17, 2012
Approved by Senate on October 25, 2012
Table of Contents
B1.1 The Nominations Subcommittee shall consist of the Chair, who shall be the Vice-Chair of the Council, and the two elected faculty members of the Executive Committee, and the elected support staff member of the Executive Committee.
B1.2 The Nominations Subcommittee shall be responsible for the nomination of:
(a) candidates for all non-student elected positions on the Council and its committees and subcommittees;
(b) candidates for all other positions which the Council fills by election, including the nominees for election as representatives of FES on Senate committees;
(c) candidates for election to non-representative Senate Committees;
(d) candidates for election to committees of the Faculty of Graduate Studies.
B1.3 For those Senate committees that are established on the basis of representation from the Faculties, the Nominations Committee is responsible for ensuring that the Faculty seats are filled at all times.
Under the Collective Agreement relating to the York University Faculty Association, faculty members have the right to engage in part-time outside activities, paid or unpaid, “provided that such activities do not interfere with their obligations, duties and responsibilities to the University.” The following guidelines are intended to clarify the responsibilities that accompany these rights.
The statement of collegial responsibilities which follows presupposes an understanding of the traditional values of university life – that receiving an appointment at a university has meant and still means to most colleagues a commitment to a life of scholarship and creativity, and that the full professional energies of faculty members will be placed at the service of the academy and their disciplines. A tenured appointment guarantees freedom of thought and action to its holders. With this guarantee comes a commitment to the community of one’s academic peers to use those freedoms for the purposes for which they are intended. This shared trust must not be abused, either by inordinate or indiscreet activity which fails to meet the general criteria outlined below, or by failure to fulfil one’s university obligations. A university cannot function by constantly coercing faculty members to live up to their scholarly or creative responsibilities, or to refrain from taking on outside paid or unpaid work which is neither reflective nor innovative nor related to the academic and professional education concerns of the Faculty. However, the university must nonetheless be in a position to account to all of its members and to society at large for the way in which those responsibilities are discharged. It must therefore possess knowledge of the behaviour which will permit such an accounting, and must accept responsibility for dealing with abuse.
B2.2 Statement of Responsibilities
The responsibilities of full-time faculty members in the Faculty of Environmental Studies include participation in the following activities: (a) teaching, (b) advising of students, (c) research, scholarly, creative or professional activity, and (d) service to the University. These duties constitute the faculty member’s principal obligation to the Faculty and to the University.
(a) Teaching: Faculty members shall carry out their responsibility for teaching by keeping up to date with relevant secondary literature and carefully preparing lectures and course materials, taking care to make themselves accessible to students for academic consultation, to inform students adequately regarding course formats, assignments, and methods of evaluation, to maintain teaching schedules in all but exceptional circumstances, to inform students adequately of any necessary cancellation and rescheduling of instruction, and to adhere to the schedules for submission of grades and evaluation set by the Faculty.
(b) Advising of Students: Faculty members shall carry out their responsibility for advising of students, in both informal and formal settings, including general examinations and final examinations.
(c) Research, Scholarly, Creative or Professional Activity: Faculty members shall devote a reasonable proportion of their time to original research, innovative or reflective scholarly or creative work consistent with their academic stream and professional field. They shall make the results of such work available to the scholarly, professional, and general public through publications, lectures, and other appropriate means. Activity undertaken outside the University which is reflective and/or innovative and/or which contributes directly towards the faculty member’s academic responsibilities constitutes research, scholarly, creative or professional activity.
(d) Service to the University: Faculty members are expected to participate in the decision-making councils of the Faculty and the University, and to share the necessary administrative work of the Faculty and the University. Service to the Faculty and the University embraces service to the larger academic community, which is performed through (among other duties) reviewing academic and professional publications, and participating on editorial boards, granting councils, and other learned and professional associations. Faculty members may also serve the Faculty and the University, directly or indirectly, through service to the external community which does not take the form of research but which involves direct application of academic or professional qualifications or expertise.
In the performance of their professional responsibilities, faculty members shall deal fairly and ethically with their colleagues, students, and other members of the Faculty and the University community.
With respect to activities outside of the University, the Faculty of Environmental Studies recognizes that the matter is of great importance because professional education occupies an important place in the Faculty’s activities and because many of its faculty members engage routinely in outside professional activity (paid and unpaid) as part of their academic/ professional career.
B2.3 Faculty Procedures
(a) No full-time faculty member of the University may, at the same time, hold a full-time position or its equivalent elsewhere except when on leave of absence without pay.
(b) The purpose of determining a norm for outside activities is to set a general standard which positively identifies faculty members’ required commitment to their direct on-campus University activities, and which can be used to trigger an active consultation process between individuals and the Faculty administration. The basic requirement is that faculty members devote enough time to meet their stipulated teaching and advising responsibilities, to perform an equitable share of intra-Faculty or University-wide non-teaching activities, and to be readily accessible at convenient times to students and other faculty members, particularly for advising and oral examination purposes. The norms for full-time faculty members are as follows:
i. faculty members shall be physically available at least four days per week during the Fall and Winter Terms;
ii. the “normal” maximum level of outside activity during the Fall and Winter Terms should be an average of one day per week, although the heavy load of advising and oral examinations may require faculty members to be available at all normal working times during specific peak periods;
iii. during the Summer Term, there are no specific time norms for faculty members who have no course responsibilities during that term, although faculty members are required to be reasonably available for advising and oral examinations and to advise the Dean of any significant outside commitments beyond the normal personal vacation period;
iv. any departure from these norms should be dealt with by individual negotiation in advance with the Dean and may result in a reduction of obligations to, and remuneration from, the University;
v. the missing of scheduled classes in order to undertake paid employment or other unpaid activity outside the University must always be reported in advance to the Dean and satisfactory arrangements for makeup classes must be approved by the Dean.
(c) An individual shall consult with the Dean prior to embarking on a major outside commitment. Where an individual’s time commitment to outside activities is judged by the Dean to interfere with the fulfilment of teaching, research, and service responsibilities at a reasonable standard, the individual is expected to reduce such activities appropriately, seek a reduced teaching load or leave without pay, or resign.
(d) At the end of each term, the Dean may report to the Faculty on the status of faculty members indicating projected time commitments for the coming term.
(e) On an annual basis, individual faculty members shall report to the Dean on all outside activities beyond the trivial. In turn, the Dean may provide to the Faculty Council a summary report outlining the nature and extent of such activities and their contributions to the affairs of the Faculty.
(f) The University shall be reimbursed for all uses of its facilities in pursuit of outside activities.
(g) If the faculty member or the Dean so desires, an attempt to mediate any dispute between the Dean and a faculty member arising from a difference of opinion regarding the above procedures shall be undertaken through the collegial process traditionally part of the Faculty.
B3.1 Any project proposal made on behalf of the Faculty or using the name of the Faculty shall be submitted for advance approval by the Dean and for reference by the Dean to such advisory process or further approvals by other University officials as considered appropriate. This requirement applies to students, faculty members, and support staff alike.
B3.2 Every project in or directly relating to the Faculty shall have a Principal Investigator or Director designated by the Dean. In the case of an approved project of an individual nature, the initiator shall be the Principal Investigator or Director. The Principal Investigator or Director of each project shall be responsible for the work of the project and shall make regular reports to the Dean.
B3.3 The budgets of funded projects shall be under the administration of the Dean. The Principal Investigator or Director shall have direction and control of expenditures but shall not have independent signing authority. All communications on financial matters shall be subject to approval by the Dean.
B3.4 The Principal Investigator or Director of a project shall maintain in the Dean’s office a file of correspondence and reports pertaining to the project.
End of Section B
Approved by the Faculty of Environmental Studies Faculty Council on May 17, 2012
Approved by Senate on October 25, 2012
Table of Contents
C1.1.1 For each meeting of the Committee of Instruction, the agenda and documents for consideration at the meeting shall be distributed to every member of the Committee not less than five days prior to the meeting.
C1.1.2 Draft minutes of each meeting of the Committee of Instruction shall be distributed to every member of the Committee not later than one week prior to the next meeting.
Conduct that violates the ethical or legal standards of the University community is a serious matter. In particular, any breach of academic honesty is a most serious offense to both the University community and the academic enterprise. Therefore, all faculty members are required to treat any breach of academic honesty, no matter how small the breach may appear, as a most serious matter demanding most thorough investigation. The rules embodied in the University Senate Policy on Academic Honesty apply to all BES, MES, and PhD students. Graduate students are advised to also consult the Faculty of Graduate Studies Academic regulations website at http://www.yorku.ca/grads/policies_procedures/faculty_regulations.php?id=7 for more information.
As in all faculties, in the Faculty of Environmental Studies it is a serious offence against academic honesty, among other things, to cheat, to impersonate, to plagiarize or misappropriate the work of others, to practice improper research procedures, to be dishonest in publication, to aid and abet academic misconduct, or to undertake any other action that runs counter to academic honesty. In addition, some forms of breach of academic honesty might constitute offenses under the Criminal Code of Canada. When engaged in group work assignments, students are expected to be diligent with the portions they contribute as well as the work contributed by their group members. Everyone in the group assumes the responsibility of ensuring the academic integrity of the final document. While the pressures of school may be such that a student may feel pressured to breach academic honesty, students must completely resist such pressures. Students are expected to familiarize themselves with the Senate Policy on Academic Honesty (www.yorku.ca/secretariat/policies/).
End of Section C1
A1.1 CATEGORIES OF FES ‘FACULTY MEMBERS’
(a) Full-time faculty member whose home Faculty is FES.
Approved by the Faculty of Environmental Studies Faculty Council on May 17, 2012 Approved by Senate on October 25, 2012
TABLE OF CONTENTS
(a) The MES Program and Curriculum Subcommittee shall:
i. regularly review the graduate curriculum of the Faculty in terms of policy, curriculum structure, and course offerings;
ii. receive proposed course descriptions and course outlines from course directors and other faculty members;
iii. propose approval of course offerings for the consideration of the Committee of Instruction;
iv. relate the subcommittee’s work on curriculum formulation and implementation to wider Faculty program development issues, e.g., faculty appointments, changing student profiles and needs, workloads, course evaluations, Faculty and University academic plans, changing academic environments, etc.
v. notify the Dean when part-time course directors at the graduate level are needed to meet curriculum requirements, and suggest the names of qualified candidates for these positions.
(b) All final actions of the subcommittee shall be subject to approval by the Committee of Instruction, which may refer any action back to the subcommittee for further consideration. The Committee of Instruction and the MES Program and Curriculum Subcommittee may delegate its authority to the MES Program Coordinator or the Graduate Program Director to make decisions on proposed actions on MES Plans of study and on petitions concerning individual student programs.
(c) The Graduate Program Director or MES Program Coordinator will report on decisions on Petitions and Plans of Study to the MES Program and Curriculum Subcommittee. These decisions will be subject to confirmation by the MES Program and Curriculum Subcommittee.
(d) The subcommittee shall regularly present a report to the Committee of Instruction.
(a) Individual study activities undertaken by FES graduate students are normally supervised by FES faculty members. In special circumstances, persons from outside FES may supervise individual study activities, but only if they are appointed by the Dean or delegate as instructors in one or other of the approved individual activity courses.
(b) To make the case for an outside supervisor, it is necessary to demonstrate (1) that there is no suitable FES faculty member available to be the supervisor, and (2) that the person nominated is suitably qualified for appointment as an instructor, and (3) that the faculty advisor supports the request.
(c) If the nominee is in another Faculty at York and is already a member of the graduate faculty, such an appointment is generally straightforward, provided that the person is willing to be the supervisor (without additional remuneration).
(d) If the nominee is a faculty member in another university, documentation of their qualifications for the role of supervisor and their willingness to perform the role (without remuneration) must be provided with the application for registration in the individual activity.
(e) If the nominee is not in a university the student must provide a curriculum vitae and additional documentation that clearly demonstrates the nominee’s qualifications to be appointed for the purpose, prior to submitting the application for registration in the individual activity.
(f) For the following courses, nomination of outside supervisors may occur in conjunction with application for registration in the course and the signature of the nominee on the registration form is taken as agreement by the nominee to perform the role of supervisor in conformity with FES academic regulations:
ENVS 5599 Readings in Environmental Studies
ENVS 6599 Individual Directed Study
ENVS 7599 Individual Directed Study
ENVS 8599 Independent PhD Research.
(g) For the following courses, a formal written agreement is entered into between the Faculty and the outside supervisor for the performance of the role under FES regulations. The nomination should be considered well in advance of the MES II to MES III examination so that the appointment may be considered by the Graduate Program Director prior to the examination:
ENVS 7798 MES Major Portfolio Independent Work
ENVS 7799 MES Major Project Independent Work
ENVS 7899 MES Major Paper Independent Work.
(h) For the following course, outside supervision will be considered only in rare circumstances and special negotiation and approval by the Graduate Program Director are required:
ENVS 7999 MES Thesis Research.
(a) Work in graduate courses in Environmental Studies is required to be completed by the student during the course period in the term in which the course is taken. Students and faculty members are expected to be familiar with FES academic regulations governing graduate courses, in which the conditions for the grade of ‘Incomplete’ are spelled out.
(b) It is the obligation of the course director to ensure that the requirements of a course can be completed reasonably during the course period as established in the academic calendar. All work in a course should be completed by the last day of courses. The last day of courses is set sufficiently in advance of the end of the term to provide adequate time for the course director to evaluate the students’ performance and submit the grade report and evaluations before the deadline for submission of grades. It is the obligation of the students to arrange their individual work programs so that they can fulfil the requirements of the course as set forth in the course outline, as approved by the Graduate Program Director.
(c) Course directors are obligated to submit their grade reports by the date set for the purpose and not to delay the report because one or more students have not submitted their work. Course directors are required to report the grade of U (Unsatisfactory) for students who have not submitted their work by the due date and have not negotiated to be incomplete.
(d) There are times when students may wish to be incomplete in a course because they want to do additional work beyond that set forth in the course outline, and the course director may be amenable. In this situation, the appropriate procedure is to negotiate further enrollment for the additional work as part of the registration for the next term, rather than to be incomplete in the course.
(e) In rare circumstances, the course director may allow a student to be incomplete in a course, subject to approval by the Graduate Program Director. In such situations the student must submit a formal petition to be incomplete in the course, with the endorsement of the primary faculty advisor and the course director. The petition must be attached to the grade report submitted by the course director and must contain a proposed date for completion of the outstanding work. If the student does not submit the work by the deadline approved by the Graduate Program Director, the course director is obliged to report the grade of U (Unsatisfactory).
(f) Because incomplete work carried over into the next term represents an overload of work, students who are incomplete in two or more courses are required to withdraw registration in the incomplete courses and register again for the courses in the current term.
(g) Students with incomplete course work are not permitted to advance from MES II to MES III.
(a) The MES Program and Curriculum Subcommittee shall consider and make decisions on proposed actions on MES Plans of Study and on petitions concerning individual MES student programs, on behalf of the Committee of Instruction.
(b) The Committee of Instruction and the MES Program and Curriculum Subcommittee may delegate its authority to the Graduate Program Director or the MES Program Coordinator to make decisions on proposed actions on MES Plans of Study and on petitions concerning individual student programs. The Graduate Program Director or the MES Program Coordinator will report on such decisions to the MES Program and Curriculum Committee. Such decisions will be subject to confirmation by the MES Program Subcommittee.
(c) Upon the written request of the student involved or of any faculty member, the decision of the subcommittee regarding a petition or a proposed action on a Plan of Study will be set aside and the matter referred for a substitute decision by the Committee of Instruction.
(d) Where a matter is referred by a student or faculty member for substitute decision by the Committee of Instruction, the Committee of Instruction may refer the matter to the subcommittee for further information and recommendation, but not for decision.
(e) The subcommittee may refer any matter to the Committee of Instruction for discussion or decision or for both.
(f) Decisions of the subcommittee will be made by majority vote of the voting members.
(a) Each term, it is important that all graduate students register before the deadline for registration so that course enrollment lists can be provided to course directors and the status of graduate students confirmed.
(b) MES students who have been required to have General Examinations before registration, but who have not had the examination by the deadline for registration, will not be allowed to register and will thereby be withdrawn from the Faculty.
(c) In most cases, the required General Examination will have been held and the revised Plan of Study in proper form will be in the student’s dossier along with the completed green action form. However, there will be some situations that require special attention, as follows:
i. If the student has provided the required revision to the Plan of Study but the General Examination cannot be arranged before the deadline for registration, the advisor should complete a green action form setting a new date for the general examination. If (and only if) the action sheet and the revised Plan of Study are in the dossier, the student will be permitted to register.
ii. If the student has provided a draft revision to the Plan of Study which satisfies the advisor that enough progress has been made to anticipate a general examination in the near future, the advisor should complete a green action form setting a new date for the General Examination. If (and only if) the action sheet and the draft Plan of Study are in the dossier, the student will be permitted to register.
iii. If individual circumstances indicate that a revision to the Plan of Study is not after all appropriate at this time, the advisor should complete a green action form explaining the particular circumstances and setting new dates for revision to the Plan of Study and for the General Examination. Further consultation may be required before the student is permitted to register.
iv. If the student has not made adequate progress in revising the Plan of Study, the advisor should not sign the registration forms and should complete a green action form calling for a Dean’s General Examination to determine the status of the student in the MES program.
Responsibilities of students
(a) Each term, students scheduled to complete their MES programs in that term are sent a memorandum by the Office of Student and Academic Services setting forth the steps to be taken by the student, and a copy of this memorandum is provided to every faculty member. The OSAS uses the expected date of completion as recorded on the last action report on the Plan of Study. If that date changes, it is the responsibility of the student to ensure that a new action report is completed by the primary advisor.
Responsibilities of faculty members
(b) Students who are scheduled to complete the MES program in the current term are required to submit their applications for award of the MES degree, along with supporting documentation, by the last day of the penultimate month in the term. As soon after that date as possible, the advisor is expected to review the material submitted by the student and to complete the appropriate section of the application form, confirming whether the Final Examination may be scheduled.
(c) If the student is not in a position to submit the required material by the deadline or has decided not to complete the program as scheduled, the Plan of Study is no longer in effect and any residual credit previously awarded is automatically rescinded. It is the responsibility of the advisor to arrange the necessary General Examination to consider a revised Plan of Study with a new completion date.
(d) In some instances there may be no substantive change in the Plan of Study other than a change of completion date. In those cases, the faculty advisor may consider that a formal General Examination is not needed, in which event the advisor should complete and submit to the OSAS the green action form establishing the new completion date.
(e) In other cases, substantive revision to the Plan of Study will be needed, in which event the faculty advisor is expected to convene a General Examination to consider a revised Plan of Study.
(f) Action on the Plan of Study should be taken by the advisor as soon as the student indicates that the program will not be completed as scheduled, and action must be taken for approval by the Committee of Instruction prior to registration for the next term.
End of Section C2
TABLE OF CONTENTS
The PhD Program, Curriculum and Admissions Subcommittee may include for its deliberations such additional faculty members as it considers necessary.
(a) To be considered for admission to the PhD program in Environmental Studies, the applicant normally must be a graduate of a recognized university with a masters degree in an appropriate field of study from an accredited university with academic standing of at least “B+.”
(b) English is the language of instruction of the Faculty. Students whose first language is not English must provide evidence of competence in English to the satisfaction of the PhD Program, Curriculum and Admissions Subcommittee. The PhD Program, Curriculum and Admissions Subcommittee shall determine whether further evidence of competence in English is needed by an applicant who is otherwise admissible.
(c) An application for admission to the PhD program consists of:
i. an application for admission to the Faculty of Graduate Studies;
ii. official transcripts of all previous and current post-secondary education;
iii. a minimum of three letters of reference that speak to the applicant’s academic capacity and potential;
iv. a curriculum vitae;
v. a statement of proposed areas of study and intended dissertation research;
vi. a sample of written work (50 pages maximum) and, where appropriate, other portfolio material which is relevant to the proposed program of study;
vii. any other materials as required.
(d) Applications for admission should be submitted by the deadline for admission in the Fall term only
(e) For admission to the PhD program, the application must be accepted by the Faculty of Environmental Studies and the Faculty of Graduate Studies.
(a) Recommendation for admission to the Faculty of Graduate Studies is made by the Graduate Program Director. The Graduate Program Director’s decision is not subject to appeal by an applicant.
(b) The Graduate Program Director acts on the advice of the PhD Program, Curriculum and Admissions Subcommittee.
(c) When the required admission information has been received, each file is reviewed by members of the Subcommittee and discussed at a meeting of the Subcommittee. The Subcommittee may recommend admission to the Graduate Program Director at that point or require that further information be provided by the applicant.
(d) In the case of an applicant not recommended for admission, notification is sent by the Graduate Program Director. In the case of an applicant recommended for admission, notification of the recommendation is sent to the applicant by the FES Dean and the Faculty of Graduate Studies.
(e) The subcommittee uses the following admissions criteria:
i. intellectual capacity (e.g., grades, letters of recommendation, sample of written work),
ii. learning potential (e.g., statement of) proposed research, letters of recommendation,
iii. appropriateness of proposed research to FES of intended study program (e.g., statement of proposed research).
(f) Applicants will be invited as part of the normal applications process to voluntarily provide information on whether they self-identify with one or more equity-seeking groups, and to include in their Personal Statements reference to any individual or systemic barriers they have encountered. The PhD Program, Curriculum and Admission Subcommittee will consider this information in its comprehensive review of applications with the goal of balancing individual and collective considerations, incorporating both academic excellence and social diversity, broadening the criteria of assessment, and admitting a diverse and academically talented group of students.
(g) Before issuing offers of admission, the PhD Program, Curriculum, and Admissions Subcommittee will confirm an appropriate Faculty member who is willing to serve as the student’s Interim Advisor.
(a) The PhD Coordinator, on behalf of the PhD Program, Curriculum and Admissions Subcommittee, shall consider and make decisions on actions proposed by Advisory and Supervisory committees on petitions concerning individual PhD student programs.
(b) All decisions of the Subcommittee are ultimately subject to confirmation by the Committee of Instruction. The Committee of Instruction may refer any decision back to the subcommittee for further consideration.
(c) Upon the written request of the student involved or of any faculty member, the decision of the Subcommittee regarding a petition or a proposed action on a PhD Program Plan will be referred to the Committee of Instruction for review.
(d) The PhD Program Coordinator may, on behalf of the Subcommittee refer any matter to the Committee of Instruction for discussion or decision or for both.
(e) Decisions of the Subcommittee will be made by consensus of the voting members.
(f) The PhD Program Coordinator, on behalf of the Subcommittee, shall present a report to the Committee of Instruction.
C3.5 PROCEDURE FOR THE DESIGNATION OF POTENTIAL PhD DISSERTATION SUPERVISORS IN THE GRADUATE PROGRAM IN ENVIRONMENTAL STUDIES
(a) As recognised by the Faculty of Graduate Studies and the Senate, all faculty members holding appointment in the Faculty of Environmental Studies are automatically members of the Graduate Program in Environmental Studies. All members of the Graduate Program in Environmental Studies are all potentially eligible for the following activities:
i. primary or secondary faculty advisor for an MES student;
ii membership on a PhD advisory committee;
iii. faculty advisor for a PhD student and chair of the Advisory Committee;
iv. course director or instructor of a graduate course including course director of an individual activity;
v. supervision of an MES Major Project, Major Paper, Major Portfolio or Thesis (and course director of related individual activity);
vi. membership on an MES Thesis Supervisory committee;
vii. membership on a PhD Dissertation Supervisory committee.
(b) Only faculty members who are members of the Graduate Program in Environmental Studies and who are designated as “Potential PhD Dissertation Supervisors” are eligible for appointment to the following activities:
i. supervisor of a PhD dissertation;
ii. chair of a PhD Dissertation Supervisory Committee.
These two functions are coincident; that is, the faculty member who supervises a dissertation is the chair of the PhD Dissertation Supervisory Committee for that student.
(c) Applications of faculty members who wish to be considered for designation as “Potential PhD Dissertation Supervisors” will be considered beginning in September of the year in advance of a Graduate Program Review
Designation or re-designation as “Potential PhD Dissertation Supervisor” will be for a maximum term of until the September of the year in advance of a Graduate Program Review process. In addition, any teaching faculty member may apply at any time to be considered for appointment as a “Potential PhD Dissertation Supervisor,” in which case the term of the appointment will be less than seven years, normally extending only to the next review submission date. Any faculty member may at any time request to have her/his name removed from the list of “Potential PhD Supervisors.”
(d) The process for seeking designation, re-designation, or review of designation as a “Potential PhD Dissertation Supervisor” is as follows:
i. The faculty member shall submit to the PhD Program Coordinator an up-to-date curriculum vitae (in standard FES format) and a statement (of approximately one page) outlining his/her graduate teaching, supervision, committee membership, and general contribution to the Graduate Program in Environmental Studies since appointment to the graduate faculty and as projected over the period till the next expected review.
ii If the applicant, the PhD Program Coordinator, or the Graduate Program Director requests it, the applicant, the PhD Program Coordinator, and the Graduate Program Director shall meet prior to the application being submitted.
iii. The PhD Program Coordinator shall submit applications to the PhD Program, Curriculum and Admissions Subcommittee which shall make a recommendation on applications for consideration by the Executive Committee of the Faculty of Graduate Studies.
iv. The PhD Program, Curriculum and Admissions Subcommittee shall use the following criteria on which to base its recommendation, with a positive recommendation being based on a satisfactory evaluation of allcriteria:
1) Membership in the Graduate Program in Environmental Studies.
2) Contribution to Research or Scholarship or Professional or Artistic Activity:
a PhD or demonstrated equivalent research, scholarship, professional, or artistic contribution and
sustained research or scholarship or professional or artistic activity, particularly in the last seven years, as evidenced in the curriculum vitae and the statement noted above.
NB: Such activity may include refereed publications, other modes of public scholarship in a form available for peer review (e.g., conference papers, commissioned reports, other reports generated by outside professional activity, papers to learned societies, invited papers to scholarly audiences, non-refereed publications), scholarly editorships, honours and awards (e.g., leave grants, research grants, honorary degrees), roles as outside examiners (for theses and dissertations at other universities), review and evaluation activities, and other activities such as creative writing or work in the theatre and media where these bear on scholarly work.
3) Satisfactory graduate teaching and supervision:
satisfactory course evaluations for graduate courses taught and
successful supervision of at least one doctoral dissertation in the past seven years or at least three masters theses, major papers or major projects in the past seven years.
v. In the case of a teaching faculty member whose contributions have been constrained by the holding of a senior administrative post within the university, the PhD Program Subcommittee may consider these extenuating circumstances.
vi. In the event that the PhD Program, Curriculum and Admissions Subcommittee anticipates making a negative recommendation on a particular application, it shall so inform the applicant and invite the applicant to meet with the subcommittee beforehand if the applicant so chooses.
vii. The PhD Program, Curriculum and Admissions Subcommittee shall make its report in writing to the Dean of the Faculty of Environmental Studies, with a copy to the applicant, stating clearly its recommendation and the grounds for its recommendation.
viii. In the event of a positive recommendation from the PhD Program, Curriculum and Admissions Subcommittee, the Dean of the Faculty of Environmental Studies shall submit the recommendation to the Executive Committee of the Faculty of Graduate Studies.
ix. In the event of a negative recommendation from the PhD Program, Curriculum and Admissions Subcommittee, an applicant may, within ten working days (although that period shall be extended in a fair manner in the case of applicants who are on leave or in other similar special circumstances), request that the subcommittee review its recommendation on the grounds of procedure, new evidence, or faulty interpretation by the subcommittee of old evidence. The applicant has the right to submit additional material concerning the stated grounds and to appear before the subcommittee. If the subcommittee subsequently upholds its negative recommendation, the applicant may appeal to an Ad Hoc Review Committee.
x. An Ad Hoc Review Committee shall be established by the Dean of the Faculty of Environmental Studies for each individual appeal. The Committee shall consist of one faculty member of the Faculty of Environmental Studies (who must be an approved Potential PhD Dissertation Supervisor) selected by the appellant and two teaching faculty members of the Faculty of Environmental Studies (at least one of whom must be an approved Potential PhD Dissertation Supervisor) selected by the Dean of the Faculty of Environmental Studies; the Dean shall appoint one of these three as the Chair. In the event that the Dean is the appellant, the Dean’s responsibilities in the appeal shall be delegated to the Graduate Program Director or to the teaching faculty member who is the Chair or Vice-Chair of the Council of the Faculty of Environmental Studies. Members of the PhD Program, Curriculum and Admissions Subcommittee shall not be eligible to sit on an Ad Hoc Review Committee. In the event of a positive recommendation from an Ad Hoc Review Committee, the Dean of the Faculty of Environmental Studies shall submit the recommendation to the Executive Committee of the Faculty of Graduate Studies. In the event of a negative recommendation from the Ad Hoc Review Committee, the appellant may request a reconsideration of the matter by the Executive Committee of the Faculty of Graduate Studies.
xi. At all times during the process, the applicant may (a) consult with the Dean of the Faculty of Environmental Studies, the Graduate Program Director, and/or the PhD Program Coordinator, and/or (b) request a meeting with the PhD Program, Curriculum and Admissions Subcommittee.
xii. In all cases, members of the PhD Program, Curriculum and Admissions Subcommittee shall not participate in the decisions when their own applications are being considered.
(e) Upon the recommendation of the PhD Program, Curriculum and Admissions Subcommittee, the Dean of the Faculty of Environ-mental Studies may appoint qualified members of the graduate faculty in other York University graduate programs to be members of the Graduate Program in Environmental Studies for the purpose of supervising PhD Dissertations.
TABLE OF CONTENTS
The MES Admissions Subcommittee may include for its deliberations such additional faculty members and student members of the Faculty as it considers necessary.
(a) To be considered for admission to the MES program in Environmental Studies, the applicant normally must have an honours (or four-year) undergraduate degree from an accredited university with an academic standing of at least “B+” or equivalent
(b) An applicant for admission who does not have a previous degree or whose undergraduate record is below the minium requirements outlined in (a) above must provide evidence, acceptable to the MES Admissions Subcommittee, of equivalent qualifications.
(c) English is the language of instruction of the Faculty. Applicants whose first language is not English must provide evidence of competence in English to the satisfaction of the MES Admissions Subcommittee
(d) An application for admission to the MES program consists of:
i. An application for admission to the Faculty of Graduate Studies;
ii. official transcripts of all previous university work;
iii. at least three academic/professional letters of recommendation (with academic letters strongly preferred);
iv. a curriculum vitae;
v. a statement of educational and career objectives;
vi. additional information or administrative forms as required.
(e) MES applicants will be invited as part of the normal applications process to voluntarily provide information on whether they self-identify with one or more equity-seeking groups, and to include in their Personal statements reference to any individual or systemic barriers they have encountered.
(f) Application deadlines for entry into the Fall term will be set the preceding Fall and will be posted on the FES website. Normally, applications will be considered for admission in the Fall term only.
(g) For admission to the MES program the application must be accepted by the Faculty of Environmental Studies and the Faculty of Graduate Studies.
(a) Decision on admission to the MES degree program is made by the Graduate Program Director.
(b) Recommendation for admission to the Faculty of Graduate Studies is made by the Graduate Program Director. The Graduate Program Director’s decision is not subject to appeal by the applicant.
(c) The Graduate Program Director acts on the advice of the MES Admissions Subcommittee.
(d) When the required admission information has been received, each file is reviewed by members of the subcommittee. The subcommittee may provide advice to the Graduate Program Director at that point or require that further information be provided by the applicant.
(e) The MES Admissions Subcommittee will consider the self-identification and diversity information provided by applicants in its review of applications, with the goal of balancing individual and collective considerations, incorporating both academic excellence and social diversity, broadening the criteria of assessment, and admitting a diverse and academically talented group of students.
(f) In the case of an applicant not recommended for admission, notification is sent by the Graduate Program Director. In the case of an applicant recommended for admission, notification of recommendation for admission to the MES program is sent by the Dean of FES to the applicant and to the Faculty of Graduate Studies.
End of Section C4
C5.1 MES AWARDS SUBCOMMITTEE PROCEDURES
(a) The MES Awards Subcommittee is responsible for the adjudication of internal and external FES awards.
(b) The MES Awards Subcommittee may appoint such subcommittees as it considers necessary to conduct its business.
(c) The MES Awards Subcommittee shall periodically review and recommend to the Council the policies of the Faculty with respect to awards.
End of Section C5
C6.1 GRADE ASSESSMENT SUBCOMMITTEE PROCEDURES
(a) The Grade Assessment Subcommittee shall assess letter-grade evaluations, primarily for external scholarship applications.
(b) Questions of conflict of interest may be raised by any member of the Grade Assessment Subcommittee or by the person or persons requesting the letter-grade evaluation. The Chair of the Subcommittee shall direct all such questions to the Executive Committee which shall rule on such questions.
(d) The Grade Assessment Subcommittee may appoint such subcommittees as it considers necessary to conduct its business.
(f) The Grade Assessment Subcommittee shall periodically review and recommend to the Council the policies of the Faculty with respect to academic assessment.
End of Section C6
C7.1 MANDATE OF THE SUBCOMMITTEE
There are eight aspects to the responsibilities of the subcommittee:
(a) developing MES/JD program curriculum, procedures, policies, regulations (subject to approval by the Committee of Instruction as required),
(b) approving the MES/JD program handbook each year,
(c) reviewing the incoming class of MES/JD students each year,
(d) tracking and reviewing the progress of continuing MES/JD students,
(e) developing MES/JD program seminar topics,
(f) developing and implementation of strategies for MES/JD program recruitment,
(g) adjudicating the Jim McNeil Award
(h) undertaking other matters related to the administration of the MES/JD program.
End of Section C7
TABLE OF CONTENTS
8.1 Mandate 8.2 Liaison With Planning Programs in Other Universities 8.3 Liaison With Academic Planning Organization 8.4 Liaison with the Ontario Professional Planners Institute and the Canadian Institute of Planners 8.5 Accredited Degree in Planning
There are three aspects to the responsibilities of the subcommittee:
(a) maintaining relationships with planning programs in other universities,
(b) maintaining linkages with academic planning organizations such as the Association of Canadian University Planning Programs (ACUPP) and the Association of Collegiate Schools of Planning (ACSP),
(c) maintaining relationships with the Ontario Professional Planners Institute (OPPI) and the Canadian Institute of Planners (CIP), including responsibility for fulfilment by FES students of the institutes’ designation of planning competencies.
(a) The Planning Programs Sub-committee shall assume responsibility for maintaining relationships with planning programs in other Canadian universities. This will include:
i. regular correspondence with the programs to exchange information on curriculum, academic requirements and faculty participating in the program,
ii. coordinating visits to other programs by FES faculty members and by faculty members of other programs to FES,
iii. seeking opportunities for collaborative activities with other programs (e.g., sponsoring workshops/seminars on special topics/issues, organizing visits of international planning scholars),
iv. attending meetings or arranging for an FES representative to attend meetings of planning programs.
(b) The Dean shall make funds available for liaison with planning programs in other universities and at the start of each fiscal year shall inform the Planning Programs Subcommittee of the budget allocated for this purpose.
(a) FES shall maintain institutional membership in the relevant associations representing planning programs, for example, the Association of Canadian University Planning Programs (ACUPP)
(b) Each year a member of the Planning Programs Subcommittee shall be designated as the FES representative to attend meetings of ACUPP and if no member of the subcommittee is able to attend, the Planning Programs Coordinator shall ask the Dean to appoint an alternate.
(c) Each year a member of the Planning Programs Subcommittee shall be designated as the FES representative to attend the annual meeting of ACSP and if no member of the subcommittee is able to attend, the Planning Programs Coordinator shall ask the Dean to appoint an alternate.
(d) The Dean shall make funds available for liaison with academic planning organizations and at the start of each fiscal year shall inform the Planning Programs Subcommittee of the budget allocated for this purpose.
C8.4 LIAISON WITH THE ONTARIO PROFESSIONAL PLANNERS INSTITUTE (OPPI) AND THE CANADIAN INSTITUTE OF PLANNERS (CIP)
(a) Subcommittee Responsibilities
The Planning Programs Subcommittee shall assume responsibility for maintaining relationships with the OPPI and the CIP and responding to requirements for the accreditation of the MES (Planning) degree by the OPPI and the CIP. The Subcommittee shall provide students with opportunities to learn about OPPI/CIP membership requirements.
(b) Information Kit for Students
Incoming MES students who are interested in becoming OPPI/CIP members will be provided with a kit containing at least the following items of information:
OPPI membership information brochure;
Professional Code of Conduct of the OPPI;
Excerpts from the OPPI bylaws pertaining to membership requirements;
FES advising guidelines;
The collation and updating of this information kit shall be the responsibility of the Planning Programs Coordinator and shall be reviewed by the Planning Programs Subcommittee.
MES students seeking to be certified as having obtained a degree in planning as recognized by the OPPI and the CIP shall fulfil the requirements as outlined in the Planning Programs Handbook and posted on the FES website.
The degree of Master in Environmental Studies (Planning) is recognized on an individual basis by the Ontario Professional Planners Institute (OPPI) and the Canadian Institute of Planners (CIP) as a “degree in planning” for the purposes of eligibility for membership in the two institutes. For the individual MES degree to be certified as a degree in planning as recognized by OPPI/CIP, the following procedures must be followed:
(a) Students must declare their intent to apply for membership in OPPI. This will be done through the Plan of Study, normally at the time of the MES I to MES II general examination. It is possible for students to make this declaration as late as the end of the third full term of study, at which time the student would ordinarily have completed 36 credits of work.
(b) The individual program must address the field of planning, as defined by the OPPI general by-law. Whatever the specification of the individual Area of Concentration, the word “planning” must appear in the title, to conform to the degree designation of “MES (Planning)” that is accredited by CIP.
(c) The Plan of Study must set forth how the student intends to meet the requirements of the Planning Program within the MES Program, including OPPI/CIP competency requirements.
End of Section C8
C9.1 MANDATE OF THE SUBCOMMITTEE
(a) The Undergraduate Program and Curriculum Subcommittee shall:
i. regularly review the undergraduate program of the Faculty in terms of policy, curriculum, certificates and course offerings, etc., as appropriate to the BES Program;
ii. receive new course proposals or revised course descriptions from faculty members;
iii. approve of course offerings for the consideration of the Committee of Instruction;
iv. review and approve annually all major changes to the Academic Regulations in the FES Undergraduate Handbook;
v. relate the Subcommittee’s work on curriculum formulation and implementation to items identified in the University Undergraduate Program Review (UPR).
vi. Decisions of the Subcommittee will be made by majority of the voting members
(b) All final actions of the subcommittee shall be subject to approval by the Committee of Instruction (and, where necessary Faculty Council and Senate), which may refer any action back to the subcommittee for further consideration.
(c) The Subcommittee Chair shall present a report to the Committee of Instruction on major decisions and plans.
End of Section C9
TABLE OF CONTENTS
C10.1 MANDATE OF THE SUBCOMMITTEE
(a) The Undergraduate Academic Review and Admissions Subcommittee shall:
i. review and approve/reject special admissions “Subcommittee Files” received from the York Central Admissions Office;
ii. adjudicate undergraduate student awards;
iii. adjudicate undergraduate student Academic Integrity cases referred to after the initial Academic Integrity hearing;
iv. review student academic petitions, on the advice of the Undergraduate Program Director.
v. make decisions by the majority of voting members
(a) To be considered for admission to the BES program in Environmental Studies, the applicant normally must have: Ontario Secondary School Diploma (OSSD) and six 4U or 4M courses including English 4Uan average of 70% or better; and credits in mathematics and biology being recommended.
(b) English is the language of instruction of the Faculty. Students whose first language is not English must provide evidence of competence in English to the satisfaction of the University, as follows:
i. At the time of application for admission, an applicant who is not a Canadian Citizen or a Landed Immigrant in Canada must provide results of the International English Language Testing Services (IELTS) or of the York English Language Test (YELT) or of the Test of English as a Foreign Language (TOEFL) as may be approved by the University for the particular applicant. Applicants whose first language is English may be exempted from this requirement or students who have completed YUELI Intensive Program Level 6.
ii. The Undergraduate Academic Review and Admissions Subcommittee shall determine whether further instruction in English and further evidence of competence in English is needed by an applicant who is otherwise admissible.
(c) An application for admission to the BES program consists of material as required by the Admissions Office for undergraduate admission.
(d) BES applicants will be invited as part of the normal applications process to voluntarily provide information on whether they self-identify with one or more equity-seeking groups, and to include in their application letter reference to any individual or systemic barriers they have encountered.
(a) Decision on admission to the BES degree program is made by the Admission Office.
(b) The Undergraduate Program Director acts on the advice of the Undergraduate Academic Review and Admissions Subcommittee on Subcommittee files.
(c) When all required admissions information has been received for Subcommittee decision, each file is reviewed by members of the subcommittee and discussed at a formal meeting of the subcommittee. The subcommittee may provide advice to the Undergraduate Program Director at that point or require that further information be provided by the applicant.
(d) The Undergraduate Academic Review and Admissions Subcommittee will consider the self-identification and diversity information provided by applicants in its review of applications, with the goal of balancing individual and collective considerations, incorporating both academic excellence and social diversity, broadening the criteria of assessment, and admitting a diverse and academically talented group of students.
(e) Applicants are notified in writing by the Admissions Office of the results.
(f) The subcommittee uses the following admissions criteria:
i. intellectual capacity (e.g., grades)
ii. learning potential (e.g., successful completion of test of language skills)
iii. appropriateness to FES of intended study program
End of Section C10
Approved by Senate on October 25, 2012
Table of Contents
The Research Committee’s primary mandate is to promote a vibrant research culture among faculty and students. It achieves this goal through the following strategies:
D1.1 Recommends research related policy matters to the Committee of Instruction, Faculty Council and the Dean’s office.
D1.2 Engages in continual short and long term planning around strategies, goals, publications, and other approaches that strengthen the dynamic and collaborative research culture at FES and produces an annual report on research at FES.
D1.3 Provides encouragement and support for individual and collaborative funding applications.
D1.4 Adjudicates faculty research grants such as the Small Research Grants, Small Travel Grants and Specific Research Leave and Non-Leave Grants.
D1.5 Reviews Risk Assessment and Human Participants Research applications for activities associated with unfunded research and research involving minimal risk.
D1.6 Provides advice to the Dean on faculty research-related awards, particularly prestigious awards.
D1.7 Promotes an active role for students in the research culture at FES.
D1.8 Supports faculty and student initiatives that highlight internal research activities.
D1.9 Coordinates research related events and forums that strengthen the research culture at FES.
D2.1 RELEASE TIME FOR RESEARCH FELLOWSHIPS
Relatively large and unbroken blocks of time required for research activity are difficult to find in the Faculty of Environmental Studies, with its unique demands upon faculty members. Release Time for Research Fellowships are intended to recognize, encourage, and facilitate outstanding research activity by reducing fragmentation of a faculty member’s time presently distributed among teaching, advising, committee work, administration, and research.
The Release Time For Research program permits selected faculty members to contract with the Faculty, through the Dean, to opt out of the majority of their teaching, committee, and administrative responsibilities for one or two terms, in order to concentrate the majority of their efforts on research activity. Advising responsibilities continue to be carried by faculty members involved in this program.
(a) The feasibility of making any offer of Release Time for any given year shall be determined by the Dean in consultation with the MES Program and Curriculum Subcommittee, the Undergraduate Program and Curriculum Subcommittee, the Graduate Program Director, and the Undergraduate Program Director — save where a special fund may be established for the purpose from external sources. The sufficiency of any such special fund for a given year shall be determined by the Dean in consultation with the curriculum subcommittees and the program directors.
(b) The Dean shall advise the Research Committee of the decision prior to November 1st each year, with respect to the period commencing in September of the following calendar year.
D2.1.4 Number of Fellowships
(a) There may be up to two awards per year, in two categories.
(b) In the event that the Dean determines that funds are available for only one offer of Release Time, the competition shall be open only to untenured faculty members, unless the Dean, in consultation with the Committee of Instruction, determines that the relative proportion of tenured and untenured faculty members warrants opening the competition to faculty members from both categories.
Full-time faculty members are eligible to hold fellowships. If there are two fellowships in one year, there shall be separate competitions for untenured and tenured full-time faculty members.
Normally, no more than one award may be granted to any individual within a three-year period. Normally, awards may not be used for purposes of completing a Doctoral Dissertation. Individuals are not eligible for the award in the year following sabbatical.
D2.1.7 Application Procedure
Applications should be submitted to the Secretary of the Research and Awards Committee.
(a) Each application must include a detailed statement of the project, with appropriate reference to the program selection criteria, and a timetable for its completion.
(b) The Research Committee shall announce, by November 2nd each year, whether any and how many competitions for Release Time will be held in respect of the period commencing in September of the following calendar year.
(c) The deadline for submission of all applications and supporting material is January 15th. The Research Committee shall make its recommendations to the Dean in accordance with D2.1.9 below prior to February 15th. The Dean shall announce the results of the competition by March 15th.
(a) The research should be interdisciplinary in the sense that it is research of the sort that is difficult and/or unlikely to be done in a traditional, disciplinary, departmental setting.
(b) It should be innovative research of high quality.
(c) It should, ideally, possess potential for developing into more than simply a single faculty member’s research effort. That is, it should possess potential benefit to the Faculty.
(d) The research should involve or potentially involve students in substantive research.
(e) It is desirable that the proposed research be funded with particular emphasis on funding for student involvement. However, the release time may be deemed appropriate for the generation of appropriate research proposals and the generation of research support.
(f) There should be a likelihood of completion of the research project or a particular aspect of the research project, during the tenure of the fellowship.
(g) The fellowship is generally intended to support research upon which considerable work has been accomplished as opposed to support of very preliminary research activity.
(h) The output of the research should be publishable.
D2.1.9 Selection Procedure
In the event that a competition will be held for any given year, applications will be solicited, through a publicly announced process, and judged by the Research Committee. The Research Committee will make recommendations to the Dean. The Dean shall announce the results of the competition. The Dean will retain full authority for authorizing Release Time awards. The Dean is not bound by the recommendation of the Research Committee.
D2.1.10 Obligations of Research Fellows
(a) Research fellows are expected to carry out their responsibilities as negotiated with the Dean under D2.1.2 above.
(b) A final report (e.g. 4-5 pages), which will be available to the Faculty at large, will be submitted at the end of the research leave period to the Dean.
(c) A research seminar will be presented by the Research Fellow, to the Faculty, as one of the regularly scheduled Faculty research seminars series.
D2.1.11 General Points for Consideration
(a) For this program to be successful, the Dean and the Program Directors and the Committee of Instruction must be in close consultation in terms of the rescheduling of classes, the reshaping of the curriculum, and committee and administrative responsibilities.
(b) The privilege granted by the Faculty to an individual of one or more terms to be mainly devoted to research must be seen as such, a privilege, and one related to particular merit, in terms of both the proposed research and overall contribution to the Faculty.
(c) The program is not intended to lead to any increased budgetary requirements. This again emphasizes the importance of the close consultation in terms of the necessary reshuffling of responsibilities and administrative activities.
D2.2 FES SMALL RESEARCH AND SMALL TRAVEL GRANTS FOR FACULTY MEMBERS
(a) A limited amount of money is available for award by the Dean on the advice of the Research Committee for direct support of academic and small research projects and travel conducted by faculty members in the Faculty of Environmental Studies, either as individuals or groups. The awards will be considered in two categories: (1) Small Research Grants and (2) Small Travel Grants.
(b) There will be three rounds of awards per year, following application deadlines of May 1st, November 1st and February 1st. In each round, the Research Committee will allocate up to one third of the funds available annually.
(c) Only expenses which have not yet been incurred at the time of the application are eligible, and only complete applications will be considered.
(d) Recipients of funds will be expected to submit a short written follow-up report to the Research Committee. Without a progress report from previous projects in the same category, no new funding will be granted.
Application forms are available from the research website and the Research Office.
D2.2.1 Small Research Grants for Faculty Members
(a) Although the following is not an exhaustive list, these grants will be for small items of “seed money” (e.g., documents, materials) for a research program, or for small items that assist in special ways a course or workshop (e.g., a course field trip, materials, documents). Grants will not be given for salary or stipends. Applicants should carefully consider whether their needs can be met by other funding sources.
(b) An application must include:
i. A full description of the nature of the project, its objectives, its activities or work program including the time frame, the expected nature of the output, and the expected completion date;
ii. Appropriate reference to the grant selection criteria;
iii. A detailed budget for the total project;
iv. If the research, or the dissemination of the research is funded through another source it should be clearly argued why additional funding is required. Personal contributions from the participants should also be listed.
(c) Recommendations of the Research Committee will be based on:
i. Conformance to the foregoing requirements.
ii. The quality of the proposal. Judgments regarding quality will be based on the proposal’s statement of the research problem to be investigated, proposed research design/method, budget details (e.g., a prioritized list of acceptable expenses), interdisciplinarity of the project, relationship to the faculty member’s previous work, how many students and faculty the project will involve or benefit, and how long term its results are expected to be.
iii. The faculty member’s appointment status. Only full-time and joint-appointed faculty members and Senior Scholars whose home base is FES are eligible.
iv. Previous awards. Applicants may only be awarded one Small Research Grant per fiscal year (May 1 – April 31).
v. The probability that the research will generate additional funds from other sources.
D2.2.2 Small Travel Grants for Faculty Members
(a) Travel grants are intended to assist faculty members (full-time, joint-appointed or Senior Scholars) to attend academic or other meetings, conferences, or events relevant to their studies, or to carry out interviews, field work, or other activities. Awards may not necessarily cover all costs incurred in travel; nevertheless, applicants should show all costs expected or incurred.
(b) A complete application will include:
i. An estimate of the total cost of the travel and sufficient information about its nature, purpose and benefit to enable the Research Committee to evaluate the proposed travel against the criteria given below;
ii. Evidence that the applicant has sought funding from other sources (a list of other sources is available from the committee);
iii. If the dissemination of the research is funded through another source it should be clearly argued why additional funding is required. Personal contributions from the participants should be listed.
iv. Joint-appointed faculty should show evidence of concurrent application to their other academic unit;
v. While on sabbatical leave, faculty members have equivalent eligibility as non-sabbaticants for support of conference or other academic travel. However, support of such travel as may usually be a part of their sabbatical proposal (e.g., travel to a place of teaching/research) should be sought outside the FES Small Grants Program.
i. Anticipated benefits to the Faculty;
ii. Previous awards. Applicants may only be awarded one Travel Grant per fiscal year (May 1 – April 30)
iii. The number of faculty and students who will benefit;
iv. If applicable, the nature of the applicant’s involvement in the conference, with consideration given to the following in descending order of importance:
– Presentation of an invited “keynote” paper
– Presentation of an invited paper
– Presentation of a submitted and accepted paper
– Coauthor of a submitted and accepted paper
– Chair of session
– Conference committee member
– Participant in a panel discussion – discussant of a paper or session
– General attendee.
D3 ETHICS AND RISK REVIEW PROCESSES
D3.1 RESEARCH INVOLVING HUMAN PARTICIPANTS
The Research Committee will review proposed student activities associated with unfunded research and research involving minimal risk.
D3.2 RISK TO STUDENTS UNDERTAKING FIELD STUDY
The Research Committee will review students’ assessment of risk associated with proposed field study.
End of Section D
Approved by Senate on October 25, 2012
Table of Contents
Mandate of the Committee
(a) The Faculty Appointments Advisory Committee is an advisory committee to Faculty Council and the Dean. Together with the Dean, it shall assess the requirements for new teaching faculty members. These recommendations shall then be taken to Committee of Instruction for discussion and debate.
(b) In the event that the committee is to consider the appointment of more than one faculty member in any given year, subcommittees shall be elected to consider each additional case. The composition of each subcommittee shall duplicate the composition of the committee as set forth in the Standing Rules.
(c) The Faculty Appointments Advisory Committee may appoint such other subcommittees as it considers necessary to conduct its business.
(d) A draft of the advertisement will be presented to Committee of Instruction for discussion and debate.
(e) The Faculty Appointments Advisory Committee will interview all short-listed candidates, read all the materials in their files, and solicit the opinion of other members of the Faculty on the suitability of the candidates for the advertised position. The Faculty Appointments Advisory Committee will then present a report on its recommendations for the appointment to the Committee of Instruction for discussion and debate. FAAC will then meet to consider the results of the Committee of Instruction discussion and may amend the recommendations before submitting them to the Dean.
Approved by Faculty Council February 22, 2001. Amendments approved by Faculty Council November 3, 2011. Approved by York’s Affirmative Action Committee on a yearly basis.
This Hiring and Equity Plan has been developed within the specific geographic context of the Greater Toronto Area, and within the institutional context of York University and the Faculty of Environmental Studies. A majority of the population of Toronto is from visible minority groups. Minority students make up a large percentage of the York University student body and of the Faculty of Environmental Studies, particularly at the undergraduate level. Yet members of visible/racial minorities, aboriginal people, and persons with disabilities remain highly underrepresented among faculty members. The unique interdisciplinary thrust of the Faculty of Environmental Studies is also an important part of our context, in that we recognize different perspectives and different ways of knowing. The convergence of these factors provides the impetus to our commitment to addressing issues of diversity through this hiring policy. An overarching priority of the Faculty of Environmental Studies is that the Faculty complement comprise at least 50% members of visible/racial minorities, aboriginal people, and persons with disabilities and at least 50% women.
The Faculty had the full-time equivalent of 39.4% women faculty as of February 6, 2001; 43.7% as of September 2011. We are not permitted to collect and publish statistics on the numbers of visible minorities, aboriginal people, and persons with disabilities. Therefore, by default the AA&E policy must always be applied to address these groups.
E1.2 Composition and Training of FAAC:
Every effort should be made to ensure that the faculty member complement of the FAAC be fully constituted by August 1, and the student membership established by September 30. A normal committee membership comprises 3 student members (BES, MES, PhD), and 4 full-time faculty members (3 elected and 1 Dean’s representative).
The FAAC Chair must be a tenured faculty member and the majority of faculty FAAC members should normally be tenured.
Any variation in the numbers on the Committee will have consequences for voting majorities. For clarification of what constitutes a voting majority, see section E1.11. It is important that this is noted and any effects planned for prior to any deliberations on a hire.
As set out in the current YUFA Collective Agreement, the Affirmative Action Officer and where possible the rest of the Committee will meet with YUFA/YUAA representatives to review the AA&E rationale and procedures before beginning review of files.
E1.3 Affirmative Action for Gender Equity and Ethnic/Cultural Diversity: Goals and Objectives:
It is the goal of the Faculty that women occupy at least 50% of the Faculty complement and that members of visible/racial minorities, aboriginal people, and persons with disabilities occupy at least 50% of the full-time Faculty complement. We will also apply this policy to CLA hires.
E1.4 Setting of Hiring Priorities and Drafting the Job Description:
Without compromising the intended field of research and teaching addressed by the position, the job advertisement should include language that provides and communicates flexibility with respect to specific subject areas and skills that new faculty members may bring to the position. (E.g., “Within this field, areas of research may include but are not limited to “x”, “y”, “z”.)
Multi-year hiring priorities will be developed by the Dean in consultation with the faculty, bearing in mind the need for positions that better reflect the subject areas and specializations of people prioritized in our Affirmative Action and Equity Plan. These plans will be discussed broadly by means of collective discussion involving multiple constituencies in the Faculty.
Working from these group discussions, the Dean will develop next-year hiring priorities, presenting them to Committee of Instruction and Faculty Council for discussion and approval prior to submitting to the Vice President Academic and Provost for approval.
Once the Vice President Academic and Provost approves the year-ahead hiring priorities, the initial job description will be drafted by a small working group (normally 3–4 faculty members), normally appointed by the Chair of FAAC in consultation with the Dean, and will be typically comprised of faculty in the relevant hiring area. The Faculty’s Affirmative Action Representative will also participate in drafting the job description. It will be incumbent on the drafting group(s) to take into account the collective discussions on hiring priorities in arriving at the job draft, as well as the goals and practices set out in this plan. Drafting of job descriptions is a phase in which structural discrimination of underrepresented groups may be redressed. Every effort should be made to actively address structural discrimination at this stage.
Once the relevant drafting group has finalized its draft job description, this description will be submitted to the FAAC and the Dean for approval.
Once approved by the FAAC and the Dean, the final draft will be presented by the FAAC Chair to the Committee of Instruction and Faculty Council for review and discussion. FAAC will consider all suggestions and comments made by Faculty Council, but the FAAC will retain final drafting responsibility.
Upon concurrence of members of the FAAC and following the Committee of Instruction and Council consultations, the final job description will be forwarded to the Dean’s Office, who will approve and forward it to the Governance Office.
E1.5 Procedures for Advertisement Placement:
YUFA and the York Administration have agreed that units may opt to use short form ads for their job advertisements (which must be approved by FAAC). However, the full-text ad must first be approved by the Office of the Vice President Academic and Provost and must first appear on the Academic Employment Opportunities web site (http://webapps.yorku.ca/academichiringviewer/listpositions.jsp). The following two items must be included in these ads: (1) reference to the York Academic Postings website, and (2) the statement that, “York University is an Affirmative Action Employer.”
The approved advertisement is placed in the “CAUT Bulletin,” in “University Affairs,” and in other targeted media with a national audience. (Note: the option is open for units to use the full-text ads in CAUT, University Affairs, and other forms of media). In addition, the advertisement is placed in publications likely to be read by the kinds of person(s) the Faculty is seeking, but especially by women, members of visible/racial minorities, aboriginal people, and persons with disabilities. An emphasis should be placed on referring readers of our advertisements to the University/Faculty web site.
E1.6 Institutional Networking:
Every effort will be made to circulate widely Faculty job advertisements to those destinations that are deemed relevant by the FAAC. Examples of networking possibilities include: letters accompanied by a copy of the advertisement sent to select academic officers of Canadian Faculties and Departments that offer graduate work in relevant fields, and to organizations that represent or work with women, members of visible/racial minorities, aboriginal people, and persons with disabilities. The letters will emphasize the desire of the Faculty to have applications from suitable candidates who are members of visible/racial minorities, aboriginal people, and persons with disabilities. For example, job descriptions should be sent to Band Councils, Multicultural Newspapers, and Listserves that target Affirmative Action Groups (women, members of visible/racial minorities, aboriginals, and persons with disabilities).
E1.7 Individual Networks of Faculty and Students:
Students and faculty are urged to either send letters and copies of the advertisement to potential applicants and their associates or suggest such names to FAAC.
E1.8 Procedures Following the Receipt of Applications:
1. Each application is received in the FAAC secretary’s office and date stamped.
2. Receipt of each application is acknowledged and an Affirmative Action form is sent to each candidate, including an explanation of its importance. Any missing pertinent information is also requested at this time.
3. At the time of application deadline, each file is to be assigned an alpha/numeric code.
4. A master list of all applications is created alphabetically to record details about position, PhD status, gender, citizenship, self-identification status, and professional memberships (where required).
5. The FAAC members individually review the files and then meet to share their assessments. They apply two levels of criteria:
Exclusionary criteria are a coarse sieve intended to screen out applicants who are clearly unsuitable. These criteria are applied at the initial stage, in order to determine whether letters of reference should be sought. Evaluative criteria will then be reviewed for and applied to the specific requirements of each job description. These involve judgments on the appropriateness of each applicant as well as comparative evaluations of applicants—for example, the impact of past family responsibilities on the pace of the applicant’s academic career or the systemic lack of access to academic positions. Applicants who make it past the exclusionary criteria will be considered potentially acceptable.
Exclusionary criteria must include:
i. PhD, or equivalent (professional degree, or experience/knowledge strongly recognized in the area), or PhD at the time of appointment.
ii. An interdisciplinary perspective.
Evaluative criteria: Although tradeoffs amongst the evaluative criteria are inevitable and some are obviously more important than others, the criteria are not weighted in a fixed manner.
Evaluative criteria are (not necessarily in order of importance):
i. Demonstrated strength in theory and practice in one or more of the designated areas; if appropriate, good standing as a professional in the area.
ii. Awareness of emerging developments in the area; innovativeness.
iii. Extent of the applicant’s interdisciplinary perspective, including its breadth and depth; demonstrated or potential capacity to approach the area across disciplinary/professional boundaries and to expand or build it within the Faculty.
iv. A commitment to critically addressing issues of social difference and inequality based on race, ethnicity, gender, social class, and ability.
v. A strong record or potential as a teacher and advisor of the kinds of students who are and will be in FES.
vi. An active research record or potential, including independent and collaborative research and evidence or dissemination of research results, in refereed publications or other forms of communications that reach a broader public.
vii. Strong contributions to the communities relevant to the area of study, and/or work of public significance and use.
viii. Administrative capability; capacity and willingness to take on a share of the administrative workload of the Faculty.
ix. Other criteria appropriate to specific positions.
Using these criteria, the FAAC will dispose of all of the received files in one of three ways:
i. Reject. Applicant is considered unsuited to the position (does not meet the exclusionary criteria and is not outstanding in any other respect): letter sent from Dean to inform applicant.
ii. Seek References. Applicant meets the exclusionary criteria and shows potential for one of the positions. FAAC Chair requests letters of reference and applicant is so informed.
iii. Hold. Applicant meets exclusionary criteria but potential seems marginal. The file is held open to permit a later comparison with other applicants or to permit faculty and student comment.
The Seek-references or “ Long List” of candidates, for whom references will be sought, will be announced via e-mail to members of the Faculty Before finalizing the Long List, the Affirmative Action & Equity representative will facilitate a discussion that reviews all self-identified candidates who potentially will not be included on the Long List. In the AA&E report, the AA&E representative will address the exclusion from the Long List of any self-identified applicants not included on that list. Long-listed applicant files will be open for review for one week to all staff, student, and faculty members. Comments (written or verbal) on the long-list will be welcomed by the FAAC. All comments made by faculty, staff, and students on the candidates will be held in confidence.
The FAAC considers its own assessments, including information drawn from reference letters received, and the comments of faculty, staff, and students to establish a short list; in so doing, FAAC will continue to work from and with the notion of substantial equality. Before finalizing the Short List, the Affirmative Action & Equity representative will facilitate a discussion that reviews all self-identified candidates from the Long List not included on the Short List, and will address their exclusion from the Short List in the AA&E report.
As soon as possible, the shortlist of applicants is published, indicating which position(s) each candidate is being considered for and the details of her/his visits. The shortlist will normally be limited to a maximum of three candidates; a rationale for a shortlist exceeding three candidates will have to be submitted to the Dean for approval.
Except in exceptional circumstances, the shortlist shall be published at least five working days before the visits begin.
Article 12.18 of the YUFA collective agreement requires that the Dean shall submit to the Joint Affirmative Action Committee the names of all short listed candidates as soon as the list is established.
E1.9 Visit Process and Procedure:
Each short-listed applicant will be provided with an information package about the University and the Faculty. Applicants will be invited to raise questions about terms and conditions of employment with the Chair of FAAC. This presents an opportunity to discuss the process and the nature of the visit with the applicant so that there are no unnecessary surprises.
Each short listed applicant is contacted to arrange a suitable time for a visit to the Faculty. The applicant should be informed of the meetings that will take place and the nature of presentations they will be expected to make to the Faculty and students. Candidates should be advised in advance that their presentations will be videotaped. The committee should make every effort to see to the comfort, security and well being of the candidate while they are visiting the Faculty. This can be accomplished by:
Making travel arrangements that are agreeable to the candidate;
Providing layover days where appropriate so that the candidate is well rested;
Enquiring whether the candidate prefers to stay on/off campus;
Making childcare arrangements during visit to Faculty if required;
Making office space available for candidate during break times;
Enquiring about and taking into account dietary and/or other needs;
Arranging taxi chits, parking passes, gas, and rental cars as required;
Advising the candidate of per diem expense rate; and
Completing expense claim for reimbursement as quickly as possible.
Visit Schedule: Guidelines for the visit schedule are listed below. While the schedule may be adapted, all candidates for a particular position will be treated comparably.
Every effort will be made to follow the same schedule for each candidate. The following schedule will be the model to adhere to; special circumstances, including scheduling, operational constraints or other causes might require sequence changes.
Meet with the FAAC 30 minutes
Meet with Dean or Associate Dean 30 minutes
Meet with Faculty 1 hour
Break 30 minutes
Presentation and Discussion 1 hour
Lunch 30 minutes
Meet with Students 30 minutes
Meet with AA&E Rep. 10 minutes
Meet with the FAAC 1 hour
E1.10 Post-Visit Process:
Individual students, student groups, individual faculty, and faculty groups are encouraged to submit—on a form provided by the FAAC—written evaluations of all candidates or candidates being considered for a particular position. These evaluations should be based on a thorough examination of the files, face-to-face discussions, the candidates’ presentations, and, for each position, a comparison of each candidate with her/his competitors based on the criteria as described in the position description. These post-visit evaluations, intended for review by members of the FAAC only, will be due one week following the final visit and must be signed.
After the last visit of the last candidate, the FAAC will convene a meeting of faculty as well as a separate meeting of students (typically in the week following the final visit) to discuss the comparative merits of the candidates.
E1.11 Deciding Who Gets Recommended:
Canadian citizens and permanent residents will be considered first for this position. For CLA (short-term) positions, permanent residents who are Mexican and U.S. citizens have equal status with Canadians.
The Faculty Appointments Advisory Committee will operate in accordance with the York University Faculty Association’s (YUFA) current Collective Agreement.
Consistent with the principle expressed in the YUFA Collective Agreement that the principal criterion for appointment to positions at York University is academic and professional excellence, and given the Faculty’s longterm goals (E1.3 of the FES Affirmative Action and Equity Plan), recommendations will be made on the basis of “substantial equality.” The Faculty has adopted this definition of substantial equality: when the Faculty Appointments Advisory Committee has difficulty deciding between two candidates, for the Seek Reference category, the short-list, or the Final Recommendation, it will be assumed that the two candidates are substantially equal. The Faculty will also comply with the York University Affirmative Action Policy (YUAA) and with current HRDC regulations on hiring, as well as the York University guidelines on how they are to be interpreted.
There are several stages that FAAC must follow at its first meeting to arrive at a draft recommendation after the process of candidate visits has concluded:
Exclusion of any short-listed candidates. Note E1.12 (1) below.
Discussion (and if necessary, ranking) of remaining candidates.
Application of AA&E questions as set out below.
All voting members of FAAC will vote on the following question: “Is the highest ranked candidate demonstrably superior to the candidates who are both women and members of visible/racial minorities, aboriginal people or persons with disabilities?” If fewer than 60% agree, that result will be taken as evidence of substantial equality and the identified candidate will be placed ahead of the non-identified candidate in rank. The ranks of other candidates may need to be adjusted in order to accommodate this, so that earlier ranking and AA&E decisions are not affected unintentionally.
All voting members of FAAC will vote on the following question: “Is this candidate (the man) demonstrably superior to the next ranked woman candidate?” If fewer than 60% agree, that result will be taken as evidence of substantial equality and the identified candidate will be placed ahead of the non-identified candidate in rank. The ranks of other candidates may need to be adjusted in order to accommodate this, so that earlier ranking and AA&E decisions are not affected unintentionally.
All voting members of FAAC will vote on the following question: “Is the highest ranked candidate demonstrably superior to the candidates who are members of visible/racial minorities, aboriginal people and persons with disabilities?” If fewer than 60% agree, that result will be taken as evidence of substantial equality and the identified candidate will be placed ahead of the non-identified candidate in rank. The ranks of other candidates may need to be adjusted in order to accommodate this, so that earlier ranking and AA&E decisions are not affected unintentionally.
E1.12 Reporting Who Gets Recommended:
The FAAC’s draft recommendations will be discussed at a meeting of Committee of Instruction, and the FAAC may modify its recommendations following this discussion before submitting its report to the Dean.
The FAAC will base its evaluation of the candidates on all of the aforementioned criteria, and will present a recommendation to the Dean, in writing as expeditiously as possible, typically within one week following the open meetings identified in E1.10.
The FAAC recommendation to the Dean will take the following form:
The FAAC will categorize all interviewed candidates to the Dean as “acceptable” or “unacceptable.”
Of the acceptable candidates, the FAAC may choose to rank the candidates.
The recommendation to the Dean will be in writing and will be presented in a joint meeting with the Dean and the FAAC Chair or subcommittee chair(s).
The FAAC’s recommendations will be held in strict confidence until hiring negotiations between the Dean and candidate(s) has been fully completed.
The Affirmative Action representative also prepares a report detailing how the committee complied with this Plan and the Affirmative Action provisions of the YUFA Collective Agreement, which will be reviewed by the FAAC and appended to the file.
The committee’s report will include a summary of the comments received from the FES community and how these comments were taken into account in the overall decision.
E1.13 Appointment File:
This file contains materials that document the procedures adopted to ensure the largest possible pool of qualified candidates who are women, members of visible/racial minorities, aboriginal people and persons with disabilities. For all candidates, three copies of the appointment file are needed: one copy is to be sent to the University Affirmative Action Committee, one copy is to go to the Office of the Vice-President Academic, and one copy is to be kept for FES records.
The appointment file includes the following information:
List of publications in which notices or advertisements were placed; general contacts by faculty and students; organization membership; journal subscribers; and conference attendee list; electronic mailbox networks.
The ratio of the Seek Reference and the short-listed candidates based on gender, members of visible/racial minorities, aboriginal people and persons with disabilities status.
A discussion of the qualifications of the recommended candidate, in comparison to other candidates on the short-list. This will be based on the deliberations outlined in E1.11 “Deciding Who Gets Recommended.” Candidates’ self identification is taken into account as per Affirmative Action Policy. When the recommended candidate is a male, he will be compared to all the females on the shortlist. Similarly, when the recommended candidate is a white female, she will be compared to any visible/racial minority women, aboriginal women and women with disabilities on the shortlist or the Seek Reference List. If a white male is on the shortlist, he will be compared to any visible/racial minority men, aboriginal men and men with disabilities on the shortlist.
The Dean will send short-listed candidates a copy of the letter which appears in Appendix K of the YUFA Collective Agreement.
E2.1 SENIOR FELLOWS
(a) A Senior Fellow is usually a faculty member from another university who wishes to be associated with FES during a sabbatical or research leave, a post-doctoral fellow from York or elsewhere, a person of equivalent stature who is in a position to contribute to the Faculty in some agreed-upon way.
(b) A Senior Fellow will normally be given an honorary academic appointment in FES and will by virtue of that appointment be considered a “faculty member” and a member of the Faculty of Graduate Studies. The appointment will be made by the Dean on the recommendation of FAAC and will require the approval of the President and the Board of Governors.
(a) A Fellow is usually a doctoral student at York or elsewhere who wishes to be associated with FES; and in particular, a graduate of FES who wishes to maintain contact with the Faculty to pursue and share common knowledge and interests, who may be undertaking further academic studies at York or elsewhere, who is conducting a continuing academic project of interest to FES, or who wishes to make a particular special contribution to FES.
(b) Fellows will be appointed directly by the Dean on the recommendation of FAAC. They will be considered as members of FES with academic status, but will not by virtue of their appointment as Fellows become “faculty members” or members of the Faculty of Graduate Studies.
E2.3 CONDITIONS OF APPOINTMENT FOR SENIOR FELLOWS AND FELLOWS
(a) Fellows of both categories are encouraged to contribute to the Faculty by voluntary participation in courses, by providing advice and giving general assistance to faculty members and students, by participation in research projects, by participating in seminars or conferences as an identifiable member of the Faculty and in other ways by agreement with the Dean.
(b) Senior Fellows by virtue of their membership on the teaching faculty and in the Faculty of Graduate Studies may be appointed as members of examining committees and as instructors for independent study activities. Should they undertake formal course teaching on a regular basis, they will be appointed by the Dean to a part-time teaching contract and be remunerated accordingly.
(c) Fellows will not normally be appointed as members of examining committees, or as instructors for independent study activities. When qualified, Fellows may be appointed by the Dean to undertake formal course teaching. In such cases, Fellows will be appointed on a part-time teaching contract, become members of the teaching faculty and the Faculty of Graduate Studies, and be remunerated accordingly.
(d) Senior Fellows and Fellows may participate in paid or unpaid capacities in research projects which may also involve members of the teaching faculty or students. They may also undertake individual research projects. However in seeking outside research funding, their status as Senior Fellows or Fellows must be clearly identified. The University will not allow Fellows to be “principal investigators” on research grants or contracts.
(e) Within the Faculty, Senior Fellows and Fellows are not eligible to obtain funding from the Faculty Small Research Grants Fund or from the Faculty Small Travel Grants Fund. In addition, the Faculty does not normally provide support services or remuneration to Senior Fellows or Fellows. Within the limits of available space, funding, and University and Faculty policies, Fellows and Senior Fellows will be provided with a work space, mailbox, library privileges, and reasonable computer access for research purposes.
E2.4 APPLICATION PROCEDURES
(a) Applications must clearly specify what contributions the candidate intends to make and, where appropriate, what contributions he/she has made in the previous year. Each candidate must have a Faculty “sponsor”, usually a teaching faculty member, who will be in a position to evaluate the proposed and/or previous contribution.
(b) Applications are to be submitted to the Dean, together with a c.v. and a letter of invitation from a faculty sponsor. The Dean will refer applications to FAAC for their consideration. The FAAC will make appointment recommendations to the Dean.
End of Section E
Table of Contents
The following policies and procedures will be used in conducting reviews of candidates for tenure and promotion in the Faculty of Environmental Studies. In developing these procedures, the Tenure and Promotions (T&P) Committee has been guided by the following principles:
The review process should be transparent, equitable, and collegial.
The procedures are designed to be as clear and precise as possible so that candidates may be familiar with, and be guided by, the expectations embodied within them, and the adjudicating committee members may have an impartial basis on which to make their evaluation.
All of the procedures described have been designed to assure and maintain standards of excellence in FES and adhere to the guidelines and principles set out by the Senate of York University.
F1.2 Composition of the Tenure and Promotions Committee
The FES T&P Committee will be comprised of faculty and students as follows:
A minimum of six (maximum of eight) probationary and tenured faculty. More than half of the faculty members will be tenured faculty.
Normally two, but not more than three students. Every effort will be made to have one student representative from each of the student groups: PhESSA, GESSA and BESSA.
At the first committee meeting, the Chair, who shall be a tenured faculty member, will be elected by the members of the Committee.
The quorum for the meetings of the T&P Committee is established as 50% plus 1 of those faculty members eligible to vote plus at least one student.
F1.3 Pre-Candidacy to Candidacy
All Assistant Professors and Lecturers normally become pre-candidates upon appointment. The period of Pre-candidacy will not normally exceed three years. The purpose of Pre-candidacy is to allow the adjudicating unit time to determine whether it wishes the individual’s appointment to be continued into Candidacy. This transition allows the unit to assess and advise the candidate. A review will take place of the candidate’s performance in the areas of Professional Contribution and Standing, Teaching, and Service. The movement from Pre-candidacy to Candidacy is based on the recognition that, given the faculty member’s current career trajectory (based on research, teaching, and service) there is a reasonable expectation that he or she will achieve tenure during the probationary period. (See Senate Tenure and Promotion Policy, Criteria and Procedures D.2.1. and the Procedures Governing Decisions on Advancement to Candidacy.)
Normally, an individual will successfully move from Pre-candidacy to Candidacy.
“Candidacy is a protected period during which a faculty member’s appointment may be terminated only for cause, by a negative decision on tenure, or for budgetary reasons.” (See Senate Policy D.2.5.)
In September of the review year, the Candidate will be asked to supply:
An up-to-date CV listing their publication record, service activities and all courses taught.
Available course evaluations (from York and/or previous institution).
A brief personal statement (2 to 3 pages) which is reflective of their CV, outlining accomplishments in the three review areas. Professional plans, future goals and an indication of where they see their teaching and research moving in the next few years should also be discussed.
Any supplemental material the candidate wishes to supply.
The committee will notify the candidate in writing of the date the review material is required.
“The Adjudicating Committee shall make a decision by considering the probability that the pre-candidate will satisfy, or fail to satisfy, the University tenure and promotion criteria and the unit standards. The decision shall include an assessment of the candidate’s progress in the three criterion areas, a copy of the home unit’s standards for tenure and promotion, and clear guidance to the candidate on meeting the standards for tenure and promotion. The Chair of the T&P Committee shall forward the decision to the Dean of the Faculty. The Dean shall ensure that the decision is adequately documented. Decisions lacking required information shall be referred back to the Chair of the T&P Committee for revision. Once finalized, the decision shall be referred to the Dean for communication to the candidate in writing by November 1, with a copy to the University Secretary. The Dean of the Faculty shall inform the Secretary of the University of the final decision in each case.” (See Procedures on Decisions Governing Advancement to Candidacy)
F1.4 Procedures for Tenure and or Promotion
Step 1 In the Fall of each academic year, the Dean shall issue a request to faculty members (other than those in Candidacy II or III) to indicate their intention to apply for tenure and/or promotion. In January of each academic year or earlier if appropriate, the Dean will notify the T&P Committee of those individuals to be reviewed for tenure and/or promotion in the following academic year. This would normally include assistant professors applying for tenure and promotion; associate professors without tenure applying for tenure; assistant professors with tenure applying for promotion to associate professor, and associate professors applying for promotion to full professor.
Step 2 The Chair of the T&P Committee will meet with all candidates to review with them the criteria by which their candidacy will be evaluated.
Step 3 The T&P Committee will, thereafter, direct the entire process, taking care to meet the University deadlines.
Further steps are outlined in SECTION 4
F1.5 Cross or Joint Appointments
Files of jointly appointed faculty members are prepared by the home unit. The procedures for consideration of files of jointly appointed faculty members must be consistent with the Senate Tenure and Promotions Policy, Criteria and Procedures (approved March 21, 2002; amended November 27, 2003; May 24, 2007 and June 24, 2007).
The following procedure is provided to guide units in preparing and adjudicating files of jointly appointed members of faculty:
Committees: The home unit will constitute the File Preparation Committee (FPC) and Adjudicating Committee (AC).
Membership: The File Preparation Committee should include a faculty member from the second unit. The Adjudicating Committee should include at least one faculty member from the second unit.
File Contents: The evidence in the file must be representative of the person’s activities in both units, and should, to the degree appropriate, take into account the standards articulated by both units.
Decanal Consideration: The Dean of the home Faculty, in consultation with the Dean of the second Faculty, shall write a letter of transmittal in accordance with the Policy.
If the home unit is not FES, the FES Tenure and Promotions Committee will consult with the Tenure and Promotions Committee of the home Faculty on how to participate in the process.
F2.1 File Preparation Committee
“Files shall be prepared in the initiating unit by a committee of no fewer than three persons: one named by the candidate (ordinarily, but not necessarily, from his/her home unit) and two named by, and normally from, the Adjudicating Committee. All members of the File Preparation Committee shall be probationary or tenured members of faculty.” (See Senate Policy F.3.1.1.)
At least two members of the FPC should be tenured faculty members.
The FPC will elect a Chair. The Chair of the FPC shall normally be a member of the Adjudicating Committee.
The FPC is responsible for assembling a complete file that fairly and accurately reflects the candidate’s academic career. Its task is to compile evidence only, and not to present any opinion on the file’s contents. The FPC provides only factual information that is necessary to contextualize the evidence in the file, e.g., method of selection of referees, relation of referees to candidate.
The FPC will encourage candidates to read and familiarize themselves with those sections of the Senate Criteria as set out in the Senate Tenure and Promotions Policy, Criteria and Procedures, the FES Regulations and the YUFA Collective Agreement that pertain to the review process.
The FPC, with the assistance of the candidate, will assemble the relevant materials (listed below) needed for the review. Candidates may submit any additional materials they wish in order to support their candidacy.
F2.2 Materials Provided by the Candidate
A brief statement (normally not more than 2000 words) by the candidate, relevant supporting materials describing his/her development as a scholar and educator and contribution to FES, and plans for future contributions. (NB: a statement is optional, not required.)
A current curriculum vita, preferably in the OCGS format.
The candidate will work with his/her designate to select publications which will be sent to referees.
A chart summarizing teaching and advising responsibilities while a member of FES.
A list of persons from whom the FPC can select to request letters of reference and evaluation. This includes FES colleagues, University colleagues in other Faculties/departments, and other academic and professional persons affiliated with other universities and organizations for Teaching and Service. Referees must be external to York University for Professional Contribution and Standing.
(i) The candidate can see the FPC’s list and add names to it. The candidate may contribute up to 25% of the list of potential arms-length referees for Professional Contribution and Standing. [The FPC obtains letters from a minimum of three and normally no more than six arms-length referees – Full Professor files may require more.]
(ii) The candidate may contribute up to 25% of names of referees for the Service section. [The FPC normally obtains a maximum of four letters from referees familiar with the candidate’s service to the University – with one of the four referees chosen by the candidate.]
(iii) The candidate may contribute up to 33% of the names of colleagues and students for teaching evaluations. The FPC obtains letters from three faculty members who serve as teaching referees, generally internal referees, two chosen by the FPC and one by the candidate. Referees attend classes and are provided with course outlines, assignments, handouts, etc. The candidate may provide referees with a “teaching dossier”; however, the dossier will not normally form part of the file.
The FPC provides the candidate with a list of students who potentially may be contacted. The candidate may suggest a list of students (graduate and undergraduate) and colleagues (internal or external to York) who he/she prefers the FPC not contact or ask to submit comments for the file. The candidate cannot veto the final list of referees. However, the FPC shall endeavour to deal with any particular objections on the part of the candidate so as to arrive at a list which is fair and balanced and from which any reasonable apprehension of bias is absent. Taking such concerns into account, the FPC then selects a random sample of students to contact.
Note: See Tenure and Promotions Toolkit FAQ’s 3.3 for definition of ”arm’s length” and the candidate’s inability to veto suggested referees.
F2.3 Materials Collected by the File Preparation Committee
The FPC will request confidential references/evaluative statements from the following with respect to Professional Contribution and Standing, Teaching, and Service, as appropriate:
Colleagues who have taught with the Candidate and/or shared administrative, research or advising settings;
A list of persons as suggested by the candidate, including students (see above 2.2 v, (i), (ii) & (iii).
Such persons that the FPC may consider necessary for references related to the candidate’s professional and scholarly contributions and service.
External referees who have worked with the candidate in a professional/ community-based, or technical context.
NOTE: “Normally, members of the Adjudication Committee will not be asked to serve as referees for any aspect of a candidate’s file. Procedural fairness is normally understood as requiring that those responsible for judging a case not be involved in the preparation and submission of evidence. However, where this principle is difficult to apply, a File Preparation Committee may ask a colleague who is also on an Adjudicating Committee to assess teaching or service. This arrangement would be appropriate where there are not enough qualified faculty members independent of the Adjudicating Committee to serve as referees, or where only a member of the Committee can properly assess a candidate’s contributions.” (See Tenure and Promotion Toolkit FAQ’s 3.3.7 on Referees).
In the case of student evaluations, FPC obtains statistical summaries and available signed commentaries from class evaluations; in addition letters will be solicited from a random selection of students from the candidate’s most recently taught graduate and undergraduate classes and solicit letters from the students commenting on the candidate’s teaching. The FPC will also “invite graduate students who have been previously supervised and/or advised by the candidate to write letters of reference concerning the candidate’s teaching. The candidate may add additional names to comprise up to one-third of the students solicited.” (See Senate Policy F.3.1.2(b)). The file should contain 15-20 letters from students. (Amended by FES T&P Committee, December 2005)
All teaching evaluation reports completed during the candidate’s probationary period shall be included.
Material obtained directly by the candidate will be accepted as “unsolicited.”
The candidate may review all material in his/her file, except for original copies of letters of reference from colleagues or students, or original copies of signed student comments from course evaluation questionnaires.
F2.4 Areas of Contribution for Assessment
In this section, the areas of contribution to be assessed are delineated and divided into three areas of Professional Contribution and Standing, Teaching, and Service. Further elaboration on criteria for judging these areas can be found in SECTION 3.
F2.5 Modifications for Promotion to Full Professor
Promotions to Full Professor will follow the same process as outlined above; but criteria will be based on the following: “A Professor is an eminent member of the University whose achievements at York and/or in his/her profession have marked him or her as one of the scholars from whom the University receives its energy and strength.” (Senate Tenure and Promotions Policy, Criteria and Procedures, York University, March 21, 2002, amended November 27, 2003; May 24, 2007 and June 24, 2007)
Promotion to Full Professor files are adjudicated in terms of the candidate’s overall “eminence” and the energy and strength he/she contributes to the University. The three review areas (Professional Contribution and Standing, Teaching, and Service) are fully documented and evaluated during the adjudication of the file. However, these categories are not voted on individually; the Committee votes on whether to recommend or delay promotion. (See Senate Policy C.1.3.)
Professional Contribution and Standing
Scholarship Publications i) sole author, and ii) joint author: journal articles (refereed and non- refereed), books and monographs, professional reports, and book reviews
Presented papers: conference papers, discussion papers, and invited presentations
Unpublished materials: manuscripts, course materials, research materials
Research and project proposals
Continuing research activities
Other creative and scholarly production: computer programs, video and film
Traditional Cultural contributions
Professional Contribution Scholarly and professional organizations: local, regional and provincial, national, and international
Granting agencies, foundations, private sector organizations and government agencies
Contributions to community-based/traditional cultural activities
[In these settings, contribution might occur in activities such as organizing and conducting conferences, seminars; serving as on officer on committees, task forces, or editorial boards; editing journal and conference proceedings; appraising or reviewing of programs, articles, or proposals; and providing consultation and advice to colleagues.]
Graduate and Undergraduate Teaching Program and curriculum development
Courses: i) development; ii) implementation
Courses: i) sole responsibility; ii) co-taught; iii) guest
Seminar: i) sole responsibility; ii) co-taught; iii) guest
Workshop: i) sole responsibility; ii) co-taught; iii) guest
Individual directed study and supervision
Field Experience Supervision/External teaching contexts
Advising and Supervision Advising of graduate and undergraduate students
Supervision and advising of: senior honors work, theses, major papers and major projects, and dissertations
Supervision and training of graduate students as research and teaching assistants
Contribution FES & York University Other Faculties and Colleges
Representation of York in relation to other universities and in public service
[The following are examples of activities that might occur in any of the contexts of service to York: membership on councils, committees, task forces, administrative appointments, student recruitment, faculty recruitment, fund raising, scholarship, fellowship adjudication, YUFA, research centre administrations and Senate committees etc.]
Contribution to the Community Contribution to the community can occur in enormously varied circumstances. In all cases, however, for service to a community or other non-university organization to be considered, the service must reflect the candidate’s university position and/or scholarship. In each case, the candidate will be asked to ensure that such settings are appropriately identified.
To adjudicate the candidate’s file in accordance with Senate regulations, the candidate’s contributions in three areas need to be assessed: Professional Contribution and Standing, Teaching, and Service to the University. The candidate will be appraised in various contexts in relation to the three broad functional categories of Faculty performance. Not all settings will be pertinent to a particular candidate and additional relevant settings may be identified. To evaluate a candidate for tenure and promotion, the total contribution an individual has made to the University and wider community should be considered. Disciplined norms and varied career paths will be recognized as strength to the University.
The Faculty of Environmental Studies is structured differently than other units at York University. The focus on the student’s individualized plan of study, on the one hand, and the emphasis on collaborative work in a wider community, on the other, is reflected in the priorities that are used in the file adjudication process.
F3.1 Steps for Adjudication
Three steps will be taken in the process of Adjudication:
An Adjudication Committee (AC) will be established according to Senate regulations, with the FES Tenure and Promotions Committee serving this role;
The AC will obtain the file from the FPC.
The AC will review the evidence in the file and include, in a report, detailed results of votes of Professional Contribution and Standing, Teaching, and Service rated as excellence, high competence, competence or competence not demonstrated based on criteria developed below. For promotion to Full Professor, the vote is to promote or delay, with the individual areas not separately voted on.
F3.2 Criteria for Assessing Levels of Performance/Contribution
York University assumes that the assessment of excellence, high competence, competence, and competence not demonstrated in each area is a qualitative analytic process, even when the source information may be quantitative (as is the case when examining student course evaluations and instructor rating data). File Preparation Committees will request that referees use these terms in describing the candidate’s work. Throughout the adjudication process, adjectives selected by reviewers in quantitative ratings or employed by reviewers in qualitative letters will be used to assess the quality of contributions.
Reviewers will be specifically requested to evaluate candidates in terms of “excellence,” “high competence,” “competence,” and “competence not demonstrated.” When reviewers use other terms (e.g., “superior,” “outstanding,” “very good,” important,” “good,” “solid,” “much appreciated,” etc.), it will be the role of the AC to interpret the overall qualitative assessment of reviewers.
Within FES specifically, there is recognition that standard evaluation criteria may be too narrowly defined in academic terms, and that there is a broader basis for achievement linked to involvement in professional/applied activities and in traditional/cultural phenomena. Within the latter categories, issues such as collegiality, commitment and achievement beyond the academic are assessed for their contribution to the candidate’s file.
A copy of these criteria will be sent to all reviewers who are asked to prepare a letter for a file. The objective is to inform reviewers about the guidelines that will be applied in reading their letters and reaching an overall assessment of the candidate.
Note: The level of achievement required for granting tenure and promotion is identical for the first, second and third year candidacy consideration.
F3.3 Criteria for Promotion to Full Professor
“A Professor is an eminent member of the University whose achievements at York and/or in his/her profession have marked him or her as one of the scholars from whom the University receives its energy and strength. Clearly this level of achievement cannot be identified with serving several years as an Associate Professor; nevertheless, the rank should not be considered a form of apotheosis. The rank of Professor should be within the expectancy of all Associate Professors.” (Senate Policy C.1.3.)
To be promoted to Full Professor a candidate must be judged to be “eminent”. “Eminence” is a special category for professors who somehow bring distinction to the University, and have had a distinguished career. Teaching and service criteria should include teaching awards or distinguished service (as in senior appointments).
While all three categories must be fully documented and evaluated and a vote on the question of promotion must be recorded, the file is considered as a whole and votes in the three areas should not be recorded. In fact, the recording of separate votes in the categories and use of tenure terminology sometimes detracts from an overall strong case.
NOTE: For promotion to Full Professor, the November 1st deadline does not apply. The applicant will write a letter, to the Dean and the Chair of the T& P Committee by November 1st informing of their wish to have their file advance forward. The procedure to be followed for this promotion is similar to the procedures outlined in Section 2 with modifications as noted in Section 2.5.
F3.4 Minimum Criteria for Tenure and Promotion to Associate Professor
A candidate who has been judged worthy of tenure is normally worthy of being promoted to the rank of Associate Professor. This document therefore reports only one set of standards for both of these decisions, even if in some cases only one decision is required (as would be the case, for example, for a faculty member hired initially without tenure at the Associate Professor level and who later seeks tenure).
The Adjudication Committee will evaluate materials relating to the three functional categories of faculty performance as outlined in the Section B.4 of the Senate Policy.
excellence (or superiority)
competence not demonstrated
A favorable recommendation for either tenure and/or promotion to Associate Professor requires either demonstrated superiority (excellence) in a minimum of one of the three categories of Professional Contribution and Standing, Teaching and Service, with at least competence demonstrated in Teaching and in Professional Contributions and Standing, or at least high competence in all three categories. Simply stated, a favorable recommendation must meet one of the following four “minimum vote” patterns:
Minimum Vote Pattern Professional Contribution and Standing Teaching Service
Excellence Competence Competence not demonstrated
Competence Excellence Competence not demonstrated
Competence Competence Excellence
High competence High competence High competence
In evaluating the candidate, the Committee will ask referees to apply (and will itself apply) criteria in two broad categories of (1) substance (or content) and (2) impact. Criteria will include, but will not necessarily be limited to those outlined below, considered in relation to the three functional categories of faculty performance. Not all criteria will be relevant to a particular candidate. Each referee is asked to comment on the candidate in the light of these criteria (and such other criteria as the referee may apply and identify), and, in the case of Teaching and Service, as relevant to the settings in which the referee knows the candidate.
F3.5 Criteria for Adjudicating Professional Contribution and Standing
FES expectations with respect to the Professional Contribution of candidates for tenure and promotion are sensitive to the extraordinary diversity of interests and approaches to scholarly activity within the Faculty.
Collaborative research projects or jointly-authored works are seen as being important to the interdisciplinary nature and the candidate’s contribution is assessed within this broader mandate within FES. Statements from co-authors and/or co-contributors may also be included in the file to reflect on the collegial aspect of this work.
While FES sets high standards for Professional Contribution and Standing, it recognizes that high standards are achieved and may vary widely. Quality and originality are recognized as more important hallmarks of professional contribution than sheer quantity of publications.
Professional scholarship includes refereed and non-refereed works, such as:
Articles in peer-reviewed journals
Monographs and research reports
Chapters in books
Edited journals, books, and other outlets, including book reviews
Aboriginal traditions – Oral culture and indigenous knowledges
Professional standards within specific fields
Professional plans and other applied output that may not be refereed
Creative Artistic practice
Other kinds of contributions.
Other evidence of scholarship may be presented for review, such as policy reports, innovative computer programs, video and film productions and exhibitions. Candidates may include completed research, peer reviews of work, amounts and length of funding, records of contribution and distribution of work, training grants, unsponsored research, research proposals, papers presented at scientific meetings, and works in progress.
When assessing scholarship, FES encourages research collaboration. As required, the FPC will gather data from collaborators who are positioned to make judgments on the magnitude and quality of the contributions that the candidate has made to joint research projects and co-authored publications, so that the Adjudication Committee can make an assessment of the quality of the candidate’s work in joint projects and co-authored publications.
A rating of “competence” in scholarship for tenure and promotion to Associate Professor would normally require a minimum average yearly output of one refereed journal article of regular length/book chapter publication over the period covered by the file (normally, the period following appointment to the University). In addition, a rating of “competence” would normally require that these publications be assessed by reviewers as being “solid” (or equivalent adjectives, as noted above) contributions to the field.
A rating of “high competence” in scholarship with respect to tenure and promotion to Associate Professor would require that the candidate meet the minimum requirement of the yearly output of one refereed article/book chapter, and that these publications be assessed by reviewers as “very good” and “important” contributions to the chosen academic field.
A rating of “excellence” in scholarship for tenure and promotion to Associate Professor would normally require that the corpus of published work covered by the file be rated by reviewers as being “excellent” in terms of either the quality of innovation and leadership found in it, or in terms of its broad contributions to knowledge in the field. Reviewers may reveal this by using terms such as “very substantial,” “extremely important,” and “highly significant” when describing the quality of the work and its impact on the field, in which case it will be the role of the AC to interpret the overall qualitative assessment of reviewers. Excellence will often involve a more voluminous publication output, but this will not always be the case. The assessment will rest on overall quality of published work within a flexible range of quantity of output above the minimum standard set above.
Factors for Consideration on Scholarship and Professional Contribution
Scholarship Is the work innovative and pioneering?
Does the work represent a significant contribution, in terms of
Does the work extend one or more fields of knowledge?
Does the work add to the theoretical/empirical knowledge?
Is the work interdisciplinary?
Is the activity significant for the development, maintenance and distribution of knowledge?
Does the activity go beyond routine ‘service’ to an organization?
Does the work contribute to new perceptions in the profession?
F3.6 Criteria for Adjudicating Teaching
Teachers play a central role in the preparation of students for their future careers. Therefore, the achievement of excellence in the pursuit of teaching is a stated goal for FES and for each member of the Faculty. The excellent teacher engages students in critical thinking and instills in them positive attitudes about the importance of continuous learning and professional growth.
In addition to classroom instruction, the teaching function includes the following activities: advising and supervising undergraduate and graduate students; mentoring doctoral students, serving on thesis and dissertation committees; participating in curriculum and course development; creating new instructional materials; and participating in a variety of educational programs organized by FES.
FES expects that candidates being recommended for tenure and promotion to the Associate Professor level will show a serious commitment to teaching and have clear teaching objectives as well as clear teaching strategies. Candidates must demonstrate effective results in terms of in-class evaluations from students; letters from students, teaching assistants, and co-teachers. Assessments from in-class visits by peer reviewers will review classroom performance, course content/outline, and material supplied to reviewers.
Innovation in teaching is assessed through an examination of information on the development of new courses in new areas for FES and on the development of new pedagogical tools and teaching techniques.
A rating of “competence” in teaching with respect to tenure and promotion to Associate Professor would normally be associated with data indicating a range of reviewer opinion (coming from quantitative student ratings, undergraduate and graduate student letters, TA letters, peers from in-class visits, etc.) in the “adequate” to “good” range with respect to the criteria outlined above. Furthermore, a reading of the course descriptions and teaching materials by peer reviewers would normally indicate that the quality of teaching techniques (including the range of techniques used) and the quality of course content materials (lectures, readings, etc.) was also in the “adequate” to “good” range.
A rating of “high competence” in teaching with respect to tenure and promotion to Associate Professor would normally be associated with data indicating a range of reviewer opinion (coming from quantitative student ratings, undergraduate and graduate student letters, TA letters, peers from in-class visits, etc.) in the “good” to “very good” range with respect to the criteria outlined above. Furthermore, a reading of the course descriptions and teaching materials by peer reviewers would normally indicate that the quality of teaching techniques (including the range of techniques used) and the quality of course content materials (lectures, readings, etc.) was also in the “good” to “very good” range.
A rating of “excellence” in teaching would be associated with data indicating a range of reviewer opinion stressing very high quality teaching. This would include a significant proportion of “excellent” ratings in the data gathered. In addition, teaching awards will be normally taken as prima facie evidence of excellence although in all cases the nature of the award and the evidence in support of it must be assessed. Furthermore, absence of a teaching award should never be taken as an indication of the lack of excellence. Innovation in teaching, as defined above, will also normally count highly in judgments of “excellence”, although it is possible to be an excellent teacher based simply on very high levels of impact on students.
Factors for Consideration on Teaching
Is the level and extent of material presented appropriate to the needs of the students?
Does the material adequately reflect the state of knowledge of the field, including its deficiencies and its relevant frontiers?
To what extent does the material range across conventional disciplines and professional boundaries?
How much originality is involved in the development and integration of the material?
Is the candidate reasonably available, prompt, and responsive (to students and colleagues and to the needs of academic administration)?
Is a balance struck between challenging for excellence and being supportive and instilling confidence?
Are courses properly prepared and well organized?
Are expectations for student performance in courses clearly articulated?
Do evaluations give appropriate recognition to both strengths and weaknesses of students?
Is there an attempt by the candidate to introduce a range of perspectives on issues covered in the course?
Is there attention paid to a range of learning styles?
Is there consideration given to equity/diversity/disability issues in terms of course material and course organization?
NOTE: In obtaining evaluation by students, the FPC asks the student to indicate what his/her expectations have been in the relevant teaching situations.
F3.7 Criteria for Adjudicating Service to York University
The main focus for the assessment of service contributions is normally service to the University, such as participation in University committees and bodies. Service to community organizations and to professional organizations may also be understood as providing a service to the University, and must also be taken into account. Voluntary work for the betterment of a professional body or the community at large which involves the application of professional skills and knowledge, or which creates links between scholarship and programs in the university and those in the community are clearly relevant to the assessment of Service.
A rating of “competence” in the service area for tenure and promotion to Associate Professor must take into account the fact that FES does not routinely expect newly appointed colleagues to accept during their pre-tenure period the same level of responsibility for service as tenured members. To be “competent” for tenure and promotion to Associate Professor is to show evidence of a “good” performance on a minimum of one FES committee per year. This kind of work, or its equivalent, is expected on average for each year covered in the file.
A rating of “high competence” in the service area for tenure and promotion to Associate Professor must take into account the fact that FES does not routinely expect newly appointed colleagues to accept during their pre-tenure period the same level of responsibility for service as tenured members. “High competence” for tenure and promotion to Associate Professor is to show evidence of having done on average a “very good” job on a minimum of one FES committee or its equivalent per year. To be assessed with a rating of “high competence” the candidate might be expected to chair a committee or play a central role in an important undertaking within FES or the larger York Community.
A rating of “excellence” in the service area would be associated with having done an “excellent” job in significant positions of service responsibility, such as chairing a committee or a body with a particularly important mandate of change and innovation, such as the FES curriculum sub-committees during a period of major curriculum renewal. Such a rating could also come from having done an “excellent” job in chairing a Faculty, YUFA or University committee with an important mandate, or from having been an “excellent” director of a program in FES or having done “excellent” service as a YUFA officer, or from a highly important leadership role or very active and key supporting role in the early stages of building a significant new academic program, for example.
Factors for Consideration on Service
Does the activity go beyond routine “housekeeping chores”?
Is the activity innovative?
Is the activity significant to the maintenance and development of the Faculty and the University?
Is the performance conscientious?
Is the activity effectively carried out?
Is the impact of short or long duration?
Is the effect wide spread or narrowly focused?
Does the service convey a long-term commitment to the goals of FES?
F3.8 Potential for Continued Professional Growth and Development
Following the completion of a discussion of the candidate’s Professional Contribution and Standing, Teaching, and Service, the AC must review the candidate’s statement (if the candidate chooses the option of submitting a statement) of his/her work and plans for continued growth and development, and contribution. The extent to which the candidate’s own views are consistent with the Faculty’s assessment is an important criterion. In this regard, the AC will look for clarity, accuracy, and consistency in the candidate’s self-examination of past accomplishments and identified future intentions. The ultimate basis for this assessment is the degree to which the candidate can be expected to contribute to the excellence of FES and be a continuing member of a community of scholars.
If the candidate chooses not to submit a statement, the AC will use the information available to it to evaluate the candidate’s potential for continued professional growth and development.
F4.1 Steps after File Preparation: Adjudicating and Beyond
Note: Section F.2.2 of the Senate Policy notes that a candidate has “the right to appear in person, with our without a representative, before any adjudicating or reviewing body in the tenure and promotion process, for the purpose of making a statement or providing clarification with respect to substantive or procedural matters concerning his or her file.”
Step 1 When the candidate’s file has been fully assembled, the FPC will notify the T &P Committee in writing that the file is ready for adjudication. The letter should include factual commentary where necessary to contextualize evidence in the file. The candidate receives a copy of this letter.
Step 2 The candidate may review all material in his/her file, except for original copies of letters of reference from colleagues or students, or original copies of signed student comments from course evaluation questionnaires. For confidential letters of reference and for signed student comments on teaching evaluation forms which are used as part of the tenure and/or promotion file, contextual identifiers and signatures will be removed or masked and the entire text of the letter will be photocopied and provided to the candidate.
Step 3 The Adjudicating Committee (AC) will schedule a special meeting for the purpose of discussing the candidate’s review materials with one another. The Chair of the T &P Committee will Chair the formal discussion of the candidate under review. Such discussion shall be limited to consideration of each candidate with respect to his/her accomplishments according to those criteria that constitute the official basis for the candidate’s review.
The AC decides whether to recommend the candidate for tenure and promotion, tenure without promotion, promotion (where already tenured), delay, or rejection, based on their vote on each dimension [Professional Contribution and Standing, Teaching, and Service] covered in their assessment. Prior to adjourning, the Chair of the T &P Committee will summarize the discussion, point-by-point, and should be assured that all matters pertaining to the adjudication of the file have been thoroughly addressed.
The AC recommendation on tenure and promotion files will be communicated to the candidate by November 1st of the year in which the file is considered.
Step 4 The AC’s written report shall be sent to the Dean, setting forth a decision to recommend one of the following with clear and detailed reasons for linking the evidence to the criteria:
Tenure and promotion
Tenure without promotion
Tenure (where the candidate is an Associate Professor without tenure)
Promotion (where the candidate is an Assistant Professor with tenure or an Associate Professor with tenure)
This report must outline the committee’s recommendation and provide details of the vote. A copy is sent to the FPC and the candidate.
Step 5 The candidate shall be given 15 days from the date of mailing of the report to provide additional material or evidence in the event of delay or rejection to request reconsideration by the AC, before the file is forwarded to the Dean. (see Senate Policy F.3.2.4) If the file is reconsidered, the AC adds its recommendation to the file and includes any information added and considered. A copy is sent to the FPC and the candidate. The candidate can waive this and any of the other 15-day waiting periods.
Step 6 The Dean shall write a letter of transmittal to the Senate Review Committee on Tenure and Promotion, in which he/she will either concur with the judgment of the AC or dissent from that judgment. In the latter instance, the Dean will give reasons for the recommendation and the letter will be copied to the candidate and the AC and FPC.
Step 7 The candidate shall be given 15 days from the date of mailing of the report to provide additional material or evidence, or to request reconsideration by the Dean before the file is forwarded to the Review Committee.
Step 8 The Review Committee [Panel of Senate T&P Committee] may either concur with the AC Committee or dissent from the AC Committee’s recommendation. The Review Committee writes to the President outlining its recommendation and provides reasons if it dissents with the AC Committee’s recommendation. (This letter is copied to the Dean, the AC, the FPC and the candidate.)
The Review Committee may also refer the file back to the AC where procedures have not been properly followed or criteria not properly/not fairly applied or the file may be referred back, to consider new information. If the file is referred back the process begins again at Adjudication.
Step 9 The candidate shall be given 15 days from the date of mailing of the report to provide additional material or evidence, or to request reconsideration or appeal. If the file is reconsidered, the Review Committee adds the recommendation and includes any information added and considered. The candidate may also waive the 15 day waiting period at his/her discretion.
Step 10 The Review Committee forwards the file to the President for the final decision, unless an appeal is permitted. If the candidate requests an appeal the file is forwarded to the T&P Appeals Committee. For a “deny” decision on tenure files, the President’s decision must be made and the candidate notified by June 30th.
The President writes to the candidate, and copies are sent to the Dean and relevant committees.
F4.2 Procedures for Appeal and Reconsideration
The procedures for appeal and reconsideration set out in the Senate Tenure and Promotions Policy, Criteria and Procedures (March 21, 2002, amended November 27, 2003; May 24, 2007 and June 24, 2007) will apply in the case of a candidate wishing to appeal the judgment or for any reconsideration of the file, and hence not repeated here.
 Adapted from T &P Procedures and Criteria, Department of Sociology, Faculty of Arts, York University (Oct 23, 2002), and Senate Tenure and Promotions Policy, Criteria and Procedures, York University (March 21, 2002, amended November 27, 2003; May 24, 2007 and June 24, 2007)
End of Section F
Approved by Senate on October 25, 2012
Table of Contents
Amended by Faculty Council on June 3, 1997; Amended by Faculty Council on May 29, 2003; Approved by Senate May 27, 2004
These Appeals Procedures are designed to cover the BES, MES and PhD degree programs.
G1.1 Determinations of academic matters related to the Academic Regulations of the Faculty of Environmental Studies shall in the first instance be made at the degree program level. Such determinations are of at least three types:
(a) Standard administrative procedures: enrolment, registration, advising, etc.
(b) In-course procedures: assignment of grade, request for grade re-appraisal, incomplete or deferred grades, assignment to tutorial group, etc.
(c) Petitions: request for remedies to actions resulting from standard administrative procedures or in-course procedures.
G1.2 Notwithstanding the prerogatives of the Committee of Instruction with respect to particular matters, standard administrative procedures shall be the responsibility of the Undergraduate Program Director or the Graduate Program Director, as appropriate.
G1.3 Request for remedies to actions resulting from in-course procedures shall in the first instance be dealt with through petitions at the appropriate program level.
G1.4 In-course procedures shall be the responsibility of the relevant Course Director.
G1.5 The administration of petitions related to standard administrative or in-course procedures shall be the responsibility, as appropriate, of:
(a) the Undergraduate Program Director as Chair of the Undergraduate Program and Admissions Subcommittee;
(b) the MES Program Coordinator as Chair of the MES Program and Admissions Subcommittee;
(c) the PhD Program Coordinator as Chair of the PhD Program and Admissions Subcommittee.
G1.6 The outcome of the petition shall be decided by decision of the appropriate subcommittee as determined by majority vote of the members of the appropriate subcommittee present and voting.
G1.7 The outcome of an academic petition may be appealed by a written statement of appeal submitted by the person or persons involved, in the first instance to the Appeals Committee, and in the second (final) instance to the Senate of the University, under the following procedures:
(a) A written statement of the appeal shall be submitted in the first instance by the appellant no later than the last day of the term following the term in which the issue arose.
(b) A written statement of the appeal or reconsideration shall be typewritten or word-processed and shall contain complete details on:
the exact nature of the appeal or reconsideration s including the specific grounds on which the appeal or reconsideration s is being made;
the circumstances of the matter, including identification of all of the teaching faculty members involved in the matter and their roles in the matter;
the outcome desired by the appellant;
copies of any relevant documentation;
a statement as to the appellant’s decision whether or not to be present at an appeal or reconsideration s hearing, and
information on a representative, if any (see G 1.7 (h) below).
(c) The written statement of the appeal shall be submitted to an Associate Dean assigned by and acting for the Dean. The Associate Dean shall (where appropriate) consult with all teaching faculty members directly concerned with the matter: if unanimous approval of the appeal by the teaching faculty members concerned is achieved, the Associate Dean shall approve the appeal on behalf of the Appeals Committee; if unanimous approval is not achieved, the Associate Dean shall submit the matter to the Director of the Office of Student & Academic Services of the Faculty of Environmental Studies.
(d) The Undergraduate Program Director or the Graduate Program Director, as appropriate, or an alternate appointed by the Dean shall serve as the official delegate of the Faculty with respect to the appeal or reconsideration s. The appropriate Director (or alternate) shall prepare (normally within one month) a written response to the statement of appeal or reconsideration s and shall appear at the appeal or reconsideration s hearing if the appellant and/or a representative is to be present. A representative for the appropriate Director (or alternate) may also be present at the appeal or reconsideration s hearing.
(e) The Director of the Office of Student & Academic Services shall be responsible for distributing all relevant materials to the appropriate members of the Appeals Committee and all other parties concerned and for arranging a hearing if one is to be held.
(f) The appellant shall have access to all information and materials pertaining to the appeal or reconsideration s.
(g) The Appeals Committee shall consider all information and materials pertaining to the appeal. If the Appeals Committee decides that there are not sufficient grounds to warrant holding AN ORAL hearing, the appeal shall be denied. The appellant shall be informed in writing by registered mail of that decision within ten working days of the date of the decision.
(h) If the Appeals Committee decides that there are sufficient grounds to hold an oral hearing, the appellant may be present at the appeal or reconsideration s hearing and may be accompanied by a representative, in which case the appellant shall indicate this intention in the statement of the appeal or reconsideration s relevant to each stage of the appeal or reconsideration s shall include the representative’s name, address, telephone number, and nature of relationship with the appellant.
(i) If the appellant is to be present (with or without a representative), notice of the hearing shall be given at least ten working days in advance unless the appellant and the Chair of the Appeals Committee agree to shorter notice.
(j) A working committee (as described below in G2) shall hold the hearing.
(k) The Chair of the Appeals Committee shall ensure that written minutes of all hearings and in camera meetings of the working committee are maintained.
(l) At the appeal or reconsideration s hearing, both parties will be given the opportunity to speak to the matter at hand. The appellant (and/or representative) and the delegate of the Faculty (and/or representative) will be permitted to address the working committee in support of the submitted written material. There will be a time limit of 15 minutes for each party’s address. Normally, the appellant (and/or representative) will address the working committee first. Each party has the subsequent right of reply. There will be a time limit of five minutes for each party’s reply. As the hearing is not a trial, witnesses will not be permitted, nor will parties be permitted to cross-examine each other. Members of the working committee will be permitted to ask questions of either party. At the conclusion of the hearing, the parties will depart the hearing and the members of the working committee will then discuss the matter and reach a decision in camera.
(m) Decision of the Appeals Committee shall be by majority vote of the members of the working committee. Abstentions shall not be permitted. In the event of a tied vote, the appeal or reconsideration s shall be denied.
(n) The Chair of the Appeals Committee shall inform the appellant either in person (in which case the appellant shall sign an agreement that he/she has been informed of the decision) or by registered mail of the decision in writing within ten working days of the decision having been reached.
Request for Reconsideration:
(o) Within ten working days of the oral or written notice of the decision of the Appeals Committee having been directed to the appellant, the appellant may seek a reconsideration of the matter to the Appeals Committee by submitting a written statement (containing the information noted above in G1.7 (b)) on grounds of new evidence or of procedural irregularity. (Notes: New evidence does not include material that was available at the time of original appeal, but was not submitted; rather, it must be evidence that was not reasonably obtainable by due diligence before the original hearing. Generally speaking, events or performance subsequent to the original Faculty determination on the petition are not to be construed as new evidence. The grounds for a claim of procedural irregularity are as follows: there was a lack of compliance with the procedures laid out in G1 and G2; the case was handled differently than other cases that were substantially similar; or the principles of equity, natural justice or fairness were not upheld.)
(p) The written statement of the grounds for reconsideration shall be submitted by the appellant to the Director of the Office of Student & Academic Services. Only one such request shall be permitted with respect to a specific appeal. the above procedures apply to a request for reconsideration except that only in exceptional circumstances will an oral hearing be held.
(q) If the matter is referred back, the chair of the appeals committee shall appoint a member of the appeals committee who was not a member of the original working committee, to decide whether to refer the matter back to the original working committee.
(r) The working Committee may decide to deny the appeal without holding a hearing if it decides that no material new evidence has been presented, or that no procedural irregularity occurred or that a procedural irregularity did occur, but was not of sufficient magnitude to have affected the outcome of the appeal.
(s) The appellant shall be informed in writing by registered mail of the decision to deny the appeal within ten working days.
(t) Normally, a reconsideration shall be heard by the original working committee, who will review the submissions in support of reconsideration and render a written decision with reasons within 10 working days of receipt of all relevant material.
(u) The decision of the Appeals Committee may be appealed to the Senate of the University or to such body of the Senate that the Senate may designate for the purpose, under such rules and procedures as the Senate may determine.
Amended by Faculty Council on May 29, 2003
G2.1 The Chair of the Appeals Committee shall appoint the members of a working committee to hear a specific appeal. Normally, the members of the working committee shall be members of the Appeals Committee. In exceptional circumstances, the Chair may appoint persons who are not members of the Appeals Committee. The Chair shall ensure that all members of a working committee are without bias with respect to the matter at hand.
G2.2 The working committee shall be known by the name of the appellant, e.g., “The Jones Committee.”
G2.3 The working committees shall consist of one student and two teaching faculty members. In exceptional circumstances, the Chair of the Appeals Committee may decide that a larger working committee is warranted.
G2.4 The working committee shall establish its own working procedures within the context of the Academic Regulations.
End of Section G
Approved by Senate on October 25, 2012
H1.1 The mandate of the Equity Committee shall be to:
a) identify and raise equity issues in the Faculty in order to promote the commitment to equity by all members of the Faculty;
b) review and provide input to procedures pertinent to equity, e.g., recruitment, admissions, faculty appointments, and curriculum;
c) report at least once annually to Council; and
d) facilitate equity discussions on teaching and learning at least once annually at the Committee of Instruction.
H1.2 The responsibilities of the Equity Committee shall be for:
a) developing and presenting to Council an annual report documenting the State of Equity in the Faculty; and
b) developing proposals to enhance equity within the Faculty, liaising with other relevant committees in the process, and bringing such proposals forward to the Committee of Instruction and/or Faculty Council, as needed, for approval.
H1.3 Meetings of the Committee shall be open to all members of the Faculty and meeting times and locations shall be posted in advance.