REPORT NUMBER 217 OF THE COMMITTEE ON
ACADEMIC POLICY AND PROGRAMS
FEBRUARY 16, 2023
To the Academic Board,
University of Toronto
Your Committee reports that it held a meeting in the Council Chamber, Simcoe Hall on Thursday, February 16, 2023 at 3:10 p.m. with the following present:
Present:
Ernest Lam (Chair), Susan McCahan (Vice-Provost, Academic Programs and Innovations in Undergraduate Education), Sharleen Ahmed, Areeb Ahmed, Catherine Amara, Brinda Batra, James Davis, Raisa Deber*, Jennifer Dolman, Angela Esterhammer, Jessica Eylon, Joseph Flessa, Susan Froom, Robert Gibbs, Jason Harlow, Tony Harris, Walid A. Houry, Charles Q. Jia, Maranatha Shone Joos, Suzanne Wood
Regrets:
Nhung Tran (Vice- Chair), Joshua Barker (Dean of the School of Graduate Studies and Vice-Provost, Graduate Research and Education), Justin Van Houten, Zhino Maanavi, Jennifer Purtle, Rosa Saverino, Daniel Zimmerman
Non-Voting Assessors:
Angelique Saweczko (University Registrar)
Leah Cowen (Vice-President, Research and Innovation, and Strategic Initiatives)
Secretariat:
Joanne Chou, Secretary
In Attendance:
Chris Yip, Dean, Faculty of Applied Science & Engineering
Ramin Farnood, Chair, Department of Chemical Engineering & Applied Chemistry
Warren Chan, Director, Institute of Biomedical Engineering
Lisa Robinson, Vice-Dean, Strategy and Operations
Rita Kandel, Chair, Department of Laboratory Medicine & Pathobiology
Cate Palmer, Director, Medical Radiation Sciences Program
Amrita Daniere, Interim Vice-Principal, Academic & Dean
Tracey Bowen, Vice-Dean, Teaching & Learning
Charmaine Williams, Dean, Factor-Inwentash Faculty of Social Work
Bill Gough, Vice-Principal Academic & Dean
Katie Larson, Vice-Dean Teaching, Learning & Undergraduate Programs
Melanie Woodin, Dean, Faculty of Arts & Science
Poppy Lockwood, Vice-Dean, Academic Planning
Alison Chasteen, Acting Associate Dean, Unit-Level Reviews
Darren Dias, Executive Director of Toronto School of Theology
Erica N. Walker, Dean, Ontario Institute for Studies in Education
Normand Labrie, Interim Associate Dean, Programs
Yue Li, Associate Director, MMPA Program, Institute for Management & Innovation
Margarida Duarte, Chair, Department of Economics
Sarah Finkelstein, Chair, Department of Earth Sciences
Jas Rault, Associate Chair, New Media Studies Program
Dickson Eyoh, Acting Principal, New College
Daniella Mallinick, Director, Academic Programs, Planning and Quality Assurance, OVPAP
Jennifer Francisco, Coordinator, Academic Change, OVPAP
Emma del Junco, Acting Coordinator, Academic Planning & Reviews, OVPAP
David Lock, Coordinator, Academic Planning & Reviews, OVPAP
Annette Knott, Coordinator, Academic Change, OVPAP
Alexandra Varela, Acting Assistant Coordinator, Academic Planning and Reviews, OVPAP
(*attended remotely)
- Chair’s Welcome
The Chair welcomed members and guests to the meeting. The Chair also announced the appointment of a new Lieutenant-Governor-in-Council (LGIC) member, Ms Sharleen Ahmed, for a term effective December 16, 2022 to June 30, 2023.
- Reports of the Administrative Assessors
The Chair invited the Senior Assessor, Professor Susan McCahan to make her report to the Committee. Professor McCahan addressed the following:
Professor McCahan began her report by providing an update on advances in technology related to teaching and learning at the University, citing the recent developments in generative AI systems, such as ChatGPT and its implications. She explained that she had led discussions on the topic with both the Academic Continuity Leadership Group and the Vice and Associate Deans Academic. The Centre for Teaching Support & Innovation (CTSI) created a resource page with guidance for approaching generative AI in the classroom and was hosting a workshop for instructors on designing assessments in the age of AI.
The Vice-Provost noted that her office created an FAQ page with information about these technological systems. They was a strong uptake and were continuing to track these advances. An advisory group for the University on generative AI in teaching and learning was in development and would provide information and support to faculty and students as these developments unfold.
In response to a member’s question, Professor McCahan stated that the University was advising faculty to be specific about what tools, if any, were permitted in completing assessments. If an instructor that specified that no outside assistance was permitted on an assignment, generative AI, was considered the use of an “unauthorized aid” under existing policy.
Professor McCahan observed that two major global journal publishers, Springer Nature, and Science that had differed on their policies regarding the use of ChatGPT. She noted that a standard of practice was still evolving, and it was expected that ChatGPT and other similar technologies would be integrated on operating platforms such as Microsoft Windows.
In response to a member’s follow-up question about guidance and how this might influence pedagogy, Professor McCahan remarked that there was a growing body of writing on this topic. She highlighted the establishment of an advisory group that consisted of diverse stakeholders to evaluate the new technologies and their impact on the academic community. She explained that the group was modelled after the committee struck to advise on MOOCs (massive open online courses) a decade ago.
The Chair invited Professor Leah Cowen, Vice-President, Research and Innovation, and Strategic Initiatives to offer her report.
Professor Cowen highlighted the recent media coverage regarding research security considerations and that the federal government would no longer fund grant applications related to research in sensitive areas if any of the researchers working on the project are affiliated with a university, research institute, or laboratory connected to military, national defense, or state security entities of “foreign state actors that pose a risk to our national security.” She clarified that this was an expansion of the existing pilot project with the NSERC Alliance grant program. U15 and Universities Canada are being urged to follow similar guidelines. U of T was working closely with the government to ensure that the needs of the research community were properly addressed.
She explained that the University took advice and direction on national security matters from the Government of Canada, but that there was much that still needed to be clarified. She noted that the new announcement had not yet been implemented as discussions were ongoing to define the relevant parameters. She stated that the priorities were to balance the academic freedoms within the current geopolitical/security situation. U of T had been implementing research security measures prior to the recent media reports and was updating the internal review process to include a geopolitical due diligence analysis on engagements of possible concern, providing briefings to institutional, divisional, and individual PI levels. UofT was also expanding the existing MRA process to incorporate this geopolitical due diligence. The University was leading several working groups that include the hospitals, and other institutions such as MaRS and the Vector Institute and was working closely with research security directors and peers across Canada that were involved in research security. She concluded that while this was a substantial announcement, it was not yet operational, and much work still needed to be done.
In response to a member’s question, Professor Cowen indicated that they had not received communication as to when this would be implemented. She stated that she was a member of a university and government working group that was focused on research security, and this topic would be discussed at its meeting in coming weeks and could provide an update at a future date.
The Chair thanked Professors McCahan and Cowen for their reports.
- Reviews of Academic Programs and Units
-
Follow-up Reports from Previous Reviews
The Chair noted to the Committee that there were two follow-up reports:- The Provostial non-UTQAP Review of the Ontario Institute for Studies in Education (OISE); and,
- The Provostial Review of the programs offered conjointly by the Toronto School of Theology (TST) and the University of Toronto
-
The Chair invited Professor McCahan to offer her comments.
Professor McCahan reported that under the University of Toronto quality assurance process (UTQAP) this committee may request a one year follow up report when concerns are raised in an external report that require a longer period of response. The Provostial reviews of OISE and of the programs offered conjointly by the Toronto Schools of Theology and the University of Toronto were discussed at the Cycle Two meeting in October 2021. The committee requested follow up reports for these two reviews.
She summarized the follow up reports from OISE’s previous Interim Dean, Normand Labrie and TST executive director Darren Dias, detailing the actions that their offices had undertaken since their reviews were brought forward to this committee.
The Provostial non-UTQAP Review of the Ontario Institute for Studies in Education (OISE)
- The follow up for the review of OISE reported on the issue of how students’ financial needs were to be supported, either by creating more opportunities for teaching assistantships, or through scholarships or other means.
- The Dean noted that continued support of graduate students was very important to the Institute and became a key priority following the 2020-2021 review.
- Expansion strategies to grow student financial support included enhancing students’ access to teaching assistantships beyond OISE and fundraising.
- OISE created a Student Teaching Experience Working Group to identify ways to enhance teaching experiences for doctoral students.
- Worked with divisional colleagues to make TA positions for OISE students available in both Victoria College’s Education and Society (E&S) Minor program and in UTM’s Department of Language Studies.
- Doubled its fundraising goal and efforts to $25 million, to increase awards for underrepresented groups, with several new scholarships already established and more conversations currently underway.
- Ongoing commitment to support its graduate students through enhanced access to opportunities and identifying more mechanisms to offer student financial support.
The Provostial Review of the programs offered conjointly by the Toronto School of Theology (TST) - The follow-up for the review of the TST conjoint programs reported on progress toward addressing complement and enrolment planning, greater diversity and better funding, the graduate faculty appointment process, and long-term planning.
- Progresses on the short- and medium-term goals were outlined in the UTQAP administrative response. A key development was the recent appointment in September 2022 of a full term (five year) Executive Director by the Board of Trustees, with a search for an Associate Director, Graduate Programs underway.
- Discussions continue regarding faculty renewal, and collaborative strategic enrolment planning and management as part of a longer-term planning process.
- Engagement in research and analysis about its strengths and weaknesses in areas of equity, diversity and inclusion (EDI), and increased forms of diversity was a priority.
- The results from an 2021-22 audit on EDI would contribute to the development of a TST-wide EDI plan.
- Working with the Institutional Equity office and external experts on matters of EDI, with the Senior Executive Council and Faculty Assembly having undertaken unconscious bias training.
- As of October 2022, EDI was a standing item on the agenda of the Council.
- An Ad Hoc Advisory Committee on student financial aid was established in 2022 but progress had since been delayed due to recent staff changes. This item would be addressed during the 2023 Winter term.
- TST’s Graduate Appointments Committee led revisions to the graduate faculty appointments process, and the revised Policy for Academic Appointments was approved by the Academic Council in April 2022.
There were no questions from members.
- Semi-Annual Report on the Reviews of Academic Units and Programs, October 2020 – October 2021
The Chair noted that the Committee had received 11 reviews of units and/or programs, one of which was a Provostial review and ten of which were Decanal. All were brought forward for information and discussion. The submissions included the signed administrative responses from each Dean, which highlighted action plans in response to reviewer recommendations.
The Chair reported that members had been broken into four reading groups and that each group had been assigned up to three reviews to consider. To guide their work, members of these groups were asked to consider three questions:
-
Does the summary accurately tell the story of the full review?
-
Does the administrative response address all issues identified?
-
Are there any questions, comments or substantive issues that the Committee should consider? Is there a need to ask that the Vice-Provost, Academic Programs bring forward a follow-up report?
The Chair also noted that, as part of their review, each of the Reading groups had submitted comments to the appropriate Deans’ Offices for their consideration in advance of the meeting.
The Chair invited Professor McCahan to make general remarks about the reviews.
Professor McCahan noted that the Committee played a critical role in the reviews of all academic programs and units at the University. The goals of these reviews were to:
- to obtain expert advice of leaders in the field concerning academic and administrative issues,
- to measure performance against leading international programs, and
- to obtain guidance and input from peers on key strategic decisions.
She confirmed that 11 reviews were being brought forward for the Committee’s consideration; one commissioned by the Provost and ten reviews commissioned by Deans. She noted that both recurring and new themes were identified in the reviews: the talent and high calibre of students and the impressive body of scholarship produced by faculty, as well as the programs’ interdisciplinary strengths and the many initiatives undertaken by the academic units to enhance equity, diversity, and inclusion.
Professor McCahan noted that as always, the reviews noted areas for development. The reviews identified the need for units to strengthen their communication and governance structures, and suggested ways to engage in meaningful discussions regarding student recruitment and faculty workload. The reviews also highlighted the need to ensure that diversity was reflected in faculty complement and in curriculum.
Faculty of Applied Science & Engineering – Dept. of Chemical Engineering & Applied Chemistry
The spokesperson for the reading group reported that the review summary accurately described the full review and that overall, they had found the review to be positive. The reading group reported that the Dean’s administrative response had adequately addressed issues identified by the review, however, asked the Department to further comment on the topic of curriculum consultation, a PEY fee increase, low funding for students, improving TA administration and space issues.
Professor Ramin Farnood, Chair, Dept. of Chemical Engineering & Applied Chemistry addressed the questions: - The Curriculum consultation was ongoing and would include stakeholders outside the University, such as alumni and employers.
- Bursary supports were forthcoming to help students with the PEY fee increase and fees were staged over the course of four years in the program.
- As of this current academic year, students who had completed their qualifying exams were required to register annually in a credit/no credit course to support timely progress on their theses. Focused attention and communication to improve education and culture change to encourage attention to time to completion.
- Stipend increase of $2000, with another increase scheduled (split equally between faculty and Department)
- Ongoing improvement regarding TA administration, in partnership with Faculty administration and labour relations.
- A space working group had been established, prioritizing key infrastructure challenges.
No follow-up report was requested.
Faculty of Applied Science & Engineering – Institute of Biomedical Engineering (BME)
The spokesperson for the reading group reported that the review summary accurately described the full review and that overall, they had found the review to be positive. The reading group reported that the Dean’s administrative response had adequately addressed issues identified by the review, however, asked the Institute to further comment on need for communication around electives, the role of teaching stream faculty, diversity in hiring, and mentorship.
Professor Warren Chan, Director, Institute of Biomedical Engineering commented that: - Departmental communications had been enhanced through improved technological access, such as utilizing SharePoint, creating a newsletter to share information and implementing a single source site.
- The growth of BME in Canada was emphasized, as was the heavy competition for talent in the field. As such, the unit noted the need to increase BME faculty complement where possible, in order to compete globally.
- IBME has welcomed and explicitly encouraged diverse candidates to apply to available positions; and a diverse committee considers applications. The unit has been attending annual BME Society workshops on diversity and indicated plans to undertake unconscious bias training and work more closely with FASE’s EDI Director going forward.
- An informal system is in place, which tailors mentorship to new faculty based on their needs. The unit considered a more formal structure but found this sometimes resulted in fewer meetings. A dynamic, fluid approach helps match faculty with appropriate mentors.
- Implemented decision-based meetings and have established an annual retreat.
No follow-up report was requested.
Temerty Faculty of Medicine - Department of Laboratory Medicine & Pathobiology
The spokesperson for the reading group reported that the review summary accurately described the full review and that overall, they had found the review to be positive. The reading group reported that the Dean’s administrative response had adequately addressed issues identified by the review, however, the reading group asked for the distinction of first entry Faculty of Arts & Science students and Undergraduate Medical students.
Professor Rita Kandel, Chair, Department of Laboratory Medicine & Pathobiology clarified that while LMP faculty did teach MD students and drew clinical trainees from the program, the MD was delivered separately by the Temerty Faculty. Thus, second entry undergraduate MD students were separate from the undergraduate FAS students who were enrolled in the undergraduate programs that were part of this review.
No follow-up report was requested.
Temerty Faculty of Medicine – Medical Radiation Sciences Program
The spokesperson for the reading group reported that in the summary section on Research/Faculty which stated “Limited student uptake of research-oriented courses in Radiological Technology and Nuclear Medicine” could emphasize the link made by reviewers between very low student uptake (1-2 students) with the “insufficient role models for the students to identify in these areas of practice”. The reading group reported that the Dean’s administrative response had adequately addressed issues identified by the review, however, asked the Department to further address the concerns around Interprofessional Education (IPE) Activities and the limited student uptake on research courses. The reading group agreed that the administrative response had included a forward-looking plan.
Professor Cate Palmer, Director, Medical Radiation Sciences Program commented on several initiatives and programs offered in the IPE core activities such as team building, conflict resolution and communications. She described ongoing developments to improve on several issues highlighted by the reviewers, such as research challenges, enhanced mentorship and inclusion.
No follow-up report was requested.
UTM Master of Management & Professional Accounting Program (MMPA)
The spokesperson for the reading group reported that comments from the review report related to branding of the program might be better emphasized in the summary by specifying that it is the word “management” in the MMPA title that “confuses an applicant audience”, particularly international students, noting that some students thought they were entering a management degree and later learned it was focused on accounting.
The reading group reported that the Dean’s administrative response had adequately addressed issues identified by the review, however, asked the Department to further address the branding of the program and recommendations related to physical resource constraints.
Professor Yue Li, Associate Director, MMPA Program, Institute for Management & Innovation explained that the website indicated that the MMPA program provided a pathway to becoming a Chartered Professional Accountant, and that the program would work improve promotional materials for prospective students. She noted that the program does provide additional resources for students interested in pursuing different career paths.
Professor Amrita Daniere, Interim Vice-Principal, Academic & Dean noted that space continued to be an issue across the University, and that the MMPA had a dedicated space that was meant to provide a productive learning environment. She noted that they do address acute challenges as soon as they are raised, and are working to better understand whether any other improvements can be made.
No follow-up report was requested.
UTM Department of Economics
The spokesperson for the reading group reported that the review summary had accurately reflected the full review and that the administrative response fully addressed the issues identified. The summary tells the full story of the review, and the reading group felt that the issues of curricular review and adjustments and faculty retention and recruitment were adequately addressed in the unit’s response.
No follow-up report was requested.
Provostial Review - Factor-Inwentash Faculty of Social Work
The spokesperson for the reading group found the review to be overall positive. The spokesperson reported that the reviewers’ comments on centralized decision making could have been presented more specifically in the summary, in light of concerns raised around decision-making processes, and/or faculty members’ perception about decision-making becoming more centralised. The group sought additional clarification on several areas of the administrative response, including structural issues; decision-making processes; Teaching Stream faculty workload; faculty concerns about administrative workload; the observation that students who have professional experience find some courses too elementary; and the lack of diversity in the curriculum.
Professor Charmaine Williams, Dean, provided responses on the following: - The Faculty recognized that diversity in the curriculum is an area of growth; Social work has done a lot of recruitment to increase the diversity of the student body, and acknowledged that the curriculum needs to evolve to meet the needs of those students.
- EDI noted as a key priority with several initiatives undertaken to address concerns, including orientation, staffing hires and curriculum committee discussions.
- Additional funds were secured to support course release.
- Previous diverse experience was a direct admission requirement into the program, and there are no plans to offer a second stream.
- Increased transparency and expectations around teaching stream roles with a plan to recruit more teachers and faculty.
- Improved communication, collaboration and engagement in the decision-making processes.
In response to a question raised by the reading group, Professor Williams noted:
A focus on local concerns is common to Canadian MSW programs because they are accredited nationally. However, it is a priority for the Faculty to ensure that the curriculum is global, which will align with institutional and divisional priorities and be a distinguishing factor of U of T’s MSW program.
A one-year follow-up report was requested on two areas:
- The progress on curriculum renewal diversification and internationalization.
- Progress on addressing concerns related to Faculty climate, including faculty workload and administrative roles, support staff, and decision making processes.
University of Toronto Scarborough: Department of Sociology
The spokesperson for the reading group reported that the reviewers’ comments were overall positive. They felt the review summary accurately reflected the full review. The Reading Group identified two points on which they requested clarification beyond what was covered in the Dean’s response. This included concerns around administrative staffing levels and opportunities to consolidate and enhance community engagement and experiential learning.
Professor Bill Gough, Vice-Principal Academic & Dean, UTSC responded that HR was providing guidance in considering the appropriate levels of administrative support for departments that had historically been supported through shared resources. Katie Larson Vice-Dean Teaching, Learning & Undergraduate Programs mentioned that they would expand on experiential learning opportunities, faculty research projects and additional staffing.
No follow-up report was requested.
University of Toronto Scarborough: New Media Studies Program
The Reading Group members found the summary to accurately reflect the full review. The Reading Group noted that while the reviewers were supportive of the program, it would not characterize the review as being positive. The Unit or the Dean was asked to respond in more detail to the reviewers’ comments regarding job security, non permanent staff, institutional support, tightening enrolment requirements, the integration between Centennial College and UTSC, and the rationale for the program redesign.
In response to a question by the reading group, Professor Bill Gough, Vice-Principal Academic & Dean, UTSC responded by highlighting several initiatives:
- The relationship between UTSC and Centennial is substantial, extending from the joint programs to many other teaching, learning and research initiatives, leveraging co-located campuses.
- The joint programs are overseen by a steering committee with representation from both institutions.
- The two institutions are in the process of renewing the MOU; the revisions are designed, in part, to address some of the issues the reviewers highlighted regarding support and coordination.
- The curriculum review currently in progress will address course sequencing, cohorting, timely acquisition of technical skills, and the integration of applied learning and the culminating capstone.
Given that the program will be undergoing a significant redesign, a one-year follow-up report was requested.
Faculty of Arts & Science African Studies Program
Reading Group members found the reviewers’ comments to be generally supportive of the program. The members found the summary to accurately reflect the full review. The responses provided by the Dean and the Unit addressed many of the issues raised in the review.
Several areas of concern were raised by the reviewers including the limited course offerings and the regularity of these offerings, student funding, the low number of faculty in the program, and the low profile of the program within New College.
Professor Melanie Woodin, Dean, responded that: - Completion of the governance process to transition the program to an EDU-B would be completed in the Spring.
- Faculty members would hold joint appointments and would be part of the African Study Center that is physically located in New College.
- Students of the program had access to a full array of bursaries and scholarships, and applications could be made through the Registrar’s Office with additional funding supports to be considered.
Finally, given that major changes are required to address the recommendations and given the transitioning of the program into an EDU, a one-year follow-up report was requested.
Faculty of Arts & Science Department of Earth Sciences
The reviewers found the programs in the Department of Earth Sciences to be positive. The Reading Group members found the summary to accurately reflect the full review. The reviewers suggested some improvements to the programs including expanding senior undergraduate course offerings, clearer learning outcomes, equal treatment of graduate students across the tri-campus, and examining plans for the Jack Satterly Geochronology Laboratory (JSGL).
Professor Alison Chasteen, Acting Associate Dean, Unit-Level Reviews noted that regarding the Jack Satterly Geochronology Laboratory (JSGL), the Dean would commission a unit level strategic plan to address complement planning and resource allocation, administrative staffing and graduate and undergraduate programming. A meeting with the Vice-Dean, Research & Infrastructure in FAS was planned to discuss the role of the lab and how best to support it.
No follow-up report was needed.
The Chair thanked all members of the Committee’s reading groups for their work and to the Office of the Vice-Provost, Academic Programs for assembling the Review Compendium.
EXTENSION OF TIME
On motion duly moved, seconded and carried
IT WAS RESOLVED
the time of adjournment be extended by thirty minutes.
- Annual Report: Student Financial Support, 2021-22
The Committee received and reviewed for information the Annual Report: Student Financial Support, 2021-22.
Ms. Angelique Saweczko, University Registrar, reported that the Report was provided annually in accordance with the University’s Policy on Student Financial Support. She noted that the Report provided information on merit-based and need-based aid, Ontario Student Assistant Program (“OSAP”) debt-load for students graduating from undergraduate direct-entry programs, and funding for graduate students in doctoral stream programs. Ms Saweczko highlighted that in 2021-22, the University had spent $283.6M in total student assistance, compared to $34.7M for the year prior. Total OSAP funding to U of T students decreased by $57.6M to $302.7M in 2021-22, compared to $360.4M in the previous year. The decline was attributed to government policy changes in the way OSAP was calculated.
Ms. Saweczko provided a summary of the University’s financial aid program, composition of support and its relationship with OSAP and noted that the University’s UTAPS program was being reviewed to identify opportunities for improvements...
The report on student financial support highlighted the following:
- Approximately $890,000 was awarded to 111 Indigenous students through both scholarships and need-based awards.
- Student work and research support increased by $878K. This includes the expansion of the UTEA awards to 152 awards (from 40)
- OSAP for micro-credentials was introduced in 2021-22 and funding was provided to 297 learners.
The Registrar concluded that due to changes in financial need levels as defined by OSAP eligibility and benefits level, fewer students were "eligible", however this does not mean that U of T students are less needy. The UTAPS review is helping to understand our students needs and will include the development of a new framework for UTAPS, to allow for earlier allocation of funds and to reflect the costs of living in the GTA. They had also developed a Student Advisory Group to seek feedback on process.
A member commended on the de-coupling UTAPS for OSAPs and recommended to engage with the student unions and student government for their inputs as part of the Student Advisory Group.
- Annual Report: Student Awards Established, Amended and Withdrawn, July 1, 2021, to June 30, 2022
The Committee received and reviewed for information the Annual Report: Student Awards Established, Amended and Withdrawn from July 1, 2021, to June 30, 2022.
Ms. Saweczko reported that during 2021-2022, 302 new awards had been established, with a total endowment value of $23.1 million. Approximately $74K in expendable awards had been withdrawn. Overall, a slight increase in awards, but lower value based on the number of donations received throughout the year.
A data clean-up to remove awards that have been inactive for several years is underway.
In the discussion that followed, Ms. Saweczko added the following:
- Internal University awards were captured in the system, however, not all external awards depending on their structure.
- Internal award conditions encompass a variety of terms and conditions. Amended awards indicated a change to the existing award.
- Report of the Previous Meeting: Report 216, October 25, 2022
The Report of the previous meeting was approved.
- Business Arising from the Report of the Previous Meeting
There was no business arising from the report of the previous meeting.
- Date of Next Meeting – April 13, 2023, at 3:10 p.m.
The Chair confirmed that the next meeting of the Committee would be held on Thursday, April 13, 2023.
- Other Business
There were no items of other business.
The meeting adjourned at 5:34 p.m.
March 2, 2023