As secretary of Senate, I would like to correct comments made by the author of this article about what happened at the October 16th 2012 Senate meeting, where the IPRM process was a major agenda item. The author claims that our President, Dr. Blouw, committed to having Senate “discussion, referral, amendment and approval” the IPRM report. This is not an accurate reflection of what happened at Senate. The complete power point presentation to Senate is available on the University web site in the senate archives.
In this presentation (slide 7) it is made clear that the IPEM report will come to Senate for transmission to the Board. Senate will be asked to comment on the report and make recommendation to the Board which may include: rejecting the report with rational, endorsing the report with recommended changes, or endorse the report as written. The report from the IPRM committee is moved forward in an intact manner by Senate to the Board (see also slide 4).
Later in the presentation (slide 24) in a section of potential motions by Faculties (Not statements by the President) a possible motion is discussed which includes the word “amendment and approval”. Immediately below this is the very clear comment which I quote in its entirety “… essentially agreed, however commentary by Senate (rather than amendment), and endorsement by Senate, followed by approval of the Board.” (highlighting in original).
There has been considerable commentary about the IPRM exercise and while people may agree or have difficulty with the process it is incumbent on all parties to present a faithful, accurate record of how the process has unfolded.
Secretary of Senate
Professor and Chair of Psychology