The mandate of the Ombuds-person for Students is to be responsible for "the impartial investigation and informal resolution of complaints by McGill students who feel that their rights have not been respected by some member of the McGill community."

The report warns that further budget cuts this year may affect both the ability of the Ombuds-person to fulfil this mandate and the search for a new ombuds-person later this year.

Hopmeyer stated that one recurring problem for graduate students is the departure of thesis and research supervisors. Generally, when a supervisor leaves for another university, they "take the money with them, leaving the graduate students without funding." She said that the number of such situations is increasing.

Hopmeyer said that a handbook on advising students would benefit many frontline workers who deal with students. She intends to create a workgroup that would help draft this publication. The handbook might include tips on how to "recognize legal implications, and when to call in security services, etc."

The Annual Report of the Appeal Committee for Student Discipline and Grievances was presented by Professor R. E. MacKenzie. No appeals of decisions of the Committee on Student Discipline were made in 1996-97. In total, five cases were heard dealing with appeals of decisions of the Senate Committee on Student Grievances.

This is the last report by MacKenzie as chair of the Appeals Committee. His term ended in March 1997 and he was thanked for his years of service by Principal Bernard Shapiro.

"Cheating makes a mockery of all we hold dear," said Vice-Principal (Academic) Bill Chan in his presentation of the Report to Senate of the Workgroup on Exam Security. The report offers a series of recommendations to ensure that the incidence of cheating is minimized.

"The best ways to reduce the incidence of cheating are to keep students from communicating with each other when they are writing exams and to stop them from using unauthorized materials brought into the exam room," states the workgroup's report.

"Most of our recommendations pertain to all exams, but some recommendations are specific to multiple-choice or mid-term exams respectively." The report also says that all students should be given "the same access to information about an exam before they write it."

The recommendations address a variety of anti-cheating strategies including seating arrangements, multiple versions of exams, large lecture halls for evening mid-term exams, better training of invigilators and the availability of past exams. Although the general principles of the Report proved acceptable to the majority, some senators were dubious about specific recommendations.

Professor Faith Wallis questioned recommendation #1 which called for "rooms large enough to seat students well apart." An accompanying paragraph for recommendation #6 admits that "mid-terms given during regular class time are often written under extremely crowded conditions. Applying recommendation #1 is therefore impossible." It then calls for evening exams in larger rooms.

"There are not enough rooms," said Wallis. "Those we have are too small. Splitting classes results in supervising nightmares."

Student representative Sam Johnston asked if cheating at McGill is very prevalent. Chan answered that while the number of reported cases is relatively low, catching cheaters is not easy and the actual numbers may be much higher than the available statistics indicate.

Professor Patrick Farrell spoke against recommendation #10 which says, "Students should not be permitted to leave in the last fifteen minutes of an examination." The reason stated is to reduce noise when a rush of students leave at the same time.

"Fifteen minutes is arbitrary," said Farrell. "It may benefit some people who are waiting for divine inspiration, but it denies people who have other exams some extra time to prepare. It's only an inconvenience."

"As a person who has been in that situation of waiting for divine inspiration, [the rush of people leaving] is very distracting," said Students' Society vice-president Liz Gomery. "Fifteen minutes of total peace is helpful."

Professor Edward Meighen noted that the rule will be very hard to apply. There are no sanctions proposed that might deter a student from leaving.

A further debate erupted around recommendation #11 which calls for faculties to "place copies of all centrally administered exams in the relevant library" unless notified otherwise by an instructor.

To avoid an unfair situation where some students get access to old exams and others don't, the proposal would level the playing field by making access universally possible. Professors would then write their exams knowing that students might be acquainted with questions from previous exams, and would be discouraged from merely recycling questions from year to year. However, according to the recommendation some instructors could "invoke an exception" by writing to the associate deans in their faculties.

Farrell called the proposal "stupid and unnecessary. We shouldn't be playing games where people opt in and out of a regulation. This is the status quo with red tape! Which is most appropriate? Let everyone see all exams or don't show any."

PGSS representative Anna Kruzynski disagreed and said that similar regulations work at other universities. "The pressure is on instructors to opt out. Most will comply."

However, the director of libraries, Frances Groen, drew attention to the costs associated with making copies available through the libraries. "It will be difficult in light of budget cuts." The recommendation was amended to allow the exams to be made available in the libraries and "other public places."

Professor Wilbur Johnson said that it would make "more sense to post exams on the web or at University copy services, so that library staff is not overworked." He made a motion to that effect. However, student representative Anne Topolski pointed out that not all faculties offer copy services.

"This is not the issue!" stated Wallis. "What we should be talking about is how to prevent students from getting hold of recycled exams."

Kruzynski concurred. "We're getting lost in procedure. 'Public access' covers the web, libraries and everything else." Senate agreed and struck down the amendment.

The vote was called and the report, as earlier amended, passed.

Robert Savoie, director of Human Resources, was invited to present the Conflict of Interest Policy to Senate. He said that the policy had been revised following a general policy review request issued to Quebec universities by the Conférence des recteurs et principaux des universités du Québec (CREPUQ). A revised policy was approved on November 4, 1996 by the Executive Committee of the Board of Governors, with the understanding that consultations with the McGill community would continue. Further revisions, based on comments from staff members, associations and unions, were made this year.

This time, Senate was presented with the document for information purposes only. However, it remained Senate's prerogative to make recommendations to the Board.

Professor Malcolm Baines asked that section 5 (Examples of Conflict of Interest) be removed. "These examples have no bearing on the policy." It was then suggested that section 5 be included as an appendix to the policy. Senate agreed to this suggestion and, with a few minor changes, the policy was sent to the Board for final approval.