The motion called for Senate to "strike a working group under the Senate Committee on Physical Development in order to create an environmental policy with which to address environmental issues in a progressive and efficient manner." Johnston accepted a friendly amendment to change her text from "in order to create" to "in order to recommend to Senate" a new policy.

The motion was approved without much ado.

Vice-Principal (Academic) Bill Chan presented a motion, which the Academic Policy and Planning Committee had previously approved and was now recommending to Senate. It called for Senate's permission to use the Exam Security Computer Monitoring Program as admissible evidence in cases of students cheating on exams.

The program, co-developed by chemistry professors David Harpp and James Hogan, calculates the probability of cheating by a student, based on an analysis of the exam results, seating arrangements and other variables. The results don't determine guilt, but rather the probability that cheating has occurred.

Chan said that this action was needed to clear up "ambiguities in the use of the anti-cheat program," often referred to as the Harpp-Hogan Program. "We need clear, convincing and reliable evidence before the charge of cheating can be substantiated," he said. Until now, the anti-cheat program has had no official status in cases of cheating.

The motion read: "The evidence generated by this program can be used as admissible evidence, either to initiate or corroborate a charge under section 16 of the Code of Student Conduct and Disciplinary Proceedings ("the Code") at all stages of the disciplinary process."

Senator Wilbur Jonsson said this motion disturbed him because "it could lead to false conclusions about a student's guilt." He said the program might yield false results. "There's no evidence of the usefulness of this. How many cheaters are we talking about? What are the statistics on the probability of cheating in the general population?"

Vice-Principal (Research) Pierre Bélanger said that the anti-cheat program didn't automatically produce a guilty verdict, it "raised a red flag, not an accusation."

"There is a distinction between initiating a charge and corroborating a charge. Also, a finding of guilt is quite different from simply accepting the admissibility of evidence," said Dean of Students Rosalie Jukier. "Admissibility of evidence allows inquiry procedures to begin," and that was the purpose of this motion.

Student representative Steven Cohen objected on the basis that some students might be falsely accused. Also, some senators found the words "corroborate" and "charge" to be loaded with meaning and intent.

Still, Dean Jukier argued that the wording had been carefully chosen to cover all possible situations. "Admissibility of evidence is not a proof of guilt. It is not there to intimidate students."

Dean of Science Alan Shaver told Senate that the Harpp-Hogan program was widely used at other North American universities. He admitted that there had been initial concerns of "false positives" leading to false accusations of cheating, but stated that after 10 years of use, these fears had been laid to rest. He added that the program had even been reviewed by scholarly journals.

Professor Malcolm Baines asked if the word "charge" could be removed and replaced with "investigation." Jukier replied that she would accept "investigation" alongside the word "charge."

The question was called and the motion was accepted.

Professor Roger Rigelhof presented the University Committee on Scholarships and Student Aid report. He said that the Committee had struck a "work group on the funding of awards to address some concerns raised, especially by the Development Office, to the effect that funding regulations for awards were no longer appropriate." He invited Associate Vice-Principal (Graduate Studies) Martha Crago to address Senate and answer any questions about the work group's recommendations contained in the report.

Crago noted that many of the scholarship levels were insufficient to generate the funding necessary to attract and keep good students. Under the guidance of the Development Office, many of the levels were raised requiring potential donors to make larger commitments. In future, smaller donations would be used to build up the University's general scholarship, bursary or loan funds.

Senate approved the report of the work group, entitled "Definitions and Funding of Awards."