Te Komiti Whakahaere Ako
Academic Administration Committee
_____________________________________________
Ngā āmiki | Minutes
Rā | Date
Monday, 19 June 2023
Wā | Time
1.00pm
Wāhi | Venue
Council Chamber, Level 6, Matariki
Tāngata i tae
S 9(2)(a) OIA
mai | Present
Professor C Moran S 9(2)(a)
OIA
Whakapāha
S 9(2)(a) OIA
| Apologies
Ērā atu i
S 9(2)(a) OIA
tae mai | In
attendance
1.
WELCOME
The Acting Chair welcomed members and noted that there were a number of CUAP matters to attend
to. He asked that minor editorial changes be sent directly to the person presenting the proposal with
S 9(2)(a) OIA copied in, and that only substantial amendments, fundamental issues, or questions be
raised at this meeting. The purpose was to ensure the proposals are at a satisfactory standard for
Academic Board and CUAP.
2.
CONFIRMATION OF THE MINUTES OF THE PREVIOUS MEETING ON 22 MAY 2023
Moved by the Chair:
That, the minutes of the meeting held on 22 May 2023 are a true and accurate record subject to the
following amendment:
-
That S 9(2)(a) OIA
title be amended to the S 9(2)(a) OIA
Carried
3.
MATTERS ARISING
There were no matters arising.
4.
BUSINESS FROM THE ACTING CHAIR
There was no business from the Chair.
5. CUAP PROPOSALS
5.1 To introduce new conjoint degrees:
S 9(2)(b)(ii) OIA
1
S 9(2)(b)(ii) OIA
S 9(2)(a) OIA thanked members for reading the proposals and identifying any potential improvements.
The introduction of these conjoint degrees was the continuation of efforts to facilitate collaboration
between the Faculty of Engineering and other faculties. Special mention was given to the conjoint
degree with S 9(2)(b)(ii) OIA as there is currently a proposed name change from S 9(2)(b)(ii) OIA
which
would need to be approved prior to approving the new S 9(2)(b)(ii) OIA
The structure of the
proposed conjoints was identical to the previous four conjoints the faculty has introduced and which
have been approved through the CUAP process.
S 9(2)(a) noted he had sent typographical feedback to all proposers, including S 9(2)(a) OIA
and had
also raised fundamental issues so the proposers were aware of his concerns. He opened the floor to
questions.
S 9(2)(a) OIA
queried why there was a preference for conjoint degrees rather than double degrees,
and queried the grade point requirement and what would happen to students who did not meet this.
S 9(2)(a) OIA explained that S 9(2)(b)(ii) OIA
S 9(2)(a) OIA
noted it was interesting S 9(2)(g)(i) OIA
S 9(2)(a) OIA referred to the GPA requirement and the used of the term “ocerload”, and advised S
had rightly identified he had used the wrong wording in the regulations S 9(2)(b)(ii) OIA
S 9(2)(a) OIA
noted the feedback was S 9(2)(b)(ii) OIA
It was suggested the regulations should specify the number of Engineering points students needed to
complete as the regs currently note 255 points from science and 675 points in total. While a student
could work it out, it could be specified for clarity.
S 9(2)(a) asked that:
-
the Graduate Profiles be added;
2
-
the S 9(2)(b)(ii) OIA
be tagged as it is conditional on the S 9(2)(b)(ii) OIA
being approved
at Academic Board;
-
They review the 120 point limit for engineering students and include it in the regulations and
ensure that the enrolment system prompts faculty approval for exceeding this;
-
Review the 150 points listed from compulsory courses in the conjoint with Data Science.
Professor Moran entered the meeting,
S 9(2)(a) OIA
queried S 9(2)(b)(ii) OIA
S 9(2)(a) OIA
S 9(2) asked whether the Faculty had any aspirations to join with degrees in the S 9(2)(b)(ii) OIA
. S 9(2)(a) OIA noted there was and they had already created a conjoint
with the S 9(2)(b)(ii) OIA
Moved by the Acting Chair:
S 9(2)(b)(ii) OIA
Carried
5.2 To introduce a new S 9(2)(b)(ii) OIA
S 9(2)(a) OIA
was welcomed to the meeting.
S 9(2)(a)
advised this was a new postgraduate qualification to follow on from S 9(2)(b)(ii) OIA
S 9(2)(a) thanked S 9(2)(a)
for the overview and requested this information be included in section
11 of the document.
S 9(2)(a) OIA said the proposal looked really exciting and queried whether a core course or structured
compulsory courses had been considered. S noted graduates could have a vastly different
configuration of expertise.
S 9(2)(a)
explained that this had been considered but the degree had been structured to S 9(2)(b)(ii) OIA
3
S 9(2)(b)(ii) OIA
Students would be well supported by the Programme Coordinator when making their course selections
to ensure they align with their thesis and that students meet any relevant pre-requisites.
S 9(2)(a) OIA
S 9(2)(g)(i) OIA
S 9(2)(a)
A member queried the drafting of the exit pathways and recommended they state how one exits – eg
have successfully completed the requirements of x degree.
A member queried whether the course work was to be completed first, or concurrently with the thesis.
It was noted that this would differ depending on the courses the student wanted to take and the semester
in which they were offered. Students may spend the first two semesters taking two courses and 30
points on their thesis and enrolling in 60 points of thesis in their last semester.
S 9(2)(a) declared a conflict of interest, as she was part of the S 9(2)(a) OIA
– a unique
partnership focused on S 9(2)(b)(ii) OIA
.
said she supported the
S 9(2)(a)
breadth of offerings as S 9(2)(b)(ii) OIA
, and there was so much potential. S
said having breadth was really important to respond to the situation now and in the future. 9(
Professor Moran noted she was comfortable with the pathway into the 120 point thesis as the entry
requirements mean students would be entering the programme with an honours degree or another
master’s. Therefore, these students would have research experience and skills, and would be coming
in at an advanced level.
Professor Moran queried whether the requirement to take two courses from group one specialising in
S 9(2)(b)(ii) OIA
S 9(2)(a)
S 9(2)(a) requested any typographical feedback be provided to S 9(2)(a)
, S 9(2)(a) OIA
and
S 9(2)(a) OIA .
Moved by the Acting Chair
That, subject to making the recommended typographical amendments the proposal be
accepted and forwarded to Academic Board.
Carried
S 9(2)(a)
left the meeting.
5.3S 9(2)(b)(ii) OIA
S 9(2)(a) OIA
was welcomed to the meeting.
4
S 9(2)(a) OIA introduced the proposal to introduce S 9(2)(b)(ii) OIA
He thankedS 9(2)(a)
for raising the idea at a recent Board of Studies meeting. The minor was to cater to students from
OIA
other degrees that might want to undertake a minor in a discipline within S 9(2)(b)(ii) OIA . For example,
S 9(2)(b)(ii) OIA
S 9(2)(a) noted he had sent feedback to S 9(2)(a) OIA via email. S 9(2)(a) OIA replied that he had
made all recommended changes.
Moved by the Acting Chair
S 9(2)(b)(ii) OIA
Carried.
S 9(2)(a) asked that, if approved by Academic Board, the General Regulations be updated to include
the S 9(2)(b)(ii) OIA
5.4 S 9(2)(b)(ii) OIA
S 9(2)(a) OIA requested that should the S 9(2)(b)(ii) OIA
be approved, a minor in
S 9(2)(b)(ii) OIA
also be created. S 9(2)(a) agreed that this could happen, but the minor would
need to wait until round two was complete.
Moved by the Acting Chair
S 9(2)(b)(ii) OIA
Carried.
S 9(2)(a) OIA
left the meeting.
5.5 Master of Engineering in Fire Engineering – proposed increase to the number of points of
required coursework which raises the overall points from 210 to 225.
S 9(2)(a) OIA
was welcomed to the meeting.
S 9(2)(a) OIA
explained that Fire engineering have a taught master’s qualification and a
master’s by research qualification. Beginning 5 – 6 years ago, a programme review initiated what has
resulted in the changes they are bringing forward today. They were proposing to increase the number
of points in the taught component of the research degree, make a change in the structure of how the
material was delivered, but also make a smaller change in what was delivered. This would bring the
total number of points in the degree up by 15 points to 225 points.
Moved by the Acting Chair
That, the Master of Engineering in Fire Engineering – proposed increase to the number of points
of required coursework which raises the overall points from 210 to 225 be approved and
forwarded to Academic Board.
Carried.
5.6 Master of Engineering Studies, proposed change of name to Master of Fire Engineering
Studies endorsement and proposed increase to the number of points taken from Schedule
S from 75 to 105
5
S 9(2)(a) OIA
explained this programme was currently being delivered under the Master
of Engineering Studies with the endorsement of Fire Engineering. The intention was to increase the
number of required courses by 15 points. Because the Masters of Engineering Studies was shared by
different groups, it wouldn’t work to change the number of points for one endorsement, therefore they
were changing the number of points within Schedule S while the number of total points remained the
same.
S 9(2)(a) objected to the T2 because this would also change the name of the other endorsements and
advised there this would need to be treated as a new qualification, and a regulation change to remove
the Fire Engineering endorsement form the MEngSt.
S 9(2)(a) OIA suggested the first sentence under the executive summary was missing the words “fire
engineering” which was confirmed as correct and would be amended.
S 9(2)(a) OIA
suggested there needed to be a standard format for presenting
feedback. He noted the proposal included an email chain that should not be sent to CUAP. He
suggested a table should be created in which feedback could be copy/pasted to ensure email chains
with any irrelevant or unprofessional comments were not circulated with proposals.
Professor Moran agreed that tables would also be useful for any feedback presented to Academic Board
from Committees.
Moved by the Acting Chair
That, subject to changing the paperwork to include the feedback provided, and any
subsequently sent directly to S 9(2)(a) OIA
, the proposal to introduce a new
qualification in the Master of Fire Engineering be approved in principal, and forwarded to
Academic Board.
Carried.
S 9(2)(a) OIA
left the meeting.
5.7 Master of Mathematical Sciences –S 9(2)(b)(ii) OIA
S 9(2)(a) OIA
was welcomed to the meeting.
S 9(2)(a) OIA
introduced the proposal noting she was representing her colleagues who were
unable to attend. S 9(2)(b)(ii) OIA
Currently they have endorsements in Mathematics, Statistics and Computational and Applied
Mathematics. The addition of two endorsements would nourish the University ecosystem to create
research aligned pathways for our postgraduate students.
The endorsement in S 9(2)(b)(ii) OIA would provide the missing link between the popular S 9(2)(b)(ii) OIA
PhD code and the S 9(2)(b)(ii) OIA
.
S 9(2)(a) OIA queried the exit pathway in S 9(2)(b)(ii) OIA . It was noted that students would have completed
the requirements of the exit pathway so would be graduating with the qualification, not enrolling in the
qualification. Student’s that had not completed the requirements for the Exit Pathway may seek to
transfer to another degree and that would be a decision at the discretion of the relevant Associate Dean.
S 9(2)(a) asked that the regulations remove 10 (c) “transfer to honours” as students would not have
completed a project course for honours.
would review this offline.
S 9(2)(a)
S 9(2)(a) noted he had sent questions on the S 9(2)(b)(ii) OIA
programme and
why we needed another one.
explained that the S 9(2)(b)(i) OIA was an industry aligned
S 9(2)(a) OIA
conversion master’s with a variety of pathways. The proposed degree was for students who had
6
completed a S 9(2)(b)(ii) OIA
which created a pathway for about S 9(2)(b)(ii) OIA
based on
current enrolments.
The proposal differs from the Master of Financial Engineering which has a 90-point thesis and was for
more math inclined students.
S 9(2)(a) asked for the reference to this being “more methodologically robust master in S 9(2)(b)(ii) OIA ”
to be amended as it appears to be insulting our own degree.
S 9(2)(a) OIA
queried whether consultation had taken place with the Business
School. It was noted it had and evidence was included in the consultation documents.
Moved by the Acting Chair
That the proposal S 9(2)(b)(ii) OIA
Carried.
Any typographical changes should be sent to S 9(2)(a) OIA
, S 9(2)(a) OIA and S 9(2)(a) OIA
S 9(2)(a) OIA
left the meeting.
5.8 To introduce a Certificate in Foundation Studies
S 9(2)(a) OIA
entered the meeting.
S 9(2)(a) introduced the certificateS 9(2)(b)(ii) OIA
S 9(2)(a) noted that S 9(2)(a) had raised a few issues with him that he had not anticipated. This
included the five-point course that had been created with content from S 9(2)(b)(ii) OIA as it needed a
course code. The S 9(2)(b)(ii) OIA course was only required by students taking the 65-point fast track.
Members agreed that following the introduction of micro credentials, a 5-point course would likely be
approved. This would allow the course to go on the student transcript and ensure the student receives
credit.
S 9(2)(a) OIA
was supportive of the proposal noting the S 9(2)(b)(ii) OIA
As
students only had 5 weeks at UC before they were out in a school or centre on a placement, S 9(2)(b)(ii) OIA
l. S 9(2)(a) informed the committee that Kā Waimaero | Ngāi Tahu
Centre was looking to S 9(2)(b)(ii) OIA
.
S 9(2)(a) OIA
suggested the proposal should mention it would be a staircase.
S 9(2)(a) requested that the section on permission to enrol in the qualification be reworded so that
every student did not need to be permitted to the programme, but that right of refusal would be retained.
Professor Moran requested the proposal S 9(2)(b)(ii) OIA
Moved by the Acting Chair
That the proposal toS 9(2)(b)(ii) OIA
7
Carried
6. REGULATIONS
6.1 Postgraduate Certificate in Strategic Leadership - proposal to amend the exit and upgrade
pathways and to add a course to Schedule C of the award regulations.
S 9(2)(a) OIA
introduced the proposal as a minor change seeking to amend the exit
and upgrade pathways to decouple from the MBA, and to update schedule C through the additional of
a one-year course to highlight this was a leadership programme.
As background, in 2020 the UC Business School revised the MBA regulations from 240 points to 180
points, with a new curriculum. The Postgraduate Certificate in Strategic leadership was made up of
MBA courses that do not align with the new curriculum of the MBA. Students can still transfer 30 points
of credit from this qualification to the MBA.
S 9(2)(a) suggested that the MBAD courses be moved to Strategic Leadership and taken off the MBA
schedule.
Moved by the Acting Chair
That the Postgraduate Certificate in Strategic Leadership - proposal to amend the exit and
upgrade pathways and to add a course to Schedule C of the award regulations be approved
and reported to Academic Board, Council and CUAP.
Carried
6.2 Postgraduate Diploma in Health Sciences, Master of Health Sciences, Master of Health
Sciences Professional Practice proposal to add COUN682 to each of the Schedule Vs
S 9(2)(a) OIA
explained these regulation changes were necessary as they transition their
offerings as a faculty and add the COUN682 course to the schedule of a couple of other programmes.
Moved by the Acting Chair
That the Postgraduate Diploma in Health Sciences, Master of Health Sciences, Master of Health
Sciences Professional Practice proposal to add COUN682 to each of the Schedule Vs be approved
and reported to Academic Board, Council and CUAP.
Carried.
6.3 Master of Counselling – proposal to correct 105pts from Schedule C to read ‘165pts’ and to
remove courses from Schedule E: Group 1 and open up research methods course options
S 9(2)(a) OIA
advised the change was to correct a typo and explained that some courses
had changed size.
Moved by the Acting Chair
That the Master of Counselling – proposal to correct 105pts from Schedule C to read ‘165pts’ and
to remove courses from Schedule E: Group 1 and open up research methods course options by
approved and reported to Academic Board, Council and CUAP.
Carried
8
6.4 Master of Health Sciences Professional Practice (Nursing) – S 18(d) OIA
S 9(2)(a) OIA
S 9(2)(a) OIA asked for the justification to be revised as it was very brief and for an estimate for the
S 18(d) OIA
Moved by the Acting Chair
That, subject to extra information being included in the justification, the Master of Health
Sciences Professional Practice (Nursing) – S 18(d) OIA
Carried.
6.5 Master of Health Sciences (Nursing) – proposal to include HLTH699 as a research
component
S 9(2)(a) OIA
advised MHealthSc (Nursing) was a 240-point master’s. There was a
professional practice course in the degree for nursing students as a requirement of the Nursing Council
to complete their compulsory hours which is to be replaced with this research component.
S 9(2)(a) sought to clarify that this was a 240-point, and the purpose statement states that it was to
match the changes for the Master of Health Science (Nursing), which is the same degree. He requested
the purpose be rewritten.
S 9(2)(a) asked that staff drafting regulation changes be provided with training to ensure it was clear
what regulations were changing. Tracked changes on the regulations would be preferable too.
In this instance, it appears regulations d) and e) were added, along with the endorsement table.
Moved by the Acting Chair
That, subject to a more appropriate purpose being drafted and the changes being highlighted,
the Master of Health Sciences (Nursing) – proposal to include HLTH699 as a research
component be approved and forwarded to Academic Board, Council, and CUAP.
Carried
6.6 Bachelor of Environmental Science (Hons) Freshwater major - proposal to update the core
courses required at 400 level
S 9(2)(a) OIA advised that this was a tidying up exercise as last year they had gone through their 30-
point courses and changed them to 15-point courses.
S 9(2)(a) asked that the word ‘paper’ be removed and replaced with ‘courses’.
Moved by the Acting Chair
That, subject to the typographical changes, the Bachelor of Environmental Science (Hons)
Freshwater major - proposal to update the core courses required at 400 level be approved and
forwarded to Academic Board, Council, and CUAP.
9
Carried
6.7 Bachelor of Speech and Language Pathology (Hons), Master of Speech and Language
Pathology – proposal to restructure courses and programme
S 9(2)(a) OIA advised that these regulation changes had largely come out of a programme review last
year, following which they were implementing major suggestions, redistributing content amongst
courses differently, increasing bicultural content, and wanting variations to regulations to be for those
doing well and not those scraping by.
S 9(2)(a) queried whether the courses were addressing the appropriate NZQF levels. S 9(2)(a) OIA
advised they were and had created a faculty guideline to ensure consistency. The checklist included
readings, learning outcomes, etc. and would be completed for both new courses and retrospective co-
coding.
S 9(2)(a) OIA
suggested there should be a university-wide guideline.
A member queried the reason for justifying the changes. It was explained that the material was core
and needed to be integrated rather than a separate course on its own.
Members were confused by point 3 on page 234 regarding merging the courses/course content and
requested this be clarified. They also requested a current structure diagram and a proposed structure
diagram for clarity.
S 9(2)(a) OIA
noted that it appeared S 9(2)(b)(ii) OIA
S 9(2)(a) OIA
noted the course outlines were S 9(2)(b)(ii) OIA
S 9(2)(a) said the Committee’s concerns were quite fundamental to this proposal therefore, feedback
should be provided and the proposal would return to the next meeting. S 9(2)(a) OIA
noted that the
department had thought hard about the structure however, she may not be the best advocate. She
would ask for a representative to attend the next meeting.
S 9(2)(a) asked that they ensure this was a master’s level programme with level 8 and 9 learning
outcomes.
S 9(2)(a) OIA said in that regard she was more confident. Professor Moran advised that
when the MSLP was first proposed there was rigorous discussion at AAC and there is an accredited
body so she was confident in the proposal but noted it was likely we were lacking explanation.
S 9(2)(a) OIA
r left the meeting.
6.8 Postgraduate Diploma in Cognitive Behaviour Therapy - proposal to change the application
date
S 9(2)(a) OIA stated the intention was for more time for scrutiny of applicants in terms of their level of
entry.
S 9(2)(a) noted that on page 23 of the Calendar, the application date needed to be updated.
Moved by the Acting Chair
That the Postgraduate Diploma in Cognitive Behaviour Therapy - proposal to change the application
date be approved and forwarded to Academic Board, Council and reported to CUAP.
Carried
6.9 Postgraduate Diploma in Clinical Psychology – proposal to adjust the admission
requirement to comply with professional body requirements.
10
S 9(2)(a) OIA introduced the proposal was to increase the IELTS score as students with lower IELTS
levels had struggled within the degree. This was an admission requirement in addition to the university
admission requirements.
S 9(2)(a) advised that they were increasing their English language requirement for entry, and this was
not limitation of entry. He noted the programme would have the highest ranked English requirements
of the University and was concerned it would prevent international enrolments. S 9(2)(a) OIA reiterated
it was their intention to make entry harder to ensure likelihood of success, but noted students with a
good case could request a variation of this regulation from the Associate Dean. This was a small
programme, but it was not struggling for students and there were international students in the pipeline.
S 9(2)(a) OIA was asked to feed back that they may want to consider other ways of ensuring English
competency, particularly at the level as many New Zealand students would not pass.
S 9(2)(a) asked that they clarify the current IELTS requirement and whether they were increasing the
score by one or two notches. He noted most professional programmes require a score of 7 nothing less
than 6.5.
Moved by the Acting Chair
That the Postgraduate Diploma in Clinical Psychology – proposal to adjust the admission
requirement to comply with professional body requirements be approved and reported to
Academic Board, Council and CUAP.
Carried
6.10
Bachelor of Science (Hons) Biology – proposal to clarify that BIOL401 and BIOL402
cannot be used for required 400 level credit and minor corrections to existing regulations to
improve clarity and update course offerings.
6.11
Master of Science Biology – proposal to clarify that BIOL401 and BIOL402 248
cannot be used for required 400 level credit and minor corrections to existing regulations to
improve clarity and update course offerings.
6.12
Postgraduate Diploma in Science – proposal to clarify that BIOL401 and 250 BIOL402
cannot be used for required 400 level credit and minor corrections to existing regulations to
improve clarity and update course offerings.
S 9(2)(a) OIA explained that BIOL401 was a lab-based course, and BIOL402 was a field-based course
that the school used to ensure Health and Safety requirements were in place for students beginning
biology experiments prior to their research enrolment. Biological research takes time and with courses
reduced from 18 months to 12 months duration, these courses were introduced to accommodate
biological cycles. However, the school wants it to be explicit that these courses cannot be used for
credit.
S 9(2)(a) suggested that only one regulation needed to change as for the other majors neither BIOL401
or 402 were in the valid courses specified, so they were now double specifying it was not eligible for
credit.
S 9(2)(a) OIA
asked that the proposers be advised that these courses are currently named special
topics and need to become permanent courses. There is a small but real chance the system may need
to use new course codes and in that event she didn’t want it to be a surprise.
Members raised concerns that Special Topics do not require consultation with kaiārahi Māori and can
then turn into normal courses. There should be full consultation when special topics convert to normal
courses. If a Special Topic is being created as a ‘test run’, there should be consultation with kaiārahi at
the point of financial viability.
Moved by the Acting Chair
11
That the Bachelor of Science (Hons) Biology, Master of Science Biology, and Postgraduate
Diploma in Science – proposal to clarify that BIOL401 and BIOL402 cannot be used for required
400 level credit and minor corrections to existing regulations to improve clarity be approved and
reported to Academic Board, Council and CUAP.
Carried
7. CREDIT TRANSFER AND REGULATIONS POLICY
S 9(2)(a) advised that while they had not received any feedback on fees, they had chosen some
numbers. For RPL there would be S 9(2)(b)(ii) OIA
, a domestic transfer of credit fee of
S 9(2)(b)(ii) OIA
and an international transfer of credit fee of S 9(2)(b)(ii) OIA
, which was higher
as they take considerably more time. The fees had been benchmarked with what other New Zealand
universities were doing and S 9(2)(b)(ii) OIA
In terms of timeframe to complete the degree, these should be considered on a case-by-case basis and
any decisions on the expiry of the transfer of credit should be included in the notes.
S 9(2)(a) OIA
had provided written feedback requesting a wording change under section 8a of the
regulations to “The Associate Dean must be “satisfied” rather than “convinced”.
S 9(2)(a) advised that a process diagram, forms, and a link into other systems were being developed
and would come to the committee for information.
S 9(2)(a) OIA
noted they have students waiting for this process to be finalised.
S 9(2)(a)
left the meeting.
Moved by the Acting Chair
That the Credit Transfer Regulations and Policy be approved and forwarded to Academic
Board.
Carried
Members discussed the need to educate academics on NZQF levels and to improve academic
education and communication. This had been highlighted by cross level proposals.
8. MODERATION POLICIES – ENGINEERING AND LAW
This item was deferred to the next meeting.
9. MID-YEAR REVIEW OF ACADEMIC PROGRESS
S 9(2)(a) informed the Committee they were being asked to approve the proposed calendar,
procedures, precedents, and letter templates. The documents were included in the agenda and there
had been extensive consultation with faculties prior to this meeting.
S 9(2)(a) OIA commended the meeting with faculty form but requested the wording be amended to
request students email the form prior to the meeting. She was also concerned that the sentence
regarding the UCSA implies that UC would organise for them to assist the student, but the student
needs to contact the UCSA directly.
Members raised concerns about the amount of time the RAP process requires versus the amount of
time they had available. They requested he scheduled AAC meeting be cancelled, noting they also had
academic audit that week.
12
Members were advised that the next few weeks would be difficult therefore, they should delegate where
possible. Impending exclusions were at the discretion of the Faculty and students could be given
warning’s instead noting there was also a short timeframe for students to meet and finalise their
enrolments.
Moved by the Acting Chair
That the Mid-Year Review of Academic Progress process be approved.
Carried
10. GENERAL BUSINESS
There were no items of General Business.
SECTION B REPORTS:
Scholarships and Prizes
Moved by the Chair:
That the Scholarships and Prizes reports in Section B were received and approved.
Carried
The meeting closed at 3.17pm
13
