Draft until approved by Senate

Minutes of a meeting of the Senate of Simon Fraser University held on Monday, March 3, 1997

at 7:00 pm in Room 3210 WMC

OPEN SESSION

Present: ?

Stubbs, John, Chair

Alderson, Evan

Amason, Kristjan

Barrow, Robin

Bawa, Parveen (representing R. Marteniuk)

Berggren, J. Len

Blaney, Jack

Blazenko, George

Boland, Larry

Cellik, Peter

Chan, Albert

Clayman, Bruce

Dahl, Veronica

D'Auria, John

Emmott, Alan

Etherington, Lois

Gagan, David

Jones, Cohn

Kozminuk, Angela

Lewis, Brian

Liu, Susan

Luk, Wo-Shun

Mathewes, Rolf

Mauser, Gary

McInnes, Dina

Naef, Barbara

Osborne, Judith

Overington, Jennifer

Percival, Paul

Peterson, Louis

Pierce, John

Rawicz, Andrew

Reed, Clyde

Ross, Douglas

Sanghera, Balwant

Shapiro, Stanley

Whitbread, Katherine

Wickstrom, Norman

Winne, Phil

Wortis, Michael

Watt, Alison, Director, Secretariat Services

Grant, Bobbie, Recording Secretary

Absent: ?

Akins, Katherine

Aujla, Angela

Baert, Jessica

Beattie, Suzan

Crawford, Charles

Dobb, Ted

Dunsterville, Valerie

Giffen, Kenneth

Hewitt, Kevin

Howlett, Michael

Kanevsky, Lannie

Nip, Harry

Segal, Joseph

Warsh, Michael

In attendance:

Collinge, Joan

Heinrich, Kathy

Knockaert, Joe

LeMare, Lucy

Li, William

Pinfield, Larry

Underhill, Owen

Wrenn, Phyllis

S.M. 03/03/97

Page 2

Approval of the Agenda

The Agenda was approved as distributed.

Approval of the Minutes of the Open Session of February 3, 1997

The Minutes were approved as distributed.

Business Arising from the Minutes

There was no business arising from the Minutes.

Report of the Chair

Referring to the federal budget, the Chair reported on the following

items which he believed were of considerable interest to post-secondary

education, particularly to universities. Immediate increases of $50 per

month and a further $50 per month next year in allowable deductions;

a change in the loan repayment arrangement allowing a further period

of grace before repayment takes place. Significant changes in the area of

charitable giving are viewed as being very positive for universities and

reflect a very active lobby in this area. The Canada Foundation for

• Innovation will generate a considerable amount of federal money to

support research infrastructure. Expectations are that there will be least

an equivalent match through Provincial, institutional and private

sector funding which will significantly increase the fund over the next

several years. The Chair noted that many of these changes occurred

because of the enormous amount of work done by the higher

education community and although the results are encouraging he felt

there is a need to continue and intensify such efforts.

Turning to the Provincial budget, the Chair reported that the

university's budget is likely to be known by the end of March or

beginning of April. However, the University is operating on the

assumption that there will likely be a small cut in the operating budget

of about half a percent but Senate was reminded that the freeze on

tuition fee increases reduces budget flexibility.

On behalf of Senate, the Chair extended a welcome to newly elected

Student Senators - Jessica Baert, Faculty of Arts, Susan Liu, Faculty of

Science, and Jennifer Overington, Faculty of Applied Sciences.

S.M. 03/03/97

Page 3

5. ?

Reports of Committees

Senate Nominating Committee

i) ?

Paper S.97-23 - Elections

Senate was advised that there were no nominations to bring

forward this month but the Senate Nominating Committee had met

and expectations are that further nominations would be forthcoming.

Senate Committee on Academic Planning

i) ?

Paper S.97-24 - Report of the

Ad Hoc

Committee on Planning

Priorities

Moved by D. Gagan, seconded by J

Osborne

"that Senate endorse the processes and priorities for

academic planning set out in the final report of the

ad hoc

Committee on Planning Priorities, as set forth in S.97-24,

and forward the report to the Board of Governors for

information"

The Chair of the

ad hoc

Committee on Planning Priorities (K.

Heinrich) as well as several members of the Committee (J

Collinge, L.

LeMare, B. Lewis, W. Li, L. Pinfield, and 0. Underhill) were in

attendance in order to respond to questions.

The Vice-President Academic advised that as a result of the PCUP

report being submitted to his office for action, the

ad hoc

Committee on

Planning Priorities was created and given a mandate to consult as

widely as possible with the University community and to provide

advice on two issues. The first issue to be addressed was the priority

that should be assigned to the recommendations of the PCUP report;

the second issue to define an appropriate strategy for implementing

these and other priorities as were defined in the future. Following

submission of the

ad hoc

Planning Committee's report, the report was

widely circulated and the University community was again consulted

specifically on the acceptability of the report, not as a set of policies but

as a context within which academic planning would take place in the

future. The general response has been very positive and supportive of

the report. Senate was being asked to endorse the report as a context

and as a process for academic planning and it was stressed that

implementation of any actions resulting from recommendations in the

. ?

report will have to be approved by all appropriate authorities within

the University. A number of specific suggestions about how various

S.M. 03/03/97

Page 4

. recommendations might be implemented have been received and will

be forwarded to appropriate university bodies and anyone else

interested in receiving them.

The Chair of the

ad hoc

Committee briefly outlined the consultation

process followed by the Committee and advised that the report

attempts to combine the views of the university community with the

PCUP recommendations and reflects a blueprint for the University to

plan and operate in the future within a challenging fiscal

environment.

In recognition of the concerns surrounding implementation of specific

recommendations, and in order to explicitly express that Senate does

not accept the report as implementation but rather as a statement of

broad principles, and to ensure that any implementation will be

contingent on approval from appropriate bodies, M. Wortis suggested

the following amendment which was accepted as friendly.

"that Senate endorse

in principle

the processes and

priorities for academic planning as set out in the

final report of the ad hoc Committee on Planning

Priorities, as set forth in S.97-24,

with the

• ?

understanding that any actions taken subsequently

to implement it will be subject to the normal

processes of consultation and approval at the

Departmental, Faculty and University levels,

and

forward the report to the Board of Governors for

information.

Opinion was expressed that since the

ad hoc

Committee was not a

Senate committee, the report should not be before Senate, other than

perhaps for information. It was also pointed out that the term endorse

is not an option under Robert's Rules and by accepting an entire report,

Senate is essentially endorsing every word of the report as its own

statement. Several sections of Robert's Rules were quoted, and

discussion ensued with respect to this objection. The Chair ruled the

objection out of order and discussion on the main motion (as

amended) continued.

Reference was made to recommendations 1.1, 1.2, 1.3, 1.5 and 1.6.

Concerns were expressed about what was perceived to be mandatory

language associated with these recommendations and inquiry was

made as to how the amended motion would affect implementation of

these recommendations.

S.M. 03/03/97

Page 5

. The Vice-President Academic reiterated that before any initiatives take

effect and become policy, they will have to be reviewed by the standing

committees of Senate and Departments /Faculties and will be subject to

the normal approval processes. However, if Senate endorses the

report, the Vice-President, Academic hopes that departments and

faculties will be encouraged to use the report as a guideline to achieve

what is most important to them in the planning process, and with

respect to the specific recommendations in Section 1, Deans, in

consultation with their departments/ schools will be encouraged to

address those issues as quickly as possible.

At the request of the Chair, K. Heinrich briefly explained that the

language in Section 1 was used because the Committee felt that in

order to be prepared for the next budget a planning process within

departments and faculties should begin immediately.

Reference was made specifically to student concerns, and although

students have had the opportunity to provide feedback to the

ad hoc

Committee, there was a general concern that there would be less

opportunity for student input with respect to implementation of

specific initiatives or plans within departments/ schools. Senate was

advised that the tutorial system is of utmost importance to students

• ?

and students strongly felt that the tutorial system must be maintained

and elaborated.

Amendment moved by J

Overington, seconded by S. Shapiro

"that throughout the document the word 'must'

represents the advice of the Committee rather than a

direct order"

Brief discussion ensued. An amendment to the amendment by A.

Chan to delete the two paragraphs in the report was deemed not to be

germane to the amendment on the floor and was ruled out of order.

Question was called, and a vote taken. ?

AMENDMENT FAILED

(14 in favour, 21 opposed)

An amendment by A. Chan with respect to the mandatory wording in

the report was deemed to be unacceptable because Senate had already

expressed its wishes by defeating an amendment on this issue.

Question was called on the main motion,

(as amended) and a vote taken. ?

MOTION CARRIED

(31 in favour, 5 opposed)

S.M. 03/03/97

Page 6

The Chair stressed the importance of having such planning guidelines

available in order to move on to the next stage and he wished to

publicly express the thanks and appreciation of Senate to all members

of the

ad hoc

Committee on Planning Priorities, as well as to all

members of the PCUP Committee for their work.

c) ?

Senate Committee on Academic Planning/Senate Committee on

Enrolment Management and Planning

i) ?

Paper S.97-25 - Undergraduate Student Intake Targets for 1997/98

Motion #1

Moved by D. Gagan, seconded by J

Osborne

"that Senate approve and recommend approval to the Board of

Governors the following global undergraduate admission targets

to SFU for each basis-of-admission group and for each of the

semesters in 1997/98 and that SCAP be delegated authority to

make adjustments based on changes to the overall enrolment

targets and based on actual enrolment experience in 1997-2 and

1997-3

Admission Targets

1997-2

1997-3

1998-1

Total

B.C. Gr. XII

1,720 ?

100

1,880

B.C. College

450

685 ?

425

1,560

Other

275

775 ?

375

1,425

Total Intake

785

3,180 ?

900

4,865"

Reference was made to page 3 of the support documentation and

Senate was advised that the funding enrolment target number

appearing in paragraph two should be changed from 298 to 246.

Question was called, and a vote taken. ?

MOTION CARRIED

Motion #2

Moved by D. Gagan, seconded by J

Osborne

"that Senate approve and recommend approval to the Board of

Governors the following undergraduate admission targets into

the Faculty of Science for each basis-of-admission group and for

each of the semesters in 1997/98 and that SCAP be delegated

authority to make adjustments based on changes to the overall

enrolment targets and based on actual enrolment experience in

1997-2 and 1997-3

S.M. 03/03/97

Page 7

Admission Targets

1997-2

1997-3 ?

1998-1

Total

B.C. Gr. XII

400 ?

440

B.C. College

75 ?

150

Other

85 ?

130

Total Intake

560 ?

100

720

(The number of new students proposed for the Faculty of Science

is included within the global target contained in Motion 1

above)."

Question was called, and a vote taken. ?

MOTION CARRIED

ii)

Paper S.97-26 - International Student Intake Targets for 1997/98.

1998/99,1999/2000

Moved by D. Gagan, seconded by L. Boland

"that Senate approve and recommend approval to the

Board of Governors to limit the number of international

students, excluding exchange students, admitted into

• undergraduate programs at SFU in the academic years

1997/98, 1998/99 and 1999/2000 to a maximum of 7% of all

admissions"

Senate was advised that limit has been set at 7% for some time and

rather than bring forward the same recommendation each year, SCEMP

has framed a motion covering three years. The limit can be reviewed

at any time over the course of the three years if necessary.

Brief discussion took place with respect to why the motion referred to

limits and maximums rather than targets.

Question was called, and a vote taken.

MOTION CARRIED

d) ?

Senate Committee on Academic Planning/Senate Committee on

Undergraduate Studies

i) ?

Paper S.97-27 - School of Computing Science - Revised

Admission Requirements

Moved by D. Gagan, seconded by W.S. Luk

S ?

"that Senate approve and recommend approval to the

Board of Governors, as set forth in S.97-27, the revised

S.M. 03/03/97

Page 8

requirements for admission to Computing Science

Programs"

Question was called, and a vote taken.

MOTION CARRIED

ii) ?

Paper S.97-28 - Faculty of Science - Undergraduate Curriculum

Revisions (For Information)

Senate received information that SCUS, acting under delegated

authority, approved two new courses (CHEM 215, PHYS 395) and

revisions to existing courses /programs within the Departments of

Chemistry and Mathematics/ Statistics.

iii) ?

Paper S. 97-29 - Deletion of Courses not offered (For Information)

Senate rules state that any courses not offered within a six semester

period be deleted from the Calendar unless adequate justification for

retaining the course is presented. Senate received information that

SCUS, acting under delegated authority, approved the deletion of 15

courses under this regulation.

e) ?

Senate Committee on International Activities

i) ?

Paper S.97-30 - Annual Report (For Information)

D. Gagan, Vice-President, Academic and Chair of SCIA, and J.

Knockaert, Director, Office of International Cooperation were in

attendance in order to respond to questions.

In view of the abuses of human rights in Indonesia, concern was raised

by K. Whitbread about SFU's involvement in the Eastern Indonesia

Project and opinion was expressed that without this issue being

addressed within the report it looks as though the University is

unaware of the problem. Senate was advised that this issue has been

discussed by the Committee and the Committee generally felt that the

work being done by SFU to help upgrade education at all levels at

Indonesian universities is worthwhile and quite rewarding. D. Gagan,

Chair of SCIA, extended an invitation to K. Whitbread to attend a

meeting of SCIA to discuss her concerns with the Committee. In a

response to a suggestion from K. Whitbread that the invitation be

extended to student groups who have an active interest in this area, D.

Gagan suggested she contact his office to discuss this matter.

A request to include statistical data with regard to the cost of running

such programs in relation to the benefits students obtain and the

number of students participating in the various programs was duly

S.M. 03/03/97

Page 9

0 ?

noted for inclusion in future reports. Senate was advised that the

information is currently available for those interested.

In response to an inquiry as to whether or not the Eastern Indonesia

Project will continue beyond 1998, Senate was advised that the project

as it currently exists will not be extended but will be phased out slowly

with some activities continuing to the year 2000.

Senate Graduate Studies Committee

i) ?

Paper S.97-31 - Annual Report (For Information)

B. Clayman, Dean of Graduate Studies and P. Wrenn, Associate Dean of

Graduate Studies were in attendance in order to respond to questions.

Senate received the Annual Report of the Senate Graduate Studies

Committee for information.

Senate Committee on Agenda and Rules

i) ?

Timing of Senate Meetings with Light Agendas

The Chair advised Senate that if, in the opinion of SCAR, the Senate

agenda appears to be light, the suggestion of SCAR would be to start the

• Senate meeting at 5:30 pm and Senate, particularly off campus

Senators, were asked for their view. There appeared to be no objection

to the suggestion and the Chair requested that Lay Senators be

contacted directly with regard to this issue.

6. ?

Other Business

Referring to the Macleans report entitled 'A Guide to Universities'

which was published several months ago, K. Arnason advised Senate

that five SFU professors were acknowledged for their popularity and

congratulations were extended to Professors Douglas Ross (Political

Science), David Ryeburn (Mathematics/ Statistics), Majorie Cohen

(Women's Studies/ Political Science), Gary Poole (Psychology), and

Allan MacKinnon (Education).

The Assembly moved directly into Closed Session at 9:00 pm.

Alison Watt, Director,

Secretariat Services