1k
4mer,dec4 b.,
er4€ g(39q
DRAFT UNTIL APPROVED BY SENATE
?
rarAer a,rierSec/
Minutes of a meeting of the Senate of Simon Fraser University held on
Monday, February 1, 1999 at 7:00 pm in room 3210 West Mall Complex
?
q
1 q
Open Session
Present: Blaney, Jack, President and Chair
.
Akins, Kathleen
Barrow, Robin
Berggren, J. Len
Boland, Lawrence
Bowman, Marilyn
Burton, Lynn Elen
Chan, Albert
Coleman, Peter
Copeland, Lynn
D'Auria, John
Dunsterville, Valerie
Emerson, Joseph
Emmott, Alan
Finley, David
Fletcher, James
Gagan, David
Gillies, Mary Ann
Harris, Richard
Hart, Stephen (representing B Clayman)
Heaney, W. John
Jones, Cohn
Jones, John
Kanevsky, Lannie
Kirczenow, George
Marteniuk, Ron
Mathewes, Rolf
McInnes, Dina
Morris, Joy
Overington, Jennifer
Percival, Paul
Peterson, Louis
Peters, Joseph
Russell, Robert
To, Shek Yan
Waterhouse, John
Weeks, Daniel
Wortis, Michael
Absent:
Beattie, Suzan
Dhilhon, Khushwant
Giffen, Ken
Lewis, Brian
Mauser, Gary
Naef, Barbara
Ogloff, James
Osborne, Judith
Pierce, John
Reader, Jason
Sanghera, Balwant
Segal, Joseph
Veerkamp, Mark
Warsh'Michael
Wickstrom, Norman
Zazkis, Rina
In attendance:
Delany, Paul
Heinrich, Kathy
Pinto, Mario
Reich, Blaize
Heath, Ron, Dean of Student Services and Registrar
Watt, Alison, Director, Secretariat Services
Grant, Bobbie, Recording Secretary
S.M. 1/2/99
Page
Approval of the Agenda
The Agenda was approved as distributed.
2.
Approval of the Minutes of the Open Session of January 11, 1999
The Minutes were approved as distributed.
3.
Business Arising from the Minutes
Reference was made to the comments on page 4 with respect to Senate's
responsibility for the terms of reference of endowed chairs, and opinion was
expressed that the University Act required Senate to consider not only the terms of
reference but the establishment of the endowed chair itself. Senate's attention was
drawn to item 5.d.i (Senate review) on the agenda and suggestion was made that it
would be more appropriate to discuss this matter under that item.
4.
Report of the Chair
On behalf of Senate, the Chair extended congratulations to Kathleen Akins who
won the $1 million (U.S.) James S. McDonnell Centennial Fellowship for her work
in Philosophy and Neuroscience.
Commenting on a recent article that appeared in SF
eUwith
regard to increased
funding and ending the tuition freeze, the Chair stressed that it was not the
University's intention to lobby the Government to
endWis
ition
freeze. He also
wished to point out that materi [Wearing in SF not edited by the
administration even though SF Wis funded b th university. A group of
faculty and staff make up the editorial board for SF
W1and
they try to protect the
independence of the publication in order to maintain its credibility and
authenticity.
The Chair reported that he was pleased to see a report in the Globe and Mail on
the funding situation in Canadian universities. Reference had been made to the
erosion of funding over the past ten years and how Canadian universities were
falling behind their U.S. competitors. The Chair advised that the Presidents of B.C.
universities have had very good discussions with the Provincial Government on this
issue and he was pleased that the B.C. Government, over the past five years, had
supported universities very well relative to other Ministries and other provinces
across Canada. However, there were still major problems with funding,
particularly in relation to revenue per student. The budget had been presented to
the Ministry and circulated to all employee groups and the Student Society. Four
items were requested - increased revenue per student, increased access, increase
of non-salary expenditures, and that a greater share of the access dollars be given
to universities.
Reference was made to a recent article in the Vancouver Sun about Milton Wong
being nominated as SFU's next Chancellor. The paper erroneously reported that
Dr. Wong had been nominated by the Faculty Association. The news release
clearly stated that the Alumni Association had nominated Dr. Wong and the
Vancouver Sun printed a retraction and apologized for the error.
S.M. 1/2/99
Page 3
:)y had been elected as the new Chair of
is the first person to be Chair who was
and a student member of the Board of
• The Chair reported that Evaleen Jaager R(
the Board of Governors. Ms. Jaager Roy
once an undergraduate student at SFU
Governors.
5. ?
Reports of Committees
a)
Senate Nominating Committee
i) ?
Paper S.99-1 5 Revised - Elections
The following are the results of elections to the following Senate Committees:
Senate Committee on International Activities (SCIA)
One Undergraduate Student Senator to replace Winnie Cheng from date of election
to May 31,
2000.
Elected by acclamation: ?
Shek Yan To
Senate Appeals Board (SAB)
One Undergraduate Student (Alternate) to replace Jason Reader from date of
election to May 31, 1999.
Candidates:
J.
Fletcher, S. Haynes
Elected:
?
James Fletcher
Calendar Committee
One Faculty Senator. In this first election, term of office will be from date of
. ?
election to May
31, 2001.
Thereafter, the term of office shall be for two years
commencing on June 1
St.
Elected by acclamation: ?
John D'Auria
One Student (at-large). In this first election, term of office will be from date of
election to May 31, 2000. Thereafter, the term of office shall be for one year
commencing on June i.
Elected by acclamation: ?
Shek Yan To
b)
President's Task Force on Faculty Renewal and Retention
i) ?
Paper S.99-16 - Draft Report
-
For Discussion
Members of the Task Force (K. Heinrich, Chair, Department of Mathematics and
Statistics, P. Delany, Department of English, M. Pinto, Department of Chemistry,
and B. Reich, Faculty of Business Administration) were in attendance in order to
respond to questions.
The Chair of the Task Force provided a brief introduction to the report. The Task
Force sought input from people internal and external to the University and
conducted a detailed survey of Chairs about what happens to faculty at the
University, and surveyed new faculty members about their perceptions of SFU, the
hiring process and why they chose to come to SFU. Copies of the reports are
available from the Office of the Vice-President Academic. The Task Force also
reviewed existing processes and policies. Reallocation through a decentralized
• ?
budget process and funding through the Strategic Initiatives Fund plays an
important role in the University's process and the first recommendation of the Task
S.M. 1/2/99
Page 4
Force is that the process be clarified and criteria established to reflect what is
important to the University as an institution so that decisions can be made
accordingly. The report also focuses on three aspects of leadership - departmental
chairs, mid-career appointments, and recognition of senior faculty members.
Recommendations are suggested as to how best support and acknowledge faculty
in these three areas. Recommendations are also made with respect to the support
of new faculty members, and the consideration of some form of a transitional
retirement program. The Task Force welcomed comments and suggestions on the
draft report from Senate.
Opinion was expressed that the report was flawed in its emphasis on strategic
opportunities. A result of this emphasis might be the neglect of core disciplines
which must be renewed and strengthened in order to support other disciplines and
programs within the university. It was suggested that there were different views on
what was and what was not a core program. Further opinion was expressed that it
would have been more helpful if the Task Force had included suggestions about
implementation of their recommendations. Suggestion was also made that the
recommendation 1 should contain reference to decentralization.
Reference was made to the emphasis on selectivity and the direction of resources
to high demand programs, and concern was expressed about who would be
making decisions on the criteria listed in recommendation one. It was noted that
although the document contained a thorough discussion on strategy and long term
planning, it lacked recommendations with respect to implementation and implied
that decision-making would not be made at the departmental or Faculty level. It
was also pointed out that Senate was responsible for academic programs and yet
Senate's role in the academic planning process was not mentioned anywhere in the
report. Decentralization of the university budget, together with decision-making
and program planning at the grass roots level has been enthusiastically adopted
and has worked very well since its inception. Concern was expressed that
recommendation 1 moves in the opposite direction and contravenes the spirit of
the present process.
It was pointed out that the terms of reference specifically refer to the recruitment of
new faculty and the consideration of initiatives that have been successful
elsewhere. Opinion was expressed that the report does not specifically address
either of these issues. It was further suggested that the first three recommendations
overlap with the planning process and that the Task Force had strayed from its
terms of reference and its mandate. It was noted that the mechanisms currently in
place to handle reallocation and resos work well and the Task Force should be
considering innovative and creative 4s relevant to hiring the best quality faculty.
It was suggested that recommendation 2 was too vague and questions were raised
as to who would make such decisions and who would identify the areas where
senior appointments were needed.
Objection was raised with respect to recommendation 3 and the suggestion that all
departments include initiatives for joint appointments with external agencies. It
S.M. 1/2/99
Page 5
•
?
was pointed out that this might be appropriate for some departments but it was
inappropriate for others.
With respect to recommendation 4.5 concerning spousal hiring, suggestion was
made that it would have been useful to include some concrete suggestions
regarding implementation. It was pointed out that departments being approached
to hire a spousal appointment really had no incentive to do so, particularly if the
appointment was not in an area of high priority in their three-year plan or if the
candidate was not a top ranking individual. Brief discussion followed with respect
to possible methods of implementation.0ç4"
?
'(
Opinion was expressed that recommendation 1 was likely motivated by the
an
realization that sufficient funding would not be received from the Government to eeIevce.
support excellence in all areas and therefore selective funding and transfer ofr'
resources to stronger programs would be necessary. If so, it was suggested that
more emphasis should be placed on the Strategic Initiatives Fund to plan
reallocation over Faculties. Suggestion was made the fund should be increased in
value and redistributed to those areas necessary to the development of the
University. It was pointed out that Senate, through the recommendations of SCAP,
would play a valuable role in determining the priorities of the University.
It was suggested that one issue which needed discussion was whether it was
desirable to have a differential reallocation/redistribution of resources and how that
should be accomplished.
Concern was expressed about the suggestion to increase the Strategic Initiatives
Fund because it taxed all departments/programs and only focussed on internal
redistribution. Suggestion was made that departments should be allowed to
strengthen the quality of their programs through the receipt of external funds and
the University needed to allow outside agencies to earmark funding for specific
programs.
Opinion was expressed that the Strategic Initiatives Fund was a short term solution
for long term problems and that the University needed to focus on restructuring and
redistribution in order to make a difference in the long term.
Further opinion was expressed that the allocation of the Strategic Initiatives Fund
was not the real issue involved in faculty renewal. The issue related to the
competitive. market in which new faculty members have to be recruited. It was
pointed out that in order to compete for the best faculty, the University currently
had to give up two positions to hire one new person and eventually would end up
with a much smaller faculty complement than it started with simply because of the
nature of the competitive process. It was suggested that the most important issue in
terms of future faculty renewal was whether the University was determined to be
equally competitive in all areas of the University and, if so, how that could be done
within the current budget situation. Comment was made that the University must
be careful during periods of fiscal restraint not to create of lot of mediocre
• ?
departments with mediocre faculty simply because those are the only persons
available.
S.M. 1/2/99
Page 6
Suggestion was made that the Task Force include in their report statements
encouraging the University to allow direct input from faculty into the operation of
service areas such as health, counselling and community services in order to make
them more useful for existing and new faculty members.
Comment was made that the university could encourage departments to be more
proactive and creative in their searches. If funds were allocated well in advance to
departments which expect to have a vacant position within the next two years, they
could seek out and aggressively pursue highly qualified candidates. Brief
discussion ensued about possible methods and examples of successful searches
conducted in this way were given.
It was also noted that under current practices, departments are under pressure to
hire or else lose the position. It was suggested that the administration consider
allowing departments to postpone a search if necessary.
It was noted that the American issue had not been addressed in the report.
Questions such as to how to retain Canadian candidates or bring them back to
Canada, what the University's position was on American candidates, and what the
University's attitude was with respect to the law and what can be accomplished
within the limits of the law need to be discussed.
Concern was expressed that recommendation 1 appears to combine two different
goals as though they were one - academic excellence and attracting resources from
external sources. Opinion was expressed that these goals were different and if
separated they could both be met but the report needed to carefully separate one
from the other and separate the mechanisms for achieving them.
Comment was made that one of the best features of SFU, from the student's point of
view, was the high degree of available interdisciplinary opportunities. Concern
was expressed that too much focus and in-fighting over internal redistribution of
funds would have a negative impact on these opportunities.
Opinion was expressed that the leadership training for Chairs as suggested in
recommendation 5.2 was demeaning and might be viewed as a barrier to faculty
who are equally qualified to become the Chair of their department. Suggestion was
made that the wording be changed to make it such that training was available to
anyone who wished to take advantage of it rather than making it a requirement of
the position. It was pointed out that the Task Force had found support from the
Chairs for this idea. The intent was to acknowledge the difficulty of the job, to
identify potential leaders and better support faculty in the administration by helping
them better understand their role and the problems associated with the Chair's
position.
Concerns were expressed that the recommendations in general were open-ended
and there appeared to be more emphasis on the University as a market place rather
than as a scholarly institution.
S.M. 1/2/99
7 ?
Page
• The Chair of the Task Force advised Senate that the Task Force intended to rewrite
the report following completion of their consultations across the University. The
schedule of consultations was posted on the Web and the final report was expected
to be completed by the end of March. The Chair of the Task Force felt the debate
had been useful and beneficial to the committee and thanked Senate for its
comments.
Moved by R. Russell, seconded by M. Wortis
"that Senate considers Recommendations 1 and 3 outside the
mandate of the Task Force and recommends that these
recommendations be struck from the report"
The Chair reminded Senate that the report was before Senate for consultation and
comment, not approval, and if approved, the motion would take the form of advice
to the Task Force rather than explicit direction to exclude any recommendations.
The Chair
feltthat
the Task Force had to be free to look at all possible ideas and
discuss those ivith other members of the campus community.
It was noted that the Task Force had listened to Senate's concerns and was likely to
take them into consideration when the report was revised and opinion was
expressed that the motion was inappropriate at this draft stage.
Contrary opinion was expressed that the motion in fact provided the Task Force
. ?
with a straw vote on the opinion of Senate and would give a clear indication of
Senate's view on this issue.
It was stressed that the Task Force had been asked to consult with the community
about issues relating to faculty renewal, and the committee has asked a broad
range of questions and consultations are not yet finished. It was felt it was unusual
for Senate as only one of the constituencies to be consulted to attempt to tell the
Task Force what it should and should not investigate.
Comment was made that although Senate could not dictate what should be in the
report, Senate had a right to its opinion. Since the impetus behind the motion was
that Senate felt that recommendations 1 and 3 fell outside the mandate of the
committee, a suggestion to delete the second half of the motion was accepted as a
friendly amendment. Amended motion follows:
"that Senate considers Recommendations 1 and 3 outside the
mandate of the Task Force"
Opinion was expressed that the motion did not capture the spirit of the debate and
that such a strong motion was inappropriate at this time.
Moved by J. D'Auria, seconded by P. Percival:
.
?
"that the motion be tabled until the next report is presented to
Senate"
S.M. 1/2/99
Page 8
Brief discussion took place with respect to whether the motion to table had been
made to close debate. The Chair ruled the motion to table required a 2/3 majority
vote.
Question was called on the motion to table,
and a vote taken. ?
MOTION TO TABLE DEFEATED
Question was called on the main motion,
and a vote taken.
?
MAIN MOTION DEFEATED
On behalf of Senate, the Chair extended thanks to members of the Task Force.
c)
Senate Committee on University Budget
i)
?
Paper S.99-17— Annual Report - For Information
Reference was made to a motion passed by Senate in March 1998 instructing
SCUB to develop guidelines to be negotiated with the administration about
communicating budget information to SCUB. Inquiry was made as to the progress
of those negotiations and whether SCUB was now satisfied with the information it
receives.
The Chair of SCUB indicated he was unclear as to the motion referred to and since
the next meeting of SCUB will involve the communication of budget matters he
was unable to say whether there is a problem until after that meeting has taken
place.
It was noted that past annual reports had contained documentation and
recommendations from SCUB to the President relating to each year's budget
discussions, and inquiry was made as to why this information was not included in
the documentation before Senate.
The Chair of SCUB indicated that procedures have changed because of the change
in the administration but he would make inquiries with respect to the issues raised.
d)
Senate Committee on Agenda and Rules
i) ?
Paper S.99-18 - Senate Review
Moved by D. Gagan, seconded by J. Morris
"that Senate approve the Terms of Reference and Membership of the
Ad Hoc Committee on Senate Review, as set out in S.99-18"
A clerical error was noted in the first line of the second page, and the word
'organizational' was changed to 'organization'.
0
S.M.
1/2/99
Page
. Clarification was requested with respect to the role of this committee versus the
purpose of the committee currently reviewing University policies in relation to
Senate's responsibilities under the University Act. It was pointed out that this
committee would have to read, define and understand the University Act but it was
a fairly open review of Senate and its organization.
Question was called, and a vote taken.
?
MOTION CARRIED
ii)
?
Paper
S.99-19 -
Election Rules - Waiver
Moved by D. Gagan, seconded by A. Chan
"that for the
1999
Convocation
election shall be completed shall
stated in the Rules of Senate"
Election, the date by which the
be May
7th
and not April 15
1h
as
It was noted that the change had the support of the majority of members of the
Electoral Standing Committee and inquiry was made as to whether there was a
minority objection. Senate was advised that at the time the paper was prepared
two members of the committee had supported the change; the other member had
not responded but has since supported it.
Question was called, and a vote taken.
?
MOTION CARRIED
6. ?
Other Business
Reference was made to the article in The Peak with respect to one of the Student
Senators losing her seat on Senate and clarification was requested with respect to
eligibility requirements. The Registrar was requested to provide the information to
interested Senators during the break. (Student Senators are required to take a
minimum of 18 credit hours over the twelve month period.)
Reference was made to the action of the Senate Committee on International
Activities delegating decision-making authority to its Chair and opinion was
expressed that this violated their terms of reference. Suggestion was made that the
committee should bring an amendment to Senate if they wished to change their
mandate. It was noted that any Senate committee may, within limits, delegate
authority to its chair when it serves the purpose of the committee. The case
referred to applied to only one instance which was essential to the conduct of the
business of the University in general and the Committee in particular. Senate was
advised that individual departments and Faculties receive international contracts
that require approval for the contract or memorandum of understanding in a very
short time frame. If they had to wait for a special meeting of the Committee to be
convened they ran the risk of losing the contract and its associated revenue. SCIA
therefore gave the Chair authorization on its behalf to deal with such contracts on a
timely basis with the outcome to be the reported at its next meeting.
S.M. 1/2/99
Page 10
7. ?
Information
The date of the next regularly scheduled meeting of Senate has been scheduled on
Monday, March
1, 1999.
The Open Session adjoined at 9:10 pm. Following a brief recess, the Assembly moved
into Closed Session.
Alison Watt
Director, Secretariat Services
.
0