DRAFT UNTIL APPROVED BY SENATE 

MINUTES OF MEETING OF SENATE OF SIMON FRASER UNIVERSITY HELD 

?

MONDAY, FEBRUARY 4, 1974, 3172 ADMINISTRATION BUILDING, 7:30 P.M. 

OPEN SESSION 

Present: 

?

Strand, K. 

?

Chairman 

.

Aronoff, S. 

Baird, D. A. 

Banister, E. W. 

Beirne, B. P. 

Birch, D. R. 

Brown, R. C. 

Burkie, E. 

Copes, P. 

Daem, J. P. 

D'Auria, J. N. 

DeVoretz, D. J. 

Doherty, P. M. 

Ellis, J. F. 

Hollibaugh, A. L. 

Kissner, R. F. 

Munro, J. M. 

Nair, K. K. 

Rheumer, G. A. 

Rieckhoff, K. E. 

Sadleir, R.M.F.S. 

Seager, J. W. 

Smith, W.A.S. 

Sterling, T. D. 

Wheatley, J. 

Evans, H. N. 

Nagel, H. D. 

Norswortv, R. 

Secretary 

Recording Secretary 

Absent: ? 

Caple, K. P. 

Cot, P. T. 

Dawson, A. J. 

Eastwood, G. R. 

Eliot Hurst, M. E. 

Emmott, A. H. 

Jamieson, D. H. 

Kitchen, J. M. 

MacPherson, A. 

Reid, W. D. 

Salter, J. H. 

Sutherland, G. A. 

Swangard, E. M. 

Wilson, B. G. 

In attendance: ? 

Nugridge, I. 

- 2 - ? 

S.M. 4/2/74 

1. APPROVAL OF AGENDA 

The agenda was approved as distributed. 

2.

APPROVAL OF MINUTES 

The minutes of the Open session of January 14, 1974, and the Special 

meeting of January 21, 1974 were approved as circulated. 

3.

BUSINESS ARISING FROM THE MINUTES 

In response to a question posed by J. D'Auria, the Chairman reported 

that the Board of Governors had postponed consideration of the proposal 

to separate the PSA Department pending receipt of an indication of the 

financial implications. 

4. REPORT OF CHAIRMAN 

There was no report from the Chairman. 

5.

REPORTS OF COMMITTEES 

1. Senate Committee on Undergraduate Studies 

1. Paper S.74-28 - Faculty of Science - New CoUrse Proposal - 

Physics 333-4 

Moved by S. Aronoff, seconded by K. Rieckhoff, 

"That Senate approve, as set forth in 5.74-28, 

the new course proposal, Physics 333-4 - 

Introduction to Instrumentation in the Life 

Sciences." 

S. Aronoff noted a correction was required on the proposal form to 

indicate that this course will be offered annually rather than every 

second year. He added that the course had been designed as a service 

course for Kinesiology students, but it was open to all segments of the 

University. In response to a question as to the appropriateness of this 

course with an upper level number, K. Rieckhoff stated that the 300 level 

was appropriate in view of the sophistication required. E. Banister con- 

curred and added that Kinesiology students will take the course towards 

the end of their upper level studies when the necessary basic background 

has been acquired. He asked that it be reflected in the minutes that 

this course was viewed as-being primarily for Kinesiology students with 

relevance to the life sciences and not merely a purely physics course. 

S. Aronoff commented that it would be appropriate for interested faculty 

to propose changes, but that the course should be taught as prescribed 

•

?

by Senate. 

Question was called, and a vote taken. 

MOTION CARRIED 

4 ?

OFFICE OF THE REGISTRAR

S.M. 4/2/74 

K. Rieckhoff, 

mal two semester time 

'

- Lhat this course may be 

Fro,

semester 74-3." 

Date:

For

comment

and

return

ease draft reply and return

Please reply

LII

For

Information

For action

Please assign transfer credit and return

For Processing

For filing

Student file requires

Copies to

taken. 

MOTION CARRIED 

n Biological Sciences 

by K. Rieckhoff, 

set forth in S.74-29, 

am in Biological 

te taken. 

MOTION CARRIED 

tion 

man, H. Evans explained that at the 

1974 a motion to suspend the rules 

ominations and election was approved, 

tee had been requested to bring for- 

ith the membership of a committee: 

Idemic philosophies and academic 

- ?

1r University; 

le secretarial service to the 

te

his need; 

That the committee present a report to Senate for its 

consideration at the May meeting; 

That the Senate Report to the Committee on University 

? C. 

Governance be considered a preliminary report and subject 

to reconsideration in the light of this Investigation, 

which may modify the processes by which this University 

wishes to be governed and govern. 

The call for nominations specified three categories, and the following 

• ? 

names had been submitted by the Senate Nominating Committee: 

One Administrator: ? 

M. McClaren, W.A.S. Smith, J. Wheatley 

One Faculty Member: 

?

M. E. Eliot Hurst, J. F. Ellis, J. Walkley 

One Student: 

?

R. F. Kissner 

4 - ? 

S.M. 4/2/74 

The Secretary noted that with suspension of the rules, nominations 

from the floor would be accepted. He noted also that the Chairman of 

the Senate Nominating Committee had pointed Out that the Committee had 

encountered difficulty in nominating a student able to meet the demands 

of membership on the committee. 

J. Wheatley and J. Ellis withdrew their names as candidates. There 

were no additional nominations from the floor. Ballots were distributed, 

and the following individuals were declared elected: 

Administrator: 

?

W.A.S. Smith 

Faculty Member: 

?

J. Walkley 

Student: 

?

R. F. Kissner 

3. Senate Committee on the Working Paper on University Governance in 

British Columbia, Papers S.74-27, S.74-27A, S.74-27 Addendum 

1. Paper S.74-27 Appendix A - Reconsideration of Item IV.l on Senate 

Functions of Paper S.74-27 Addendum (J. Munro) 

Moved by J. Munro, seconded by J. D'Auria, 

"That Senate reconsider Recommendation IV.l (c) 

of Recommendations re Senate functions." 

It was noted that at the Special meeting of Senate considering the 

options presented by the ad hoc Senate committee, Senate had approved 

the recommendation IV.l (c), "That a non-Senate presidential committee 

be established to advise the President on budget formulation, and that 

this committee include representatives elected by and from Senate." It 

had ranked the selections IV.l (c), IV.l (a), and IV.l (b) and (d) tied. 

J. Munro stated that the operating and reporting structures and 

duties were not the optimal ones to achieve wider involvement of the 

University community. He favored the option IV.l(a) which recommended, 

"That a Senate committee be established to advise the President in 

priorities for expenditures in academic programs. 

Question was called on the motion to reconsider, and a vote taken. 

MOTION TO RECONSIDER 

RECOMMENDATION IV. 1 

CARRIED 

J. Munro was supported by S. Smith when he spoke against the motion 

that had been previously approved by Senate. They were of the opinion 

that an advisory committee on academic priorities should be selected from 

a wider membership than Senate, but it should be a Senate committee. 

The Chairman responded to a request to outline his views on the 

Working Paper as it related to University budgeting. He was of the 

opinion that the rationale was contradictory and the context misleading. 

Error factors included the presumption that budget formulation is a 

statutory responsibility of the President. He said that his preference 

was the present process of developing academic priorities through the 

n

. ?

- 5 - 

?

S.M. 4/2/74 

expertise and responsibilities of the individuals involved in this process 

compared to a committee consisting of members who may not have the same 

scope nor be subjected to the same pressures and responsibilities. 

J. Munro. considered that the present system 

.

had not produced clear 

academic priorities and that the contributions which a Senate committee 

could make might be valuable. J. D'Auria suggested that the formation of 

a Senate committee did not prevent the inclusion of such individuals as 

the Academic Vice-President. 

Moved by J. Wheatley, seconded by K. Rieckhoff 

,

"That Paper S.74-27 Appendix A, Items IV.l (a), (b), (c), (d) 

be referred to the just established committee on academic 

philosophies and objectives." 

J. Wheatley stated that it was useless to discuss alternatives 

until a statement of philosophies is ascertained. K. Rieckhoff agreed 

that preliminary judgment could not be made without knowledge of the 

intended goals. S. Smith and P. Doherty spoke against referral on the 

basis that they considered some statement of opinion must be submitted 

to the Working Committee. 

Question was called on the motion to refer, and a vote taken. 

MOTION TO REFER FAILED 

6 in favor 

Question was called on Alternative (c), "That a non-Senate presiden- 

tial committee be established to advise the President on budget formulation, 

and that this committee include representatives elected by and from Senate," 

and a vote taken. 

MOTION FAILED 

3 in favor 

17 opposed 

In accordance with the straw vote taken at the Special meeting and 

the procedure approved for that meeting the remaining alternatives were 

considered in the following order: (a), (b), (d). Consideration of 

Alternative (a) was undertaken: "That a Senate committee be established 

to advise the President on 

priorities 

for expenditures in academic programs." 

J. Munro expressed the opinion that the 

Universities 

Act currently 

gives Senate the right to establish academic responsibilities and he 

presumed that under a rewritten Act there would be opportunity to establish 

priorities. He said that there was confusion between the establishment of 

a principle versus the implementation of an action and that this must be 

differentiated. He considered the effective way to emphasize the concern 

• ? 

is to approve Alternative (a) and establish the principle of a Senate 

committee to advise the President on academic priorities. J. P. Daem felt 

the proposal would not satisfy the needs of the University community because 

emphasis was placed on expenditures without considering revenues. K. 

Rieckhoff and J. Ellis spoke strongly in opposition to all the alternatives 

suggested. 

- 6 - 

?

S.M. 4/2/74 

Question was called on Alternative (a), and a vote taken. 

MOTION FAILED 

6 in favor 

14 opposed 

Question was called on Alternative (b), "That, as implied in the 

Working paper, a Senate committee be established to advise the President 

on all aspects of budget formulation," and a vote taken. 

MOTION FAILED 

1 in favor 

16 opposed 

Question was called on Alternative (d), "None of the above," and 

a vote taken. 

MOTION CARRIED 

11 in favor? 

7 .

opposed 

It was noted that the person or persons to be charged to present 

Senate's views to the Committee on the Working Paper would report that 

Senate had preference for none of the options proposed. 

2. Paper S.74-27, Appendix B - Items Postponed from January 21, 1974 

Special Meeting. 

Moved by K. Rieckhoff, seconded by J. Wheatley, 

"That consideration of Paper S.74-27 Appendix B, Items V 

through VIII, and the selection of a committee to present 

Senate's views be postponed until the ad hoc committee on 

philosophies and objectives makes its report." 

K. Rieckhoff commented that at the previous meeting, although there 

was considerable feeling expressed, the assembly was unable to reach a consensus. 

He suggested hearings would likely produce wider views which would place 

Senate in a better position to reach a conclusion. . J. P. Daem said that 

Senate had spent considerable time looking at what the Board, the President, 

and Senate should do, and the issues regarding Faculties and departments 

should not be avoided at this time. 

Question was called on the motion to postpone, and a vote taken. 

MOTION TO POSTPONE FAILED 

. ?

4 in favor 

15 opposed. 

- 7 - 

? S.M. 4/2/74 

Consideration of Recommendation V re Faculty Committees was under- 

taken: 

"That a committee of faculty and students be established to 

survey faculty committees on which student representation 

is needed, and to recommend accordingly." 

A number of comments were made as to the lack of clarity in wording 

and intent of the motion and to what body recommendations would be made. 

Moved by J. Seager, seconded by J. P. Daem, 

"That Recommendation V be referred to the ad hoc 

committee on philosophies and objectives." 

R. Brown remarked that the terms of reference of the ad hoc commit- 

tee did not include the charge noted in the recommendation. 

Question was called on the motion to refer, and a vote taken. 

MOTION TO REFER FAILED 

3-in favor 

An amendment was proposed by A. Hollibaugh to strike the word 

"accordingly" and add "a ballot on a one person, one vote basis of 

. ?

faculty and students, with results to the President," but it failed for 

lack of a seconder. 

Amendment was moved by R. Sadleir, seconded by B. Beirne, 

"That the following words be added to the 

recommendation, 'to the Faculties involved," 

R. Kissner gave notice of motion, "That a committee of three faculty 

and three students survey faculty committees....." 

Question was called on the amendment, and a vote taken. 

AMENDMENT FAILED 

6 in favor 

Amendment was moved by R. Kissner, seconded by A. }lollibaugh, 

"That a committee of three faculty members and 

three students be established by Senate to survey 

Faculty committees on which student representation 

is needed and to recommend to the President ac- 

cordingly." 

R. Kissner stated that the revision would introduce an independent 

person in the President, but K. Rieckhoff countered that the President 

did not have authority over a Faculty committee. In response to a 

question by J. Wheatley, the Chairman stated that any recommendations 

under the conditions proposed would likely be referred to the Faculty 

- 8 - 

?

S.M. 4/2/74 

for its information. 

Question was called on the amendment, and a vote taken. 

AMENDMENT FAILED 

8in favor 

8 opposed 

Moved by J. Munro, seconded by J. Seager, 

"That the Recommendation V re Faculty Committees 

be tabled." 

Question was called on the motion to table, and a vote taken. 

MOTION TO TABLE CARRIED 

12-in favor? 

5 opposed 

• The Chairman stated that Recommendation VI re Procedures for 

Academic Appointments, etc. was the next item for consideration: 

.

?

?

"That committees of administrators, faculty and students 

?

be established to suggest appropriate procedures'and 

advise the President accordingly." 

J. Ellis enquired if the Universities Act gives the President 

authority to carry recommendations on appointments to the Board of 

Governors, and the Chairman responded that it was a procedural 

responsibility of the President which could not be delegated. 

D. DeVoretz objected to consideration, and the question of considera- 

tion was put to a vote. 

OBJECTION TO CONSIDERATION 

SUSTAINED 

Attention was next directed to Item VII-1 - Recommendations re 

Alternative Approaches to University Education: 

"That a standing committee of administrators, faculty, 

and students of the three universities be established 

to consider this matter and recommend accordingly." 

R. Sadleir proposed an amendment to delete the words "this matter" 

and insert "alternative approaches to University education." As there 

was no objection, the Chairman declared the recommendation altered ac- 

cordingly. 

Amendment was moved by R. Brown, seconded by J. Seager,? 

"That the following words be inserted between 

- 9 - 

?

S.M. 4/2/74 

is

'recommend' and 'accordingly': 'to the Committee 

on University Governance in British Columbia." 

R. Brown stated that the intention was to comply with the purpose 

of the paper to comment on University governance and direct the comments 

to the committee. R. Sadleir said if the committee were extant the 

recommendation would be lost, and gave notice of motion that the recom- 

mendation be to the Minister of Education. J. Ellis did not think the 

amendment clarified the intent of the committee. 

Question was called on the amendment, and a vote taken. 

AMENDMENT CARRIED 

10 in favor? 

6 opposed 

A substitute motion was moved by J. Ellis, seconded by S. Smith, 

"That this Senate suggest to the Committee on 

University Governance that it create or recommend 

the creation of a vehicle for the continuing 

examination of alternative approaches to 

University education." 

Moved by A. Hollibaugh, seconded by D. DeVoretz, 

"That Item VII.l, including the substitute proposed motion, 

be tabled." 

Question was called on the motion to table Item VII.1, and a vote 

taken. 

MOTION TO TABLE FAILED 

4 in favor 

Question was called on the substitute motion, and a vote taken. 

SUBSTITUTE MOTION CARRIED 

20 in favor ? 

0 opposed 

J. D'Auria enquired if an alternative approach to University educa- 

tion was intended to include the college system, and S. Smith stated that 

the recommendation might have been clearer if it had specified alternative 

approaches to traditional University education. 

Question was called on the main motion as amended, and a vote taken. 

.

?

MAIN MOTION AS AMENDED 

CARRIED 

- 10 - 

?

S.M. 4/2/74 

• ? Discussion ensued on Item VII.2: 

"That consideration be given to setting up a degree- 

granting body modelled in some fashion after the Open 

University and capable of awarding transferable 

academic credit." 

R. Sadleir proposed an amendment to delete the words "and capable 

of awarding transferable academic credit," but the amendment failed for 

lack of a seconder. 

Amendment was moved by J. Wheatley, seconded by J. Ellis, 

"That following the word 'consideration' there 

be inserted 'by the vehicle of Item VII.l." 

Question was called on the amendment, and a vote taken. 

AMENDMENT CARRIED 

J. D'Auria commented that the Open University concept would be 

an expensive project in British Columbia, but S. Smith stated the 

recommendation was intended to promote investigation of feasibility 

in a sparce population. J. Wheatley added that the use of materials 

already developed could make the proposal viable. 

.

?

?

Question was called on the main motion as amended, and a vote 

taken. 

MAIN MOTION AS AMENDED 

CARRIED 

18 in favor? 

2 opposed 

VIII - General Recommendation: 

"That in view of the extent to which the content of the 

Working Paper has been studied by Senates, the Committee 

on University Government should include henceforth at 

least one Senator from each of the three Universities." 

R.

Kissner pointed out that there are four Universities in British 

Columbia, and, as there was no objection, the Chairman declared that 

the recommendation would be altered accordingly. 

S. Smith noted that if the recommendation were approved it would 

be directed to the appropriate authorities. 

Question was called on Recommendation VIII, and a vote taken. 

MOTION FAILED 

2 in favor 

14 opposed 

- 11 - ? 

S.M. 4/2/74 

The Chairman referred to page 17 of the minutes of the Special 

meeting of January 21, 1974 wherein it was recorded that J. P. Daem 

had given notice of motion. 

Moved by J. P. Daem, seconded by E. Burkle, 

"That faculty, staff and student members of 

Senate and the Board be given time releases 

from their respective duties to perform their 

functions on the Senate and the Board." 

J. P. Daem said the intent was to provide a device whereby student 

members would not be penalized through participation. J. Ellis was 

sympathetic with the intent but suggested that lay members could face 

substantial financial sacrifices. 

In response to a question from the Chairman, J. P. Daem made it 

clear that the intent was to provide the motion, if approved, to the 

Committee on University Governance in British Columbia, and not for 

immediate implementation here. 

Amendment was moved by J. Ellis, seconded by G. Rheumer, 

"That 

be de 

added 

. ?

up to 

The effect 

follows: 

the words 'faculty, staff and students' 

Leted and that after 'given' there be 

'appropriate compensation' and the words 

and including 'duties' be struck." 

of the amendment would alter the wording to read as 

"That members of Senate and the Board be given appropriate 

compensation to perform their duties and their functions on 

Senate and the Board." 

Discussion ensued on the definition of the word "compensation," 

and a number of opinions were expressed. J. Seager objected to 

consideration, and the question of consideration was put to a vote. 

OBJECTION NOT SUSTAINED 

J. D'Auria spoke against the motion and the amendment as self- 

interest oriented and leading to abuse. T. Sterling thought that the 

proposal for compensation should exclude faculty members. 

Question was called on the amendment, and a vote taken. 

AMENDMENT CARRIED 

13 in favor ? 

3 opposed 

J. D'Auria requested that his negative vote be recorded. 

- 12 - 

?

S.M. 4/2/74 

.

??

Question was called on the main motion as amended, and a vote 

taken. 

MAIN MOTION AS AMENDED 

CARRIED 

14 in favor? 

3 opposed 

J. D'Auria requested that his negative vote be recorded. 

The Chairman noted that the remaining item in connection with 

Paper S.74-27 as originally presented was the motion,. 

"That Senate select one or more of its number to present 

its views on the Working Paper to the Committee on 

University Government." 

Moved by J. Ellis, seconded by J. P. Daem, 

"That the chairman of the ad hoc committee, 

assisted by the members of the ad hoc com- 

mittee be the members to make the presentation 

to the Committee on University Governance." 

• R. Kissner declined membership, and the Chairman stated that the 

motion would then have the effect of limiting the membership to B. P. 

Beirne, assisted by W.A.S. Smith. 

Question was called on the motion on membership, and a vote taken. 

MOTION CARRIED 

4. Senate Committee on Agenda and Rules 

1. Paper S.74-31 - Recommended Rules of Senate 

Moved by A. Hollibaugh, seconded by J. P. Daem, 

"That this paper be postponed to the next regular 

meeting of Senate." 

Question was called on the motion to postpone, and a vote taken. 

MOTION TO POSTPONE 

CARRIED 

6. REPORTS OF FACULTIES 

There were no reports of Faculties. 

0 ?

7. OTHER BUSINESS 

1. Notice of Motion 

There were no notices of motion. 

.- 13 - 

? S.M. 4/2/74 

2.

Date of Next Meeting 

It was noted that the next meeting of Senate is scheduled for 

Monday, March 4, 1974, at 7:30 p.m. 

3.

Other Items 

There were no other items. 

4.

Confidential Matters 

Senate moved immediately into Closed Session at 11:08 p.m. 

H. M. Evans 

Secretary 