S.05-35
I ?
SIMON FRASER UNIVERSITY
Senate Committee on University Priorities
Memorandum
/Pi--------
TO:
Senate ?
FROM: Bill Krane
Acting Chair, SCUP
Acting Vice-President, Academic
RE:
School of Kinesiology ?
DATE: February 16, 2005
The Senate Committee on University Priorities (SCUP) has reviewed the External
Review Report on the School of Kinesiology, together with the response from the
School and the Dean of Applied Sciences.
Motion:
That Senate concur with the recommendations from the Senate Committee
• ?
on University Priorities concerning advice to the School of Kinesiology on
priority items resulting from the external review.
?
-
The report of the External Review Committee for the School of Kinesiology was
submitted on April 16, 2004 following the review site visit which took place
March 10-12, 2004. The response of the Director of the School was received on
August 12,. 2004 followed by that of the Dean of Applied Sciences on October 5,
2004.
SCUP notes that progress has already been made in adopting the advice of the
External Reviewers and recommends to Senate that the School of Kinesiology and
the Dean of Applied Sciences be advised to pursue the following as priority items:
Graduate Studies
1.1 The School should continue to revise the core curriculum to include
interdisciplinary courses.
1.2 The newly formed Graduate Program Committee should continue to identify
specific goals for development and improvement of the Graduate Program.
0
2 Facult
y
renewal
2.1 The School should continue to develop the 5 year strategy to manage the
replacement of retiring faculty and ensure that the succession of the
Director is built into such a plan.
3 Facult y
of Health Sciences
3.1 The School should continue to work with the Dean of Health Sciences to
determine, in concrete terms, the possible relationship that could exist
between the School and the new Faculty.
4 ?
Under g raduate Studies
4.1 The School should continue to seek accreditation from the Canadian
Council of University Physical Education and Kinesiology Administrators
(CCUPEKA) and to continue to develop its program in order that students
may seek accreditation from the Association of Canadian Ergonomists
(ACE).
4.2 The School should continue to pursue the plans of locating a community
health project at Harbour Centre.
?
0
5 Administration
5.1 The School should continue to pursue ways of increasing communication
among faculty members and graduate students, reevaluate the roles and
terms '
of reference for their committees and ensure the transparency of
funding allocation decisions.
5.2 The
-
School should continue to implement the mentoring program to support
junior faculty members.
C:
B. Lewis
J. Dickinson
S
2
SOUP 05- 013
S
EXTERNAL REVIEW COMMITTEE
School of Kinesiology
March 10— 12, 2004
Dr. Jan Starkes (Chair of ERC)
Department of Kinesiology
McMaster University
Ph.D. Waterloo
Dr. Patricia A. McKinley
Associate Professor
School of Physical and Occupational Therapy
McGill University
B.A., M.A., Ph.D. (U.C.L.A.)
S
Dr. Phil Gardiner
Graduate Program Chair
Faculty of Physical Education & Recreation Studies
University of Manitoba
Ph.D. (Physical Education; exercise physiology) University of Alberta
M.P.E. (Physical Education) University of Windsor
B.P.H.E.(Physical Education) University of Windsor
Dr. Michael Smith
Professor- Emeritus
Department of Molecular Biology and Biochemistry
Simon Fraser University
B.Sc. in Biology, St. Mary's College of California
Ph.D. in Zoology, University of British Columbia
ci
3.
School of Kinesiology: External Review March 2004
Wwou1d like to thank both the School of Kinesiology and the senior administration
of SFU for providing comprehensive documentation on both the School and the
University and for facilitating our meetings with faculty members, staff,
undergraduate and graduate students.
During our site visit we were able to meet with the Director of the School, the
Undergraduate and Graduate committees, staff, each faculty member individually, 21
undergraduate students and 14 graduate students,
The School ofKinesiology is a well-respected program. It produces well-versed
graduates from its undergraduate program, its graduate program produces skilled
researchers and the faculty members are world-renowned for their innovative ground-
breaking research. Having said this, the terms of the Review Committee are to
recommend improvements that may enhance these areas and at the same time deal
with certain internal issues that detract from the School's current and future
operations.
The Review Committee has been asked to address several issues via the terms of
reference provided and we will attempt to do so in turn.
1. Graduate Studies
Faculty members have strong, varied, and well-supported research programs
that provide graduate students with a very rich learning environment. Fnding of the
students does not appear to be a problem as students are funded by a combination of
TA and RAships departmental and faculty scholarships, and provincial and federal
scholarships. Thus the program does attract strong graduate students. The completion
rate of the students is good and timely, reflecting both the quality of the students and
the well-developed research programs of the faculty. However, the School expressed
concern regarding the future of this program because of declining numbers of
applicants. The school receives on average 12-15 applications a year. This is a very
small number given the research reputation of the department.
a.
Declining numbers of students within the graduate program, particularly at the
PhD level.
While the reviewers agree that declining enrolment might not truly reflect the
number of graduate students being supervised in the department, (due to enrolment in
other programs), the decline in enrolment, particularly at the PhD level, is
troublesome. When queried, most students were satisfied with their working
arrangements within certain labs but few (6 of 14) of the current students indicated
they would recommend the graduate program to others. The number of students
enrolled at the graduate level reaches only 40% of the number found in the next
smallest faculty. As well, the program does not seem to capture many students who
completed undergraduate degrees in the school. Rather, other issues that may impact
on this decline have been identified. Briefly they are as follows: lack of a specific
graduate program structure that can be identified with Kinesiology; lack of
transparency of information and policies within the school, as could be found in a
departmental handbook; lack of sense of communit y among the graduate students
with concomitant reluctance to recommend the program to other potential students;
ç.
entrenchment and lack of vision of the graduate committee. In order to avoid further
deterioration of the program the following steps are strongly recommended.
b. Development of a well-defined graduate curriculum.
A well-defined graduate curriculum might include 3 to 4 core courses that are not
specific to any one research area within the school, but rather are cross cutting and
common to all areas. Examples of such core courses might include research
methodology / research communication; applied instrumentation, modelling systems,
advanced statistical methods, survey of departmental research in kinesiology, and a
mandatory research seminar series. As well, students complained that it was difficult
to plan or take courses within the school as they were often cancelled due to lack of
sufficient enrolment. Thus a suggestion would be to regularly schedule elective
courses (such as every other year, fall term) so that students could plan their studies in
anticipation of taking a specific course in a particular semester or year. This advance
scheduling may serve to increase enrolment in the courses so that they would not fall
below the minimum enrolment. Other solutions to this issue of not consistently
offering a course might be to decrease minimum enrolment, or encoura
ge
students
from other schools or universities to enrol in the courses.
One important structure that was felt to be critical was the development of a
seminar series that is multidisciplinary in nature, might be run by the graduate
students, and has an attendance requirement. The purpose would be to develop shared
experience and a sense of camaraderie within the graduate student population, as well
as a respect for varying research disciplines. By fostering this sense of inclusion
S ?
among the graduate students, it is hoped that the lack of understanding and
collegiality within the faculty might be lessened.
c.
Development of a graduate handbook.
The handbook would spell out the steps and requirements for attaining an MSc
Thesis, MSc non-thesis and a PhD de
g
ree,. includin
g
the process for awarding an
fellowships, guidelines for supervision, guidelines for comprehensive examinations,
oral examinations and thesis defense; description of the core courses and elective
courses as well as a general guide to when they would be offered. Setting down
concrete guidelines would also aid the graduate director and committee in that
administrative issues that currently bog down the committee would be easily handled
by the secretary and director. As well, it would avoid contentious issues between
students, or students and their supervisors. For example one issue of grave concern to
the students was the nature and content of the comprehensive examinations. By
spelling out the specifics of the comprehensive examination requirements, issues
related to breadth and depth of the content, length of the reading list, and what
constitutes a pass or fail on the examination would not only help the student formulate
a framework for study, but help evaluators in grading the responses. Standardising
these procedures would also lessen contentious issues (and disparaging remarks)
related to the differences in research domains that typically exist in a school that is
multidisciplinary, and where neither students nor professors have a clear grasp of their
colleagues' domains.
It is felt that these two implementations in the graduate program would
promote a sense of identity and structure to the program that is currentl
y
lacking. and
would attract more students to the program, as they would have a better idea of what
6:
2
would be expected of them as students as well as what the program could offer to
them as stakeholders . With respect to course and thesis requirements this aspect is
vague in these areas
"there are no university course requirements for the doctoral
degree. However, a student's supervisory committee, graduate
program committee or the faculty graduate studies committee,
may require a student to take specified courses or semester hours
as part of the degree program" p13, 1.74).
Having specifics spelled out for the school will permit the prospective student to
make a more informed decision with respect to graduate program selection and would
enhance the identity of the school.
d.
Yearly Goal-setting by the graduate director and committee.
It appears that the committee spends an inordinate amount of time dealing
with administrative issues. The administrative minutiae of running the graduate
program needs to be addressed by the graduate secretary and the director, rather than
in committee meetings. For important issues related to student progress and program
implementation, the committee should be consulted, while day-to-day problems
should merely be reported to the committee. The director and the committee need to
identify specific goals for development and improvement of the graduate program and
concentrate on these issues during the year. Development of the handbook policies
and a well-defined graduate curriculum should be the top two priorities of the director
and the committee. Not only should current policies be spelled out, they should be
revisited.
There should be a concerted effort to renew the committee membership on a
regular basis to avoid stagnation. As the graduate director serves for only a two year
period, it may be necessary that the director serve on the committee for a year after
stepping down from the position in order to ensure continuity, or that committee
member rotation be staggered.
e. Potential for a non-thesis based Master's program
The opportunity to increase enrolment in the graduate program by offering a
non-thesis based Master's degree is a viable option for increasing graduate enrolment
within the School.
In
particular, this option may be appealing to those health
professionals with BSc degrees in physical and occupational therapy, who wish to be
competitive with future entry-level Master's graduates in these professions from the
UBC programs. However, in order to make this option workable, the school needs to
fully develop a graduate program, including a school graduate handbook with internal
policies and procedures, core courses, and regularly taught electives, as well as a
policy for directed practica, and/or projects, identification of elective courses outside
the school and course work at the 400 level that could be applied to the degree.
The School should also be aware that a non-thesis distance education (web-
based) Master's degree in rehabilitation science will be offered next year through a
joint venture by UBC and McMaster University, to target just such students.
• ?
2.
An evaluation of the strate
g ies and
priorities for faculty
renewal in light of
upcoming retirements and the potential
for redistributing
teaching and research
resources.
The School will experience the retirement of 4 professors by 2008, with 3 of
these scheduled for the same year (2008). The Dean of FAS indicated that these
positions will remain in Kinesiology. At the time of the evaluation, the team did not
have access to the recently-developed 3-yr plan of the school, and was thus not in a
position to evaluate the school's posture on this issue. Discussions with faculty
members and the Director indicated that plans for hiring of new faculty (areas of
research), and the implications of retirements and new hires on important resources
such as space, were not well-developed. If they were developed, the information was
not transmitted to the faculty members that we interviewed. The issue of who will
succeed Dr. Dickinson as Director when he retires in 2006, and how the priorities and
the tack of the School may change as a result, is one of major significance for the
School's future. The review team considered the following to constitute appropriate
issues to address within the next 2 years, and in fact as soon as possible:
1)
What should be the general profile of the next director of the School? This
profile has in the past proven to have major impact on all aspects of the
School, from program considerations to issues of colle
giality
and mutual
respect. This should be discussed at the School level well in advance of the
end of the current Director's mandate. It is important that the new Director
have a clear mandate and approval of 75% of the faculty.
2)
How will the hiring of new faculty from now to 2008 proceed w
-
ith respect to
current program needs vs. future program development vs. research areas of
specialization? What is the general plan?
3)
What are the projected space needs for these new hires, and how can these be
interfaced with the space reallocations associated with the Dual Opportunity
and TAS 2 initiatives currently under way in the FAS?
4)
Should there be consideration within the hirin
g
plan for eventual possible
-involvements in the future Olympic Oval research opportunities, and the
Health Sciences Faculty?
5)
How will the issue of teaching "buy-outs", which has raised some flags
concernin
g
the quality of interaction ofjunior undergraduate students with
- researchers, be considered as a part of the hiring policies, or will it?
3.
Strategies for the School to engage in cooperative research and teaching
programs with the new Faculty of Health Sciences
Our attempt to address this issue involved some fact-gathering and discussions
with members of the School as well as with the individual spear-heading the new
faculty, Dr. David Maclean. Among the faculty members of the School of
Kinesiolo g
y who were interviewed, there was a rather wide range of opinion on this
question. Most were of the opinion that development of the HSF would provide
. significant opportunities for the School, with one member stating that Kinesiology
ought to be the first Department of the new Faculty. Most were also of the opinion
that the details concerning the implementation and eventual functioning of the new
I.
• ?
faculty are not yet apparent, and have therefore decided to reserve judgement - "wait
and see". Some have already decided that they do not want to be involved personally,
il[itbèñfiifrdñiéiiiI
involved. The concerns of the faculty members in the School can be summarized as
falling into one or several of the following;
1)
"The principal area of concentration, initially, will be in Population and Public
Health, which is an area of expertise currently not found in the School of
Kinesio logy. Therefore, we will be left out - but this does not concern us
anyway". The sentiment of exclusion of the School from the HSF is
supported to some extent in the document "Appendix
5:
Proposal for a Faculty
of Health Sciences - School of Kinesiology". In that document, kinesiology is
not mentioned as a possible partner in the initial phase of the HSF -
Population and Public Health - in spite of a planned emphasis on "the causes
of disease and the determinants of health" during that phase. Kinesiology is
mentioned, on the other hand, as possible contributors in areas of emphasis to
come later, such as Biomolecular Interactions, Aging and Chronic Illness, and
Brain Function and Development.
2)
"I am happy in Applied Sciences - why move to another Faculty?"
.
Some
faculty have issues related to resources - what will the move mean to me and
to the School with respect to reallocation of space, other resources? Although
there is not necessarily a plan put forward to move the entire School from one
faculty to another, this possibility is seen as a threat by some. -
3) .
"The ergonomics and biomedical engineering components of kinesiology fit
better in the FAS than in the new FHS".
4) . "Much will depend on the Dean appointed to run this new faculty", and
"Nothing happened with the IHRE, and so nothing will happen with the HSF,
especially under the same Director/Dean".
It would appear that many of these issues could easily be addressed with more
information regarding the concrete plans for the new Faculty. The fact that details are
not available, and have not been forthcoming from the individual spear-heading this
initiative, is a source of frustration for everyone involved, from Central
Administration to members of the School. Our meeting with Dave Maclean did little
to clarify these issues, other than revealing that Dr. Maclean had concerns about the
lack of universal enthusiasm in the School for this initiative.
The committee would like to recommend that Dr. Maclean meet with
members of the School of Kinesiology to outline in more concrete terms than is
currently available, the role, implications, and format, for the eventual involvement of
members of the School, and/or of the School itself as a unit, in the HSF. A further
recommendation would be to present this plan as a time-line, with emphasis on the
implementation of the initial phase(s). The committee was convinced that the absence
of attempts at some form of communication along these lines would severely impede
the development of any fruitful interactions between Kinesiology and HSF.
0
. ?
4. An evaluation of the potential of the undergr2duate program to obtain
accreditation by CCUPEK& and by ACE.
a.
CCUFEKA Accreditation
CCUPEKA accredits programs in Kinesiology for a period of seven years. The
standards are viewed as minimal requirements and programs are encouraged to offer
additional areas of concentration for their students. There are 4 potential areas that
present problems for accreditation at SFU but we believe these could be resolved by
the School. At the moment the Active Health and Ergonomics streams present the best
potential for accreditation. The first issue is that the School would have to guarantee
that all graduates from these programs have 96 hours of labs associated with a
minimum of 4 core areas. This means that labs would currently need to be added in
two areas. Second, accreditation requires a minimum of two, one term courses in
• ?
Research methods / Statistics. Currently one course is required and one is optional,
these would both need to be required. Thirdly, CCIJPEKA mandates two courses in
Social Sciences for Humanities. Their thinking is that graduates of Kinesiology
programs are often employed in service occupations that deal with patients or clients.
Indeed, the School's own undergraduate brochure indicates that Kinesiologists are
most often employed as OT or PT assistants, in Health and Fitness, in Teaching, or go
•
?
on to Medicine or Chiropractic. CCUPEKA feels that all Kinesiology grads should be
exposed to psycho-social aspects of movement because their careers typically involve
motivating people and issues of adherence / compliance. The Active Health and
Ergonomics streams provide these types of courses as optional but these (or two other
.
?
courses) would need to be mandatory. The fourth area of concern is that 75% of
Kinesiology courses for a degree (60 units of 120 units to graduate) must be taught by
fuiltime appointments. The faculty count may include lecturers, contractually limited
appointments, or tenure stream appointments, but not part-time sessionals.
Given that both IJBC and Fraser Valley have indicated that they will likely
seek accreditation in future, one can foresee a time when competition for students will
be even greater for SFU if accreditation is not pursued. Fourteen kinesiology degree
pro
g
rams across the country are already accredited or currently under review.
b.
ACE accreditation.
The half-time lecturer in ergonorny feels strongly that with new course
development ACE accreditation should not be difficult to acquire, as co-op program
internships could be used to meet requirements of field work for accreditation, and the
course work currently offered will meet the course requirements of this degree.
However, others in the co-op program expressed the opinion that to meet the
requirements for accreditation with ACE would still take work. ACE accredits
individuals based on specific course work taken and not programs per se. Thus, it
would seem that not only does there need to be consultation with the new ergonomy
lecturer, but a student advisor who is well informed with respect to ACE requirements
for certification. Meeting the standards to certify students will require additional space
and human resources. Some of these resources have already been committed in the
form of a half-time lecturer appointment, equipment purchases, and space provided at
Harbour Centre for a potential cohort of students. If the resource requirements can be
met this would appear to be a good program to provide students. The undergraduate
students perceive ergonomics as a very desirable certification and the Co-op
coordinator assures us that several ergonomics placements currently go unfilled
9.
6
because of a lack of qualified students. One strong reason for pursuing the
accreditation with ACE is that it might bring in a variety of heretofore untapped
- ?
... ?
di ñëhptiOñá1 therapists Wishingtoxpand their'-
knowledge and accreditation in ergonomics.
5.
Staffing
The addition of a half—time undergraduate advisor to the staff is a welcome
adjunct to the undergraduate program, as the administrative assistant is overloaded at
the present time. Indeed, the undergraduates, while supportive of the efforts of the
administrative assistant, highlighted the need for a person dedicated to this task.
Perhaps the school should consider requesting funding for support of a full time
position in this area.
The library and computer resources are excellent, and there were no major
problems identified by faculty or support staff with respect to workload of the
secretarial staff. However, the secretarial staff did express a desire to have yearly
evaluations of their performance so that they would have a better idea of the areas in
which they are doing well, and those areas
in
which they could improve.
One area of concern is the staffing for the environmental physiology area.
Currently the research engineer is supported for 50% of his time through the cost-
recovery program and a large percentage of time is devoted to revenue generation. It
appears that this aspect is a source of concern for both the engineer and the technician.
They would both like to see a re-invigorated program with more faculty and students,
to fully exploit the potential of the environmental laboratories.
?
-
6.
An evaluation of the programmatic and research opportunities to Kinesiology
in relation to the 2010 Olympics and the Olympic Oval at SFU.
Acquisition of a speedskating oval on campus is a once-in-a-lifetime
opportunity for research, and should be heartily pursued by SFU. Currently the School
does not have a faculty member in the area of high performance and would need to
consider whether such an addition would fit within the School's long-term academic
plan. One of the issues with faculty involved
in
high performance research is that to
engage in a viable research program it's also necessary to maintain connections and a
presence as a consultant with national teams, in part for subjects and continued access
to funding. This can be rewarding but necessarily time-consuming. In addition,
sustaining research funding in sport related research is difficult, so there would need
to be funds available for both equipment acquisition but more importantly equipment
maintenance and upgrades. Having said that this is a situation in which the
opportunities are endless. As a case in point, Calgary's Olympic Oval is the only one
of the Calgary Olympic venues with significant revenue generation beyond operating
costs. A portion of this revenue (abott $100,000 annually) has been earmarked to
support small research projects and pro
.
vide.cdntracts for research with high
performance applications. Revenue has also allowed them to support faculty
appointments in part. At Calgary there is an enormous "buy-in" to research associated
with the Oval by both Kinesiology and Engineering. The research has resulted in new
patents for speedskating crash pads, athore aerodynamic competition suit, a better
designed kiap-skate, and materials research that has patented an ice crystal that melts
at higher than usual temperatures. This last invention will actually save on operating
costs for the Oval. We recommend that the university strike and support a small
10.
VA
advisory committee composed of faculty members from Kinesiology and elsewhere to
determine how research at SFU could benefit from the Oval. From the School,
Róbinovitbh,Milhër,Gôedrhañ,Lear,and Pakhoüse would be Ood potentia.............................
members of this committee. This committee should be provided a small operating
budget (a portion of which might be accessible for travel to sites like Calgary, the US
Olympic training center at Colorado Springs, or elsewhere) and a mandate to provide
g
uidelines for access, and potential avenues of research.
7.
The issue of modified contracts and the undergraduate program.
Faculty members in the School have been extremely successful in attaining
research funding, as reflected by both the overall research funding per year and
faculty per capita amounts. The associated release buyouts are necessary for facult y
to
engage in research. However, the reduction in workload available for teaching means
the School is a victim of its own research success. Most faculty we met with enjoy
teaching and miss the student contact associated with it. The result of these various
buyouts is that the School has evolved into one cohort of tenure-stream faculty who
pursue research, teaching and service; and a cohort of lecturers / senior lecturers, who
are on contractual appointments and are devoted to teaching and service.
We were able to meet with 21 undergraduate students from a variety of years
Meeting this group was one of the highlights of our visit. Students from the School
were a bright, articulate group, eager to share their views and "constructive
suggestions" for the School. When we first met with undergraduate students we
anticipated that students would be concerned that their interaction with skilled
. ?
researchers in the department often does not occur until their senior yeats. By and
large students were very supportive of the School, the degree structure, and the
faculty. They like having lecturers and senior lecturers teaching most of the core as
they felt these individuals were devoted to teaching, and were more accessible to
students than research faculty were likely to be.
One advantage of teaching buyouts is that sessional salaries are usually
somewhat less than the actual buyout amounts and the additional soft monies may
provide a net gain in teaching resources. The School appears to have taken advantage
of this to provide additional teaching support. One disadvantage of not having senior
faculty do more undergraduate teaching is that students never really come to know the
various research directions in the department, or which faculty member they might
choose to work with, were they to continue on to graduate work. Even though
research faculty may teach less we feel it would be a good idea to rotate all faculty so
they teach in the core. Elsewhere some departments have created internal guidelines
that no faculty member may totally buyout of undergraduate teaching and that
everyone must maintain some presence (usually one course) in undergraduate
teaching. The School should consider whether such an approach would be of benefit.
Co-op programming at SFU is extremely successful and a model for other
programs across the country. Students appreciate having access to it and unlike some
other co-op programs across the country the positions offered appear to be
consistently challenging and educational. We were impressed with the quality of
. positions being offered and the fact that students access positions virtually across
North America. Students however, were concerned about availability of courses,
particularly for co-op students. They like the idea of streams of concentration, but feel
'I.
that there should be a review of which courses are appropriate for distance education.
They felt that courses in anatomy or those involving skills such as skin-fold
assessments should not be offered in distance education, because they require more
hands-on instruction and feedback. Finally, they appreciate access to courses offered
jointly with programs such as Emily Carr.
8.
Harbour Centre as a satellite teaching
/
research center.
Through documentation and our meetings we learned of the proposal to offer a menu
of courses for single terms, to a cohort of 25 students, at Harbour Centre. Harbour
Centre is a beautiful facility but at the moment the existing space on the second floor
is insufficient to offer both teaching labs, administrative offices, and a research lab for
Dr. Scott Lear. If appropriate space can be found this would be a very positive
venture. The School still needs to consider part-time technical support to deal with
equipment issues, and if students and faculty are to spend full terms there they will
need some administrative and academic advising support, preferably on-site. If the
Faculty decides to go the way of ACE accreditation, some consideration will also
have to be given to ACE accreditation being related to the individual rather than the
program, since having an advisor for those students in ergonomics who wish to
become certified would be crucial to the success of the program. Student surveys
indicated that the cohort initiative would be most appealing if they had guaranteed
access to a suite of courses, all offered in one term, and if the academic offerings
could be compressed into a shorter week. From the students' perspective access and
parking are also issues that would need to be addressed.
The review team was struck by the potential of the Centre to host community-
based health research, because of its location. The location may also present
opportunities for research with social scientists in other programs at Harbour Centre.
Dr. Scott Lear's research is ideally located in this area, with access to both
participants and hospitals. The downside for Dr. Lear is that he is physically removed
from the rest of the School and must travel to attend committees, seminars, etc.
Neverthless, the potential for the Centre as a host for urban health research is
tremendous. This could present an opportunity to increase faculty in the psychosocial
domain as it would not only form a bridge between the school and Dr. Lear's work
but would serve to support a CCUPEKA accreditation application and increase
breadth in the ergonomics domain.
Within the School there are currently two faculty members (Lear, Goodman)
whose research has a community focus. However, community-focused research
allows access to substantial funding available through SSHRC, CAHR, and CIHR.
Presently this avenue is largely untapped by faculty within the School.
9.
Ways to increase collegiality, cohesiveness and mutual respect in the context of
a multidisciplinary School.
As happens often in Schools in which interests are as varied as is the case in
the School of Kinesiology, differences of opinion often occur which are related to
issues including curriculum development, tenure and promotion of professors,
graduate student supervision, and research space, to name but a few. Problems
relating to the issue of collegiality and mutual respect were flagged during the
previous evaluation, and several faculty members interviewed have declared that
although the situation has improved significantly since that time (owing in part to the
1€;?.
development of a constitution for the School), some problems remain. There are
several suggestions that the review committee can put forward to help this situation:
1)
The committee was of the opinion that at least part of this problem stems from
the lack of communication among faculty members and graduate students at
formalized common forums, such as School research seminars, core courses in
the graduate program, and other common activities involving faculty and
graduate students from all labs. This relates back to a basic issue of defining
the elements of commonality among the research labs - what are we as a
group trying to do in the School, with our collective body of graduate
students? It may be that this element requires a champion - a person who
brings together the faculty and graduate students into common activities. This
person might indeed be the Director of the School. A good start might be
initiation of a School graduate seminar (as outlined earlier), involving faculty
and graduate student informal presentations, perhaps with a social component
attached (refreshments) with some involvement of speakers invited from
outside the School.
2)
The evaluation committee noted that several departmental committee
meetings with mandates significant to School development appear to be
conducted in a manner not entirely conducive to moving the School along.
The committee interviewed a committee Chair, for example, who declared
dissatisfaction with the way that the meetings that he/she Chaired, were
conducted! The School might wish to re-evaluate the committees of the
.
?
School, to ensure that each committee has a clear mandate and terms of
reference,.a mission statement for the tenure of the current Chair, and
preferably beyond that, if possible, and a procedural structure that is
productive and efficient. A suggestion might be to consider adding the
Director or his designate as an ad hoc member of some committees, to ensure
continuity, to act as a resource person for the chair in committee meeting
procedures, and to help maintain focus consistent with the School's strategic
plan. The reviewers felt it was also important that the school move forward of
its own accord without the continued influence of retired faculty.
3)
Somewhat related to 2) immediately above, and perhaps as a result of the
issues raised therein, there seems to be a general tendency for faculty to
consider committee membership as undesirable, and therefore something to
avoid. This obviously has a tendency to limit flexibility concerning committee
membership (committee members are nominated), and tends to diminish the
importance of committee activities in the eyes of all faculty members, and
particularly in the eyes of the younger faculty members. It may be that the
Director could consider convincing specific faculty members to contribute to
committees in which he feels that their impact and experience might be of
particular value - "twisting their arms". In addition, the current Director has
practiced a policy of "protectin
g
" young faculty from committee duties to a
certain extent. While the notion is laudable, the reality may be that young
faculty, who will ultimately be impacted the most by committee decisions,
.
?
might be interested in taking part in more committee activities. Involving
young faculty on more committees that are efficiently conducted, with clear
goals and procedures, will also constitute a valuable learning experience, and
/3.
10
prepare them for their larger roles in the future of the School
-
they will "buy
in" more into the School - what it is doing and where it is going - than is
currently the case.
4)
One concern expressed by a faculty member was an apparent lack of
transparency in the allocation of resources by the Director's office, as a
possible source of some discord among faculty members. The example given
was the ultimate fate of funds recovered from teaching buy-outs from research
grants and awards. While complete transparency is not always entirely
appropriate or desirable, the Director should at least be aware of the possible
divisive effects surrounding this issue.
5)
It was apparent to the evaluation team that several of the junior faculty
members would benefit significantly from a mentoring program, in which
advice concerning research grantsmanship, publishing, teaching, time and
stress management, and even issues of a personal nature, could be made
available on either an informal or more formalized basis with the School. It
was felt that this might go a long way in reducing some of the frustration and
isolation that junior faculty often experience during their first highly
vulnerable years as faculty members.
Recommendations in order of priority
I. Develop a graduate "program" with a required core, mandatory
interdisciplinary seminar and well-developed handbook on policies.
2.
Develop a
5
year plan for hiring, space, succession of the director, staffing
and research. Once a plan is developed it should be well-circulated and
transparent. It was only after our visit that we learned that the School
currently has a 3 year plan. The lack of inclusion of the plan was either an
oversight or a reflection of the weight placed on it within the School.
3.
With regard to the Undergraduate program —provide space, equipment and
human resources to facilitate the cohort program offered through Harbour
Centre and facilitate accreditation by CCUPEKA and ACE.
4.
Establish a clearer understanding of what role individual faculty members
- or departments will play in the new Faculty of Health Science and resolve
the relationship with the new Faculty.
5.
Investigate further potential of the Olympic Oval and develop a plan for
hiring and how research can be integrated with the School and other
faculty areas.
Respectfully submitted,
Dr. Phillip Gardiner
Dr. Patricia McKinley
Dr.
Janet Starkes
11
RESPONSE ?
TO THE
?
EXTERNAL REVIEW REPORT
?
OF
?
MARCH 2004
.
SCHOOL OF KrNESIOLOGY
?
SIMON FRASER UNIVERSITY
0
?
August 12
lh
2004
I
Response to External Review of the School of Kinesiology - August
12th,
2004
PREAMBLE
The School of Kinesiology would like to thank the External Review Committee for its
0
report and to commend the committee for its thoughtful comments on the program at Simon
Fraser University.
The School provided fOcus questions for the committee to comment on and for the most
part the report concentrates on those focus questions. Apart from a single paragraph, the
committee does not comment on the successes or achievements of the School and in this regard
the School was somewhat disappointed that a true evaluation of the School's merits did not occur
and it therefore refers the Senate Committee to the School's internal review (Self-Study Report).
GRADUATE STUDIES
A significant proportion of the External Review Report was concerned with the status of
graduate studies in the School of Kinesiology. Four specific recommendations were made. As a
result of this report, the School devoted two Graduate Program Mini Retreats in the months of
May and June, 2004, to a discussion of the Graduate Program and a significant proportion of two
regularly scheduled School Meetings. As a result of these meetings, many of the concerns
expressed in the report have been addressed.
A. The curriculum of the Graduate Program has been revised with the addition of two required
courses at the Masters level, a seminar course and a course in Statistics. In addition, the total
minimum
-
number of credits for completion of the M.Sc. degree has been increased from 12
to 18. The School has also identified a core of 8 courses from which M.Sc. students must
select at least two. Through these means, it is anticipated that greater interaction will occur
among the Graduate students, particularly in the survey seminar course, and that students will
be assured of increased breadth and depth in their program. These revisions were given final
approval at the School meeting 0f22nd July 2004.
I of
Response to External Review of the School of Kinesioloi - August
12th
774
B. At the Mini Retreats the School also discussed the possibility of the development of an M.Sc.
by coursework for the School. This has now been approved and details of the curriculum
have been developed. In summary, the Seminar and Statistics courses recommended for the
M.Sc. Thesis option will also be required of the M.Sc. coursework students and in addition,
three courses from the eight identified core courses will be required. Students will then take
additional coursework to a total of 27 credits from electives within the School. The final
three credits for the 30-credit coursework Masters degree will be taken in the form of a
Directed Studies in which a project will be completed. The format conforms with the other
coursework Masters degrees offered at Simon Fraser University.
The introduction of the Coursework Masters is anticipated in 2005-3 provided that
approval is forthcoming from the Senate Committee on Graduate Studies and the Senate. The
proposal has approval from the FAS Graduate Committee in principle. It is anticipated that the
establishment of a cohort of between 10 and 20 M. Sc. Coursework students will have a number
of valuable ramifications for the program in general. Principally, it will ensure sufficient
enrollment in all graduate courses that confirmed planning for course offerings can occur with no
risk that courses will be cancelled for reasons of low enrollment. The proposition for a
Coursework Masters has been the subject of a survey of former Kinesiology students and the
School is convinced that it will attract candidates. In addition, there are a number of professional
organizations who may seek the advance training such an M.Sc. program can provide.
Preliminary negotiations have taken place with a chiropractic group.
The External Review committee also recommended the development of a Graduate
Handbook. As a first step to this process, the handbooks for Graduate Programs have been
solicited from other institutions and from other programs in FAS. The School accepts the
necessity and value of such a handbook and it will be produced in time for delivery to students
1'11
2 of 9
Response to External Review of the School of Kinesiology - August I2 2004
applying for the 2005-3 semester. A senior graduate student has been recruited to assist in the
process and contracted to produce a first draft by the end of September 2004.
The External Review also suggested that the Graduate Chair and Committee should set
annual goals and the committee membership should be renewed on a regular basis. This has
occurred. The Director is currently acting as the Graduate Program Chair and a new committee
has been formed retaining two of the previous members to ensure continuity. This committee
has been instrumental in setting the goals for the committee over the next year.
FACULTY RENEWAL
The External Review noted that four professors will retire by 2008. One of these
positions is that of the current Director. The Review recommended early initiation of a search
for the replaement of the Director. A recommendation has been made informally by the
Director of the School to the Dean, FAS, that an external search be made for the new Director.
Since all other appointments occur four years from now, it is submitted that there is adequate
time for significant discussion to occur concerning the areas in which the appointments will be
made. A half-day retreat will be held in 2004-3 to develop a 3 year hiring strategy.
Of more immediate concern to the School, is the appointment of "fallout" positions in the
School of Kindsiology. Dr. Glen Tibbits has been awarded a CRC Tier I Chair and authorization
for the fallout position has been received. Dr. Stephen Robinovitch has been recommended for a
CRC Tier II and it is anticipated that an additional fallout position will be recommended. There
is currently one position vacant within the School of Kinesiology and an appointment has been
concluded for this position with an individual beginning in January 2005.
The appointment of the two fallout positions is not straightforward. The significant
complicating factor is the fact that currently the School of Kinesiology has no space to offer for
laboratories to appointments to the fallout positions. However, this is a temporary situation
which will be alleviated and resolved by the completion of the TASC II building and the
S
3 of 9
Response to External Review of the School of Kinesiolov - August
12th, 2004
associated moves of other units within the University. Currently, the School of Kinesiology has
been allocated space within TASC II which will be sufficient to meet its needs both in terms of
the fallout positions and in terms of the pressure which currently exists for both office space and
laboratory space. This space will be on line in 2006.
Temporary solutions are under discussion with the School, with recommendations from
its newly appointed Space Committee and with FAS. Followin
g
the resolution of the space
issues, advertising for the fallout positions will be initiated.
The three faculty members scheduled to retire in the year 2008 have existing laboratory
space which should be adequate for the needs of their replacements. Hence, it does not at this
time seem necessary or reasonable to consider the replacements in the allocation of space to the
new building.
. ?
THE INTERACTION WITH THE FACULTY OF HEALTH SCIENCES
?
-
The Faculty of Health Sciences' existence has been approved by Senate and the Dean of
the Faculty has been ratified. The External Review Committee identified that a majority within
the School have decided to adopt a "wait and see" attitude with respect to the new Faculty and its
relationships to the School of Kinesiology. While the mandate of the School of Kinesiology is to
provide health-related education and research and this forms a part of its Mission Statement,
nevertheless the proposals for the Faculty of Health Sciences, both in terms of its Masters level
program and the plans for hiring, do not indicate that there is significant overlap with the current
operations of the School.
Since a significant proportion of faculty members are also members of the Institute for
Health Research and Education, and there is representation from the School on the Steering
• ?
Committee for IHR.E, developments in the Faculty of Health Sciences may be monitored closely
and in consultation with the Dean of the Faculty appropriate interactions may be developed. A
Kinesiology faculty member is a member of the Search Committee for FHS faculty. It is
?
WIM
4 of 9
Response to External Review of the School of Kinesiologv -August
17ih
2004
foreseen that some faculty appointed to the new Faculty of Health Sciences may have cross-
appointments with Kinesiology. In addition, it is assumed that once programming has been
9
approved, there will be cross-listing of courses at the graduate level in the two units.
Appropriate coursework may be regarded as elective courses in both units.
The Faculty of Health Sciences is also actively considering undergraduate level
programming. Preliminary discussion among the Dean FAS, Dean FHS and the Director of
Kinesiology has resulted in agreement to cooperation and representation from Kinesiology on the
FHS Curriculum Planning Committee.
ACCREDITATION WITH CCUPEKA AND ACE
The External Review Committee recommended that the School pursue accreditation of
the Kinesiology Program with CCUPEKA. Significant discussions have taken place between the
School and the Chair of the Accreditation Committee of CCUPEKA. It is apparent from these
discussions that concentrations or streams within the School may be eli
g
ible for accreditation.
The Chair of the Undergraduate Program Committee in the School of Kinesiology has taken
responsibility for the preparation of the documentation necessary to undergo the accreditation
process and this information has already been sent to the Accreditation Committee of
CCUPEKA. It is anticipated that accreditation will occur within the next year.
ACE accreditation is somewhat more complicated by the fact that the ACE does not
accredit programs but accredits individuals. Appropriate coursework and practical experience as
well as laboratory training are provided currently in Kinesiology. The Co-op Education Program
is aware of the requirements of the ACE for accreditation. The External Review Committee
pointed out that since students must select an appropriate set of courses to ensure accreditation
that the Undergraduate Advisor must be aware of both the goals of the students and the
9
requirements of ACE. The School has been authorized to appoint a half-time Undergraduate
c72O
5 of
Response to Eternal Review of the School of Kinesiology August 12
0,
. 2004
Advisor and a search is currently underway. It will be a requirement for this Advisor to be
9
?
familiar with the accreditation requirements of ACE.
STAFFING
The External Review Committee noted the prospect of a new half-time Undergraduate
Advisor. They recommended that the position be full-time. This has been requested by the
Director but initial appointment at a half-time level is anticipated. The Committee reported that
secretarial
staff
had requested annual reviews of their performance. The staff have explained
that they did not request a formal review, but that ongoing reviews of work allocation and
responsibility occur. The Director and Departmental Assistant agree that a regular informal
review of this nature will take place.
The Committee also identified that staff would like to see increased activity in the
• ?
environmental physiology area Since a faculty member was appointed in that area in January
2003 whose laboratory is now expanding, with increased enrollment of graduate students in the
field it is anticipated that a greater level of activity will make use of those facilities.
KINESIOLOGY AND THE OLYMPIC OVAL AT SFU
The location of the Olympic Oval at Simon Fraser University is still under discussion and
a matter of significant political, as well as financial, debate. The recommendations for the
involvement of Kinesiology in the planning of the Oval made by the External Review Committee
are taken under advisement and the School has ensured that it has representation on relevant
University committees with respect to decisions regarding the Oval. Significant effort in terms
of planning for the Oval, when neither the nature of the structure nor its support or even its
existence at SFU is certain, would not seem an appropriate use of resources at the moment.
L
Al.
6 of 9
Response to External Review of the School of Kinesiology - August
12th
2004
MODIFIED CONTRACTS AND TEACHING IN THE UNDERGRADUATE PROGRAMF
?
The School has a number of faculty who are relieved of teaching to a greater or lesser
?
[L
extent due to research granting agency sponsored teaching relief and/or administrative
responsibilities. This creates a problem in ensuring that all teaching requirements are met.
However, the School has been successful in establishing a cohort of Sessional Instructors of high
quality. The External Review Committee suggested that the School should consider not allowing
School members to buy out of undergraduate teaching totally. This is already the case and all
faculty members receiving research agency sponsored relief teach at least one undergraduate
course per year. With the granting of Access Funds last year, the School has appointed an
additional full-time Lecturer and a half-time Limited Term Lecturer which has reduced the
extent of dependence on Sessional Instructors.
Those faculty who are on 100% administrative relief from teaching, namely Dr. Ron
?
Marteniuk, Dr. David MacLean and Dr. Diane Finegood, have full-time employment in their
?
.
respective administrative positions. Although undergraduate students would benefit from their
expertise in the classroom, this will not be possible for the duration of their administrative
contracts.
Under this heading the External Review Committee also noted that the quality of the Co-
operative Education Program in Kinesiology at SFU is very high. It also suggested that some
students feel that there should be a review of courses that are appropriate for Distance Education.
This review has been undertaken and some modifications to the program have been made. It
should be noted that starting in 2004-3 a new web-based Nutrition Certificate using only
Distance Education techniques will be offered.
HARBOUR CENTRE AS A SATELLITE TEACHING RESEARCH CENTRE
The External Review Committee was supportive of further development at Harbour
Centre. In light of the recommendations of this committee, and in accordance with resolutions
S
7 of 9
Response to External Review of the School of Kinesiology - August 12th, 2004
made by the School of Kinesiology, a Cohort Program at the Harbour Centre campus will be
0
?
initiated in 2004-3. Applications have been made to expand the space available to Kinesiology
both
for
research and teachin
ZP
g purposes as well as office accommodation at Harbour Centre.
Agreement has been reached for a significant expansion for Kinesiology with the administration
at Harbour Centre and the School is optimistic that a vital research and teaching function will be
expanded in that location. Preliminary enrolment figures show that the scheduled courses for the
first offerin g
of the Cohort Program are more than 75% full.
Dr. Scott Lear's research is based at Harbour Centre. He has recently received approval
of a CFI application which will be used to provide research equipment and infrastructure at
Harbour Centre. The School has also purchased equipment necessary for this fall and set aside
adequate funding for other teaching equipment necessary in that location.
S
COLLEGIALITY, COHESIVENESS AND MUTUAL RESPECT
Using only objective measure the School of Kinesiology is a highly successful School.
In terms of the teaching evaluations, the quality of the students produced, the quality of the
research, the support for research, the contribution of faculty in the administration of the
University and the contribution of faculty to academe at large, there is ample evidence of a
School deserving of its hi
g
h international reputation. Nevertheless, it remains true that
frequently there is acrimony within the School. This results from the combination of individuals
with divergent opinions about the nature of the discipline, the relationship between the discipline
and the profession, as well as the importance of the contributing sub-disciplines.
In many respects, this vibrant, controversial atmosphere is stimulating and is evidence of
the seriousness with which individual faculty take their responsibility to their School. On the
• ?
other hand, it can also lead to lasting antipathies between faculty members when disagreements
become entrenched and personal. The recommendations proposed by the External Review
Committee to reduce occasional lapses in collegiality have, to a greater or lesser extent, been
8of9
Response to External Review of the School of Kinesiolov - August 12". 2004
tried in the past within the School. Stress will continue to be placed on the professional conduct
collegiality
of faculty members
and cohesion
towards
will
each
be made,
other
including
and towards
the
students.
suggestions
Additional
of the committee
attempts to
with
promoterespect
?
0
to extending social activities and development of a more formalized seminar series. It is also
probable that changes in personnel expected in the near future will serve to reduce existing
interpersonal tensions. Faculty renewal and expansion as well as reallocation of responsibilities
will change the social dynamics of the School.
Under this heading, the Committee also recognized that the Director has sought to
"protect young faculty from committee work." It suggests that this may not be an optimum
strategy. However, it is probable that the Committee misunderstood. In fact, junior faculty
members participate in all committees. The onerous tasks of Graduate Program Chair and
Undergraduate Program Chair tend to be reserved for tenured/continuing faculty.
Under Item IV, the Committee noted that the Director should be more transparent with
his handling of the School budget. An annual budget is presented in which income and proposed
expenses are discussed. Some funds are maintained in a contingency form which has been used
for such unbudgeted expenses as emergency equipment repair, support or honoraria for visitors
to the School, travel expenses for the Director and other School representatives to meetings,
emergency support for graduate students, and contributions to student conference travel.
.
9 of 9
MEMORANDUM
SIMON FRASER UNIVERSITY?
FACULTY OF APPLIED SCIENCES
DATE:
October 4, 2004
TO: ?
Bill Krane, Associate Vice-President Academic
FROM:
Brian Lewis, Dean, Faculty of Applied Sciences
RE: ?
External Review - School of Kinesiology
1.
The reviewers recommend the development of a core curriculum, core interdisciplinary
seminar, and standardization of procedures and expectations in the Graduate Program. They
suggest that given the implementation of these practices, and an appropriate analysis of demand
in the face of competing programs, a non-thesis bases degree would be a viable way to grow the
Program. These comments have been very useful. The School has worked vigorously to
address curricular and procedural concerns expressed in the document, and a proposed
coursework-based degree is going forward for approval.
2.
The reviewers were somehow not supplied with the 3-year plan of the School in advance,
and took this as an indication of a lack of interest in facilities, succession and curriculum
. ?
planning. Significant planning is occurring in each of the areas—the allocation of fallout
positions and retirement positions matched to an assessment of program needs, and the
allocation of space falling out from this plan. The reviewers did not suggest particular areas of
concentration, but this is in active discussion within the School.
3. The reviewers noted certain aspects of the program which would have to be enhanced to
receive CCUPEKA and ACE accreditation, and suggested that such accreditation may be
important to continue to attract students. They applauded the expansion of Harbour Centre
offerings and its potential to support community-based health research. A CCUPEKA
accreditation team has been invited, and the concerns are being discussed with the team.
4.
The reviewers noted a diversity of opinion within the School around possible engagements
with the Faculty of Health Sciences. The School has adopted a "wait and see attitude" while
the new Faculty takes shape. Without recommending any one scenario, the reviewers do note
that synergy will depend on better communication across the Faculties/Schools. It has been
established that Kinesiology will be represented on the FHS Curriculum Planning Committee.
5.
As the reviewers noted, senior and junior Kinesiology faculty have been very successful in
winnin g
large research grants which include modified contracts and course release. Further,
three senior faculty are on 100% administrative leave. Kinesiology has been successful in
recruiting highly qualified lecturers to take up some of the teaching, but it is suggested by the
reviewers that all faculty assume some teaching assignments within the core curriculum on a
rotating basis. With the exception of the three faculty on administrative leave, all faculty are
now required to teach a minimum of one course.
0
.
6. The reviewers were asked to comment on a perceived lack of collegiality within the School.
They noted continuing professional and personal differences among groups and individuals,
and suggested several approaches to overcome these issues: the development of a Kinesiology
identity —a core curriculum and common activities; clearer mandates and rules of procedure for
some committees; expectations for service participation by all faculty; a transparent budget
allocationprocess; mentoring junior faculty. These suggestions have merit—some are common
practice. The atmosphere in the School has improved substantially over the last year. The
Director of the School has worked hard to create a supportive and disciplined academic
environment. Kinesiology is undergoing substantial faculty renewal, which will change the
chemistry of the School.
Overall, the reviewers did a credible job in the analysis of possible areas of improvement,
without providing great specificity. Their focused recommendations vis-à-vis the graduate
program were especially useful, and have been embraced fully. Discussions around the
recommendations of the External Review have led to productive changes, and seem to have lead
to a feeling of moving forward in a more collegial atmosphere.
Brian Lewis
Dean
Faculty of Applied Sciences
?
L
BLJIc
cc: J. Dickinson, Director, School of Kinesiology
SCUP-FHS.KinesiOlOgy
.
?
From dean@cs.sfu.ca
Thu Feb 10 19:22:54 2005
Date: Mon, 7 Feb 2005 09:16:37 -0800 (PST)
From: charmaine Dean <dean@cs.sfu.ca
>
To: bslewis@sfu.ca
, john_dickinson@sfu.ca
CC:
krane@sfu.. Ca, jhw@sfu.ca
, FHS David MacLean <dmaclean@sfu.ca
>,
FHS Cohn Jones <colin_jones@sfu.ca
>
Subject: SCUP - FHS & Kinesiology
Dear John,
The SCUP meeting papers for the meeting on February 9, 2005 includes a
recommendation that the School of Kinesiology work with FHS to determine
possible relationships that could exist between the School and FHS.
This is a memo in response to that recommendation to indicate interest and
support for pursuing this development.
In particular, I see possibilities for FHS Associate Members in
Kinesiology serving on supervisory committees, or as supervisor, for
graduate students in our new program as suits the interest of the
student, students in our program taking elective courses in KinesiolOgy
and gaining exposure to faculty research there, if that works for
Kinesiology, the hosting of joint seminars or workshops or other avenues
for intellectual networking. KinesiOlogy may have other ideas.
i would be happy to meet to pursue this.
Regards,
Charmai ne
C. B. Dean
Associate Director, Institute for Health Research and. Education
.
Statistics and Actuarial Science
Simon Fraser university
Burnaby, B.C. v5A 1S6 Canada
http://www.stat.sfu.ca/-dean/
Direct Line:
Messages:
http://ihre.sfu .
604-291-4919
604-291-3803
604-291-4368
ca/
.
?
Page 1
