DRAFT UNTIL APPROVED BY SENATE
Minutes of a Meeting of the Senate of Simon Fraser University held on
?
Monday, January 7, 2008 at 7:00 pm in Room 3210 WMC
.
?
Open Session
S
Present: Easton, Stephen. Vice-Chair of Senate
Abduiwahab, Kamal
Atkins, Stella
Brebner, Sarah
Brennand, Tracy
Copeland, Lynn
Cormack, Lesley
Dagenais, Diane
Dickinson, Peter
Driver, Jon
Fox, Amy
Francis, June
Gencay, Ramo
Hannah, David
Harder, Derrick
Harding, Kevin
Krane, William
Laba, Martin
LaBrie, John
Lee, Benjamin
Letourneau, Michael
Lewis, Brian
Li, Paul
Liljedabl, Peter
Malcoe, Lorraine Halinka
O'Neil, John
Paling, Joe
Percival, Colin
Percival, Paul
Peters, Joseph
Pinto, Mario
Plischke, Michael
Popadiuk, Natalee
Russell, Robert
Shaker, Paul
Shapiro, Daniel
Thompson, Steve
Tiffany, Evan
Tse, Karen
Vaid, Bhuvinder
van Baarsen, Amanda
Wakkary, Ron
Waterhouse, John
Williams, Peter
Ross, Kate, Registrar and Senior Director Student
Enrolment
Watt, Alison, Director, University Secretariat
Grant, Bobbie, Recording Secretary
Absent
Black, Sam
Corbett, Kitty
Fizzell, Maureen
Gordon, Robert
Hayes, Michael
Javed, Waseem
Lein, Adam
Louie, Brandt
McArthur, James
Shermer, Thomas
Smith, Don
Stevenson, Michael
Warner, D'Arcy
Weeks, Daniel
Williams, Tony
In attendance:
Angerilli, Nello
Friesen, Jane
Hatala, Marek
Heift, Trade
Hinchliffe, Jo
Jones, Christine
Mellow, Dean
Wister, Andrew
0
S.M. 7 January 2008
Page 2
A pproval of the Agenda
The Vice-President, Academic suggested that Item 6.b.i be changed from
'a motion for
approval to an item to be discussed in Committee of the Whole. Senate was advised that
the suggestion follows from the significant amount of discussion that had occurred prior
to the meeting on this issue. It was felt that it would be appropriate to have an open
discussion to learn more about the concerns and issues and then perhaps gather further
information as required, resulting in the motion being held over to another meeting.
The issue of timing was raised. Senate was advised that even if Senate made a decision at
this meeting, it was probably too late to affect entry to the university in September 2008.
If the admission requirements were changed by late Spring 2008, that would allow
sufficient time to prepare recruiting materials for September 2009 admissions.
There were no objections to the change, and the agenda was approved as amended.
2.
Approval of the Minutes of the Op en Session of December 3, 2007
The Minutes were approved as distributed.
3.
Business Arising from the Minutes
There was no business arising from the Minutes.
4.
Report of the Chair
The Chair welcomed Senator Daniel Shapiro attending his first meeting as Dean of the
Faculty of Business Administration. There was no further report from the Chair.
5.
Question Period
There were no questions.
6.
Reports of Committees
A) ?
Senate Committee on Universit
y
Priorities
i) ?
Paper S.08-1 - Centre for Education Research and Policy
Moved by J. Waterhouse, seconded on R. Gencay
"that Senate approve and recommend to the Board of Governors, the creation
of the Centre for Education Research and Policy (CERP) as a Schedule B
Centre" ? -
Friesen, Department of Economics, was in attendance to respond to questions.
A small editorial correction was noted to point 2.3 under Governance.
In response to concerns that the Steering Committee appeared to favour representation
from the Department of Economics, it was pointed out that the committee was composed ?
10
S.M. 7 January 2008
Page
3
S ?
to reflect representation from all areas associated with the Centre. Although several
members were from Economics, they actually represented areas outside of the Economics
Department and each brought a particular expertise to the project.
Question was called, and a vote taken.
?
MOTION CARRIED
ii) ?
Paper S.08-2 —David Lam Centre - Revised Terms of Reference
Moved by J. Waterhouse, seconded by L. Cormack
"that Senate approve and recommend to the Board of Governors, the revised
Terms of Reference for the David Lam Centre, in the Faculty of Arts and
Social Sciences"
Concern was expressed about the lack of information on membership for the Centre.
Senate was advised that this Centre had been operational without terms of reference for
many years, and upon the retirement of its Director and members of the original Steering
Committee, it was felt to be an appropriate time to put in place the terms of reference
which are currently before Senate. Once the terms have been approved, the process of
finding a new Director and organizing a Steering Committee will take place. An opinion
was expressed that Senate should be assured that there was a reasonable set of qualified
individuals interested in the Centre and it would be helpful to have a list of members
S ?
before approval of the terms of reference. It was pointed out that the terms of reference
explain how the Steering Committee will be developed.
Discussion turned to the proposal to move from a Schedule B Centre to a Schedule A
Centre which would be housed in the Faculty of Arts and Social Sciences. It was noted
that the Centre had always operated largely as an interdisciplinary centre drawing quite
widely from members outside of Arts and Social Sciences and a concern was expressed
that changing from a Schedule B to a Schedule A Centre narrowed those interdisciplinary
links. Senate was reminded that it was common for Schedule A Centres to have members
from Faculties other than from the Faculty in which they are housed. An opinion was
expressed that having more information around the membership would have provided a
clearer understanding of the vision for the Centre in this regard.
Moved by P. Percival, seconded by M. Letourneau
"that the motion be tabled until revised documentation is brought forward
containing a proposed membership list for the David Lam Centre"
It was noted that proponents of a centre normally draw up the terms of reference
outlining the proposed mandate. A membership list showing the expertise of the
individual members helps to identify interest in a centre. Without that
information, interest in the centre is hard to gauge. Senate was advised that this
S ?
was a unique situation and without terms of reference it might be difficult to
organize a steering committee.
S.M. 7 January 2008
Page 4
In response
it
was noted that a new Centre was not being proposed, but an update
?
S
of a Centre that has been in existence for many years. Its revised terms of
reference have been drafted for its present and future direction. Furthermore, the
lack of a membership listing was not seen as an impediment to this process.
Question was called on the motion to table,
and a vote taken. ?
MOTION TO TABLE FAILED
Question was called on the main motion,
and a vote taken. ?
MAIN MOTION CARRIED
iii)
Paper S.08-3 - External Review - Department of Gerontology
Moved by J. Waterhouse, seconded by K. Harding
"that Senate approve the recommendations from the Senate Committee on
University Priorities concerning advice to the Department of Gerontology and
the Dean of Arts and Social Sciences on priority items resulting from the
External Review"
A. Wister, Chair, Department of Gerontology, was in attendance to respond to questions.
Question was called, and a vote taken. ?
MOTION CARRIED
?
S
iv)
Pa p
er S.08-4 - Joint Major in Communication and Interactive Arts and
Technology
Moved by J. Waterhouse, seconded by K. Harding
"that Senate approve and recommend to the Board of Governors, the
proposal for a Joint Major in Communication and Interactive Arts and
Technology in the Faculty of Applied Sciences"
M. Hatala, School of Interactive Arts and Technology, was in attendance to respond to
questions.
In response to a question about the impact of Faculty restructuring on this program, it was
noted there several joint major programs already exist in units that cross Faculty
boundaries, and the current restructuring proposal would see the two schools in the same
Faculty, so restructuring would not have any impact. A question arose as to whether
students in this program would qualify for the DTO program. Senate was advised that
students choosing a concentration in Informatics might qualify for this program.
Question was called, and a vote taken.
?
MOTION CARRIED
?
0
S.M. 7 January 2008
Page
5
.
?
v) ?
Paper
S.08-5 -
Joint Major in First Nations Studies and Linguistics
Moved by J. Waterhouse, seconded by R. Russell
"that Senate approve and recommend to the Board of Governors, the
proposal for a BA in First Nations Studies and Linguistics (Joint Major),
in the Faculty of Arts and Social Sciences"
D. Mellow, Department of Linguistics, was in attendance to respond to questions.
Question was called, and a vote taken.
?
MOTION CARRIED
vi) ?
Pa p
er
S.08-6 -
Certificate in German Studies
Moved by J. Waterhouse, seconded by B. Vaid
"that Senate approve and recommend to the Board of Governors, the
proposal for a Certificate in Gemian Studies, in the Faculty of Arts and
Social Sciences"
T. Heift, Department of Linguistics, was in attendance to respond to questions.
Question was called, and a vote taken.
?
MOTION CARRIED
[]
?
vii) Paper
S.08-7 -
Certificate in Reli
gious
Studies
Moved by J. Waterhouse, seconded by J. Paling
"that Senate approve and recommend to the Board of Governors, the
proposal for a Certificate in Religious Studies, in the Faculty of Arts and
Social Sciences"
C. Jones, Department of Humanities, was in attendance to respond to questions.
Question was called, and a vote taken.
?
MOTION CARRIED
viii) Pa
p
er
S.08-8 -
SFU Class/Exam Schedule for the 2010 Olympics
Motion #1
Moved by J. Waterhouse, seconded by J. Paling
"that Senate approve the proposed Class/Exam Schedule for the
2010
Olympics"
[The schedule should have referenced the Olympics break as
February
15-26,
2010.]
Question was called, and a vote taken.
?
MOTION CARRIED
0
S.M. 7 January 2008
Page
6
Motion #2 ?
S
Moved by J. Waterhouse, seconded by S. Brebner
"that Senate requests the Calendar Committee conduct an assessment of
the feasibility of extending the annual Reading Break to a full week on a
regular basis"
In response to an inquiry as to why it Senate's vote was required, rather than having the
committee decide on its own to conduct an assessment, it was noted that approval of the
motion by Senate would encourage the committee to review this issue.
Question was called, and a vote taken. ?
MOTION CARRIED
ix) ?
Pap
er S.08-9 - Centres and Institutes Re
p
ort 2006/2007 (For Information)
A question was raised about what action was taken against centres and institutes that
failed to provide a financial report. Senate was advised that since the majority of units
receive no financial support from the University, leniency was shown in demanding
financial reports. It was noted that two centres that had received funding had not
submitted financial reports; the Vice-President Research advised that he would look into
this. It was also mentioned that the Faculty Restructuring Task Force has made specific
recommendations concerning the operation of centres and institutes and there was no
intent to take further action until the recommendations were discussed and/or finalized.
It was noted that page 4 indicates that the Centre for Coastal Studies was active, yet no
description of the Centre appeared in documentation (pages 10-11). The Vice-President
Research confirmed that this was an oversight in the document.
Brief discussion ensued with respect to the basis for defining a centre as being 'active'
versus 'inactive'. Senate was advised that as long as the proponents of a centre can cite
'minimal activity' such as seminars, colloquia, etc the centre is considered active but the
intent is to have greater stringency in the assessment process in the future but to do this,
the current policy would have to be modified.
B) ?
Senate Committee on Undergraduate Studies
i) ?
Paper S.08-10 - Change to Admission Re
q uirements with re gard
to BC Provincial
Grade 12 Examinations (For Information)
N. Angerilli, Associate Vice-President, Students and International, K. Ross, Registrar and
Senior Director, Student Enrolment, and J. Hinchliffe, Assistant Registrar, were in
attendance to respond to questions.
0
S.M. 7 January 2008
Page 7
. ?
Senators were reminded that Senate had approved a change in the agenda to allow
discussion of this item in Committee of the Whole, with formal consideration of the
motion being held over to another meeting. The Chair suggested that a one hour time
limit be considered for the discussion.
Moved by M. Letoumeau, seconded by J. Paling
"that Senate move into a Committee of the Whole for a period of one hour
to discuss this item"
Question was called, and a vote taken.
?
MOTION CARRIED
At the outset, B. Krane provided Senate with background on this item. Senate was
advised that the University of Victoria had approved this measure, while the University
of British Columbia, after a split vote, defeated a similar motion and decided to study the
issue further and report back to its Senate. One of the reasons for bringing this issue
forward at SFU was to provide prospective students with greater certainty regarding their
admission and scholarship applications. Secondly, it was proposed so that different
categories of students (direct entry from high school, transfer, and out of province) would
be treated on a more equitable basis. Thirdly, it was felt that since admission offers were
mostly based on self-reporting and interim grades, the provincial exam results have fairly
limited utility in the current admission process, other than to revoke offers if the
S ?
standards for admission are not met. Referring to the recent emails on this subject, the
Associate Vice President Academic stated that they seemed to revolve around the quality
of students and the need to protect the reputation of the University.
Many questions, concerns, comments, and suggestions were raised during the discussion
of this issue.
• Firm offers of admission need to be made earlier. Many students get early offers of
guaranteed admission from other universities (along with everything guaranteed from
residence to parking) and an offer from SFU which is conditional, puts SFU at a
disadvantage. Having to wait for-provincial marks creates a level of uncertainty and
stress for prospective students.
• It was suggested that the proposal would affect the reputation of the University.
Some alumni had expressed concern that this change would result in the perception
that SFU had lower standards than UBC, and SFU degrees would lose their value.
• In order to identify and try to deal with top students early, procedures have been
adopted to prioritize and ensure that offers are made quickly to students with high
averages. A written strategy for recruitment exists for international students and plans
are underway to put together a recruitment plan to more effectively target top
domestic students.
• Comments supporting or criticizing the use of the final exams for admissions
decisions touched on grade inflation, gender bias in school vs. exam results, on-line
S
?
courses, teaching to the exam and restricting flexibility in learning, standardized
curricula, student preparation for university level work, the Ministry's/Government
S.M. 7 January 2008
Page
8
support for exams, and the issue of differing processes in other jurisdictions. It was
suggested that Provincial exams should not be eliminated without having some other
means to measure high school students. Entrance exams were suggested, perhaps
collaborative entrance exams with the other universities.
• A suggestion made about the possibility of considering provincial exams in English
and Mathematics.
Data were requested on the following issues:
• Size of the population of top students entering university; percentage of top students
attending SFU.
• The number of offers of admission or scholarship are revoked due to exam results
• The effect of applying the proposed change to last year's incoming students
• The correlation of high school provincial exams to university performance over the
long term (20 years)
• The number of students who may have rejected one university over another because
they wanted to make their university decision rather than waiting until August for a
confirmed offer.
• Evidence that students would not come to SFU if provincial exams remain an
admissions factor.
• Evidence of gender bias in school versus exam results
In response to a question as to the process moving forward, the Chair stated that clearly
further data were needed and the proponents of the motion would need to consider the
suggestions and comments made by Senate, and provide whatever data is available to
answer Senate's questions prior to this coming back to Senate for consideration.
Every Senator having had an opportunity to speak at least once, the Chair indicated that
the time limit for discussion had expired. Senate recessed briefly for five minutes.
Following the recess, Senate moved out of Committee of the Whole before continuing
with the remainder of the agenda.
ii) ?
Paper S.08-11 - BC Adult Graduation Di
ploma
(BCAGD) Admission Policy.
Moved by B. Krane, seconded by K. Harding
"that Senate approve the BC Adult Graduation Diploma (BCAGD)
Admission Policy on a permanent basis"
Concerns were expressed about the small number of students involved in this credential,
and a suggestion was made that it might be better to approve the policy again for another
three years to see if participation increased.
An opinion was expressed that the overall performance of the students in this group was
rather poor. A suggestion was made that it would be more appropriate for these students
to go through the college system and transfer to SFU, and that this admission policy be
discontinued.
?
0
S.M. 7 January 2008
Page 9
Senators were reminded that SFU had a long tradition of providing alternate pathways
into the university, and that this was another example of an alternate route. It was also
noted that the performance, retention rate, and degree completion time for students in this
group would likely look very similar to other students in the general student population if
a random sample were taken. Senate was advised that the number of students admitted
via this avenue would never be very large, but it would probably be possible to track
them more effectively to ensure that they connect to the appropriate supports within SFU
to assist their success and achieve their goal.
Question was called, and a vote taken. ?
MOTION CARRIED
iii)
Paper S.08-12 - Curriculum Revisions - Faculty
of A
pplied Sciences (For
Information)
Senate received information that the Senate Committee on Undergraduate Studies, acting
under delegated authority, approved a change in the admission GPA for the Minor in
Computer and Electronics Design, in the School of Engineering Science.
iv)
Pa p
er S.08-13 - Curriculum Revisions - Faculty
of Business Administration (For
Information)
SSenate received information that the Senate Committee on Undergraduate Studies, acting
under delegated authority, approved a prerequisite change for an existing course, and a
change in statement about maintenance CGPA.
v)
Paper S.08-14 - Curriculum Revisions - Faculty of Education (For Information)
Senate received information that the Senate Committee on Undergraduate Studies, acting
under delegated authority, approved a new course, and minor changes to existing courses
and program requirements.
vi)
Paper S.08-1
5
- Curriculum Revisions - Faculty of Science (For Information)
Senate received information that the Senate Committee on Undergraduate Studies, acting
under delegated authority, approved minor changes to existing courses and program
requirements, and a new Honors option to the Joint Major between Computing Science
and Molecular Biology and Biochemistry.A question was raised about why the new joint
honors program wasn't before Senate for approval.
Secretary's note: This item should
have been on the agenda for approval and will be coming forward to the February 2008
meeting of Senate.
fl
S.M. 7 January 2008
Page 10
vii) ?
Paper S.08-16 - Curriculum Revisions - Faculty of Arts and Social Sciences (For
Information)
?
0
Senate received information that the Senate Committee on Undergraduate Studies, acting
under delegated authority, approved seven new courses and minor changes to existing
courses and program requirements in the School for the Contemporary Arts.
C)
?
Senate Nominating Committee
i) ?
Paper S.08-17— Elections
Senate was advised that no further nominations had been received. Benjamin Lee was
therefore elected by acclamation to the Undergraduate Student position on the Senate
Committee on International Activities (SCIA), and Dongya Yang was elected by
acclamation to the faculty position representing the Faculty of Arts and Sciences on the
International Student Exchange Committee (ISEC) (not the Faculty from Applied
Sciences as incorrectly indicated on the agenda paper).
The remaining vacancies for the International Student Exchange Committee (ISEC) will
be carried forward to the next meeting.
7.
Other Business
i)
?
Paper S.08-18 - Policy GP 38 - Sustainability (For Information)
Questions arose with respect to the definition of sustainability versus environmental
sustainability, and the necessity and meaning of the first sentence in Section 3.0.1. The
Secretary of Senate indicated that these questions would be referred to the appropriate
office.
8.
Information
The date of the next regularly scheduled meeting of Senate is Monday, February 4, 2008.
The Open Session adjourned at
9:25
pm, and Senate moved directly into Closed Session.
Alison Watt
Director, University Secretariat