SiMON FRASER UNIVERSITY
M Dllsjbc
Paper S--133
The Registrar
The Secretary of Senate
Senate Agenda Request
Subiect
................................................................... ...................................................
I wish
to bring before Senate allegations of non-professional
conduct In the Faculty of Arts.
The grounds for this request are:
1.
Senate, on April 8, decided that such matters
were the proper business of Senate.
2.
Allegations were brought to the attention of
the Academic Affairs ConmLttee of the Faculty
Association. These allegations were reported
out of the Committee only to the Faculty
Association Executive.
3.
The recommendations made to the President by
the Academic Affairs Committee of the Faculty
Association were not acted upon.
I do not wish to circi
the IIëations-sIncé they have
not been Investigated and affect Individuals.
I request that this item be placed on the agenda for the
May 1 meeting of Senatefor
discussion.
KO:e
a.
SPA
i1MJ I'fiIftJIJ'/
•
A
•
i.
C'JF;L
ht
jr.'j
'...
:' •'
Fir siwx.,
c
:n
t; L':.i
t
1 cor.
etC:
.or1
Into
c:nt in mt
k:
p'
.vl ).
e') ly
r u L' d by t h
3t-,(l
i1 s()
It
.(' ('
P
'"
t
1VL
3tcd by th
'
r
:vifl .
ni
cc:. . t
V c 1'
r' ('
tt
o tl
jo
(fl tnI t 0
1 } rJ (4:1)
Ot
flk tWo
o
th
r
ndLdxtR 'hO
;tr
rpO1rit
.
nt:
in the . .
A.
tepUn t
In v
ticl.:
t'i
Uwt
. c
Lrt,tl2
prie3
or i
3ition t SFJ.
U'v.r
to
mbke
izquire1i
ut ht
ppople
,
other
fcc-c.. hiprior pcm,
tinec
i .
f.ct tht iwh jnjr
rJtWtiy )1
r
C
in niVtrity
ciccu
dock; no, !.n ovw
vie
w
,
rumt
#tC.
Cmdiduto.s '.,ould ti-c'
in a
poit.Ofl
to cvditc
kind. o qu Uor which are be n.
ab
o
ut the;
in • t
of tne c' tho actv
it
a
BTrtflt
of
SFU as
intitu.on.
-
fr
4t
1CfO
UL. S
contriiLOfl to th'
of SFU would he 60 101"P , l
ntit.l
r.h.t we vctud crotly
appoCt
rfrts to
kt h
Gtfl
and ndvico
.wii&b1e to ficuI-ty
S-IgQd,
1•
w
•
'
--
•c
:•''•
.0
/
.-.•'
4?
'L
4
40.1
.
a..1
•?
k
•
to
n
;..t•o•1r
dt.h
r. '.
..
•:
•
•;
1;
-
-
' 1
1616 T
May 1st, 1968.
REPORT OF THE SENATE AD HOC COMMITTEE,
INTRODUCTION: At its meeting on April 1st, 1968 Senate appointed R.J. Baker,
S. Foulds, E.M. Gibson, S.K. Lower and R.J.C.Harper as an Ad Hoc Committee
(hereafter referred to as our Committee) with the following terms of reference:
1. Were allegations of non-professional conduct actually made?
2.
If allegations were made, by whom, and against whom were they made?
3.
If allegations were made, are they true or false?
PROCEDURE:
1. The Hearings, on the instructions, of Senate, shall be closed.
2.
The Committee shall have a legal advisor.
3.
All persons who wish to present evidence shall have the right to
be represented by Counsel.
4.
All persons against whom charges are laid shall have the right to all
information relating to these charges.
5.
All persons involved in the allegations shall have the right to be
present when anything is said against them, and they shall have the
right to cross-examination.
6. Hearsay evidence shall be deemed inadmissible.
.
7.
A verbatim record of the hearings shall be kept, and this, together
with the minutes of the Hearings shall be the property of Senate.
In accordance with the foregoing we requested Sholto Hebenton to provide
us with legal advice.
Believing that the questions presented 'should be resolved as quickly as
possible and given the fact that certain persons involved would be leaving the
campus at the end of the semester we set Saturday, April 20th. 1968, as a
date for hearing evidence.
We invited to the meeting the members of the
University Committee on Dr.. A.G. Frank and also persons whose names appeared
on Attachment #1 of the transcript of the Senate Sub-Committee Hearing #1.
SUMMARY OF HEARING: .
The Meeting of April 20th. was attended by some of the people whose names
appeared on Attachment #1, the members of the Senate Sib-Committee and some of
the members of the University Committee. Each group brought a legal advisor.
At the outset of the hearing one of our members, Mr. Simon Foulds, withdrew
from the proceedings.
His reasons are set out in his letter which appears at
pages 3 and 4 of the transcript.
Subsequently, Mr. Simons, legal advisor to
persons associated with Attachments #1 and #2, took the procedural objection
that with the absence of Mr.Foulds, the Committee was not properly constituted.
r.Giies, representing members of the University Committee on A.G.Frank argued
IIj
7)
that the objection had been taken too late; that
Mr.
Simons waited until Mr.Foulds
left the hearings and could not be recalled before making his objection.
Mr.Simons then submitted a letter (see page 6 of the transcription) stating
that its signatories identified themselves as persons who have complained about
faculty appointment procedures and refused to proceed because of the election
procedure and composition of our Committee.
Mr.Giles stated that his clients wanted to proceed.
He urged that in the
absence of any clear specficatiornd proof of the allegations that his clients
be presumed innocent.
The meeting was adjourned and our Committee considered its position.
We
then stated that we rejected the objections on the grounds that we considered
them to be irrelevant, and in any case 'not completely true. Firstly, one
of Mr.Simons' clients (Mr.Gerry Sperling) nominated two of the Senators who
subsequently served on the Committee and secondly as to the charge of bias
in the Committee Mr.Foulds had withdrawn from it and Professor Harper had
disassociated himself with the item on academic environment in PSA.
We
explained that we wished to proceed with the hearings but that we were unable
to do so without co-operation of all parties because we had no power to compel
anyone to testify.
We also cautioned Mr.Simons' clients that insofar as the
allegations that appear to have been made have not been substantiated that the
members of the University Committee concerned in these proceedings cannot be
• ' considered to be other than innocent.
We invited further comment from those present.
Mr.Simons confirmed the
refusal of his clients to proceed.
Mr.Gils confirmed that his clients were
willing to proceed.
We adjourned the Meeting; there was no point in asking
the University Committee to present its position because no case had been
presented for them to answer.
We expressed our regret that we were unable to
carry out the full investigation entrusted to us.
CONCLUS IONS:
We report the persons whose names appear on Attachments #1 and #2 have
been provided with the opportunity to set out and prove their case.
They have
not done so.
The persons accused of non-professional conduct were prepared
and willing to meet whatever case might be presented against them.
However, at the request of Mr. Simons, we further report that his clients
have proposed that the matter be investigated in accordance with the procedures
set out at pages 10 and 11 of the accompanying transcript.
fl,,1
3
)11I1
I.
--
CONCERNING THE SPECIFIC TERMS OF REFERENCE THE COMMITTEE CAN ANSWER THE
FOLLOWING QUESTIONS.
1.
In answer to our first question, namely, "Were allegations of non-
professional conduct actually made?"
We find, (see documents) that they have.
2. In partial answer to our second question, "If allegations were made, by whom,
and against whom were they made?"
The answer is that allegations were made
against at least one university committee, namely that set up to process the
recommendation for Dr. A.G. Frank's appointment. However, the refusal of
those persons whose names appear on Attachment #1 and #2 and who attended
the hearing, to co-operate with the committee forestalled the attempts to
determine who made the allegations.
3.
In ansier to question #3.
"If allegations were made, are they true or false?"
We reprt that to date the allegations made against the University Committee
remain unfounded and unsupported by any evidence.
.
^5
K
I 15 jjj
April 20
th
1968.
.'
Professor
Professor
Professor
Professor
Mr. J. Si]
R. J. Baker
E.N. Gibson
S. K. Lower
R.J.C. Harper
non Foulde
Dear Sirs:
We have received notice of a hearing to be
held by an Ad Hoc Committee formed to investigate alle-
gations of non-professional conduct by University Committees
in considering Faculty appointments, and have been invited
to attend this hearing on April
20th,
1968.
•
For a number of reasons, we find it in-
appropriate and inadvisable that we should take part in
this hearing.
These reasons are as follows.
A.
We are unable to accept this committee as an
appropriate hearing body to decide whether or not 'non-
professional conduct has been present among university
authorities concerned with Faculty appointments. Our
reaons are: -
(1) Members of the university who have been
involved in the faculty appointments' procedures about
which we have complained voted to elect members of this
committee.
We had neither vote nor say in its membership;
(2)
Two. members of the committee (Professor
'Harper and Mr. Foulde) have associated themselves with the second
item on the Senate agenda of April 1st: "To examine the
quality of the academic environment in certain courses in
•
the P.S.A. Department."
We wrote at the time that we could
"only regard this as an attempt at retaliation."
Now that
we have seen the charges brought forward in the discussion
of this Item, and have received a demand from President
MoTaggartCowan that they be investigated, we are still more
. . . . . /2
-
7.^
5
p h
I 16 10
appalled. These charges seem to us not simply retaliation,
but an attempt to smear our whole department. Because two
members of this committee were connected with these
charges, we cannot accept this committee as an appropriate
hearing body.
Yours sincerely,
Ld.
Aberle
1A1dritt
/1•
M. Briemberg
d.
&az
X(
•1
G.B. Sper1i
Popkin
U.
DO. Potter
(7
F?1. .ttODlTI
-G,B.Rush
WheeIdi
is
5M 115169
MAI&
Dr. R.J.C.Harper,
Chairman,
AD HOc Committee of Senubo
April 20th 1968
• Dear Sir,
I respect the confidence which Senate has expressed in me in electing me
to serve on the Ad Hoc Coiimitt.ee to investigate allegations, Contained in
recoit documents, of non-professional conduct by Univerr,iy Committees in
considering Faculty appointments.
However, I request that I be allowed towithdraw from the deliberations
of thiq committee specifically on the principla that a man has the right to be
heard by his peers.
If the members of the committee wish to discuss this matter I will
absent myself from the Chamber whilst they do so. If not, I shallwjthdraw
myself from this meeting.
Yours truly
0
J. Simon Foulds.