.
.
DRAFT UNTIL APPROVED BY SENATE
MINUTES OF MEETING OF SENATE OF SIMON FRASER UNIVERSITY
HELD MONDAY, NOVEMBER
5, 1973, 3172
ADMINISTRATION BUILDING,
7:30
P.M.
OPEN SESSION
Present: ?
Strand, K.
?
Chairman
Aronoff, S.
Banister, E. W.
Beirne, B. P.
Birch, D. R.
Burkie, E.
Copes, P.
Cot -
E, P. T.
Daem, J. P.
D'Auria, J. M.
Dawson, A. J.
DeVoretz, D. J.
Doherty, P. N.
Eastwood, G. R.
Eliot Hurst, N. E.
Emmott, A. H.
Hollibaugh, A. L.
Jamieson, D. H.
Kissner, R. F.
Kitchen, J. M.
MacPherson, A.
Munro, J. N.
Nair, K. K.
Reid, W. D.
Rieckhoff, K. E.
Salter, J. H.
Seager, J. W.
Smith, W.A.S.
Wagner, P. L.
Wheatley, J.
Wilson, B. G.
Evans, H. N.
? Secretary
Nagel, H. D.
Norsworthy, R.
?
Recording
Secretary
Absent: Baird, D. A.
Brown, R. C.
Caple, K. P.
Ellis, J. F.
Sadleir, R.M.F.S.
Sterling, T. D.
Sutherland, G. A.
Swangard, E. N.
In attendance: ?
Mugridge, I.
- 2 -
?
S.M. 5/11/73
.
?
SEATING OF SENATOR
The Secretary announced the result of a recent student election
wherein Erich Burkie, having polled the highest number of votes, had
been elected to replace P. M. Doherty as student Senator for balance
term of office to May 31, 1975.
It was moved, seconded and carried that Erich Burkie be seated
on Senate.
1.
APPROVAL OF AGENDA
The agenda was approved as circulated.
2.
APPROVAL OF MINUTES
The minutes of the Open Session of October 1, 1973 were approved
as distributed.
3.
BUSINESS ARISING FROM THE MINUTES
There was no business arising from the minutes.
4.
REPORT OF CHAIRMAN
. ?
Paper S.73-119 - Financial Statement
The Chairman noted that, in accordance with Section 50 of the
Universities Act, the Financial Statement as at March 31, 1973 had been
'distributed for information.
5.
REPORTS OF CO
MM ITTEES
1. Senate Committee on Agenda and Rules
1. Paper S.73-120 (Former S.73-114) - Rules of Procedure of Senate
Moved by A. MacPherson, seconded by K. Rieckhoff,
"That Senate adopt the 'Rules of Procedure of
Senate,' as set forth in Paper S.73-120, to
supersede all previous Rules of Procedure of
Senate effective immediately."
A. MacPherson explained that this paper had been submitted in
response to instructions of Senate to recommend rules and procedures
for Senate and the submission represented a codification of the current
operating rules. A number of questions were raised. The Chairman
pointed out that the paper is not a recommendation from the Senate
Committee on Agenda and Rules, but what the rules are; that it is the
• ?
intention of this Committee to bring forward suggestions as to the
improvement of these rulesand the Committee will do this within the
format indicated. S. Aronoff felt that if the motion was to ratify
procedures that have been in practice, he questioned the necessity of
bringing forward such a motion.
- 3 -
?
S.M. 5/11/73
Moved by J. Munro, seconded by J. Wheatley,
"That the motion as set forth in Paper S.73-120
be tabled."
Question was called on the motion to table, and a vote taken.
MOTION TO TABLE CARRIED
17 in favor
10 opposed
The Chairman urged individual Senators who are critical of the
rules of Senate to forward their criticisms to the Secretary of Senate
so that the Senate Committee on Agenda and Rules can give them considera-
tion prior to the Senate meeting.
2. Senate Committee on Non-Credit Instruction
1. Paper S.73-121 - Report on Committee Activities, Summer Semester
1973
Moved by B. Wilson, seconded by K. Rieckhoff,
"That Senate ratify the courses approved for
offering during the Fall
Semester 1973 by the
.
Senate Committee on Non-Credit Instruction,
as set forth in S.73-121,
as follows:
Offered by
Course Title
Continuing Education
The Photographer's Eye
Continuing Education
Let's Do Music
Geography Department
Canadian Landscape II
Department of Modern
Languages
Chinese (Mandarin) for Beginners
Kinesiology and Con-
tinuing Education
Introduction to Dance Therapy
Computing Center
Computer Programming for Paraplegics
Physics Department
Glassblowing
Chemistry Department
Seminar Series in Forensic Chemistry
Reading and Study Center
Reading and Study 001
Reading and Study Center
English Language Program
Reading and Study Center
Typing Course
Reading and Study Center
Rapid Reading for the Business and
Professional Community
Recreation Center
Aquatics
Recreation Center
Fitness
Recreation Center
Sports and Games
Recreation Center
Combatives
•
Recreation Center
Library
Outdoor Program
Access to Information
Arts Center
Elementary Dance - 733-W202
Arts Center
Intermediate/Advanced Dance - 733-W204
Arts Center
Choreographers Workshop - 733-W208
- ?
4 ?
- ?
S.M. 5/11/73
.
Arts Center
Super 8mm Film - 733-W301
Arts Center
Introduction to Video - 733-W351
Arts Center
Continuing Video - 733-W352
Arts Center
Madrigal Singers - 733-W401
Arts Center
Choir - 733-W402
Arts Center
Beginning Recorder - 733-W410
Arts Center
Intermediate Recorder - 733-W411
Arts Center
16mm Film - 733-14312
Arts Center
Advanced Recorder - 733-14413
Arts Center
Renaissance Ensemble - 733-W491
Arts Center
String-Wind Ensemble
Arts Center
Purcell String Quartet at Home
Arts Center
Rehearsal - 733-W499
Arts Center
Acting/Directing - 733-W501
Arts Center
Design/Technical - 733-W531
Arts Center
Voice Production and Sight Reading -
733-W403
English Department
English 001
Computing Center
Introduction to Job Control Language
Computing Center
Computer Center Orientation
Computing Center
Introduction to APL 1
Computing Center
Introduction to APL 2
Health Services
Industrial First Aid Course"
S. Aronoff requested that
a correction to the motion be noted in
•
that the course in Glassblowing was not offered by the Physics Department
but by the Glassblowing Shop.
?
As there was no objection, the Chairman
ruled that the motion would be
altered accordingly.
Question was called on the motion as amended, and a vote taken.
MOTION AS AMENDED CARRIED
3.
Senate Committee on Undergraduate Studies
1. Paper S.73-122 - New Course Proposal Form and Covering Memorandum
•
The Chairman noted that Paper S.73-122 had been distributed to Senate
for information.
2.
Paper S.73-123 - Faculty of Arts - Proposal for a Minor in English
Moved by S. Smith, seconded by K. Rieckhoff,
"That Senate approve the establishment of a
Minor in English, as set forth in S.73-123,
as follows: For a minor in English, a student
must obtain credit or standing in any two of
English 101, 102, and 103; credit or standing
in either of English 202 and 203; and 15 credits
in upper division English, of which 10 shall be
. ?
in
5-credit lecture and seminar combinations
drawn from any 2 of the 7 sets of alternatives
shown under Plan A in the English Majors and
Honors programs. The department recommends
- 5 -
?
S.M. 5/11/73
that the remaining 5 be made up of a similar
lecture and seminar combination from within
or without those sets, but will permit the
student to acquire them in any other manner,
with one exception: he may not register in
the seminar alone of any lecture and seminar
combination."
Moved by R. Kissner, seconded by J. P. Daem,
That discussion of Paper S.73-123 be postponed
until Senate directs the Senate Committee on
Undergraduate Studies to review the general require-
ments for minors as earlier established by Senate
and recommends a rational policy for all minor
programs.
R. Kissner was of the opinion that all minors should be submitted
on the basis of a uniform rationale policy which had not yet been speci-
fied in any calendar. K. Rieckhoff disagreed, stating that minors had
been approved for a number of departments and there was publication of
a number of coherent designs. Although S. Smith considered a review of
policies related to minor programs was desirable, he did not consider
Paper S.73-123 should be delayed until the completion of such a review.
Ia ?
Question was called on the motion to postpone, and a vote taken.
MOTION TO POSTPONE FAILED
Moved by A. Hollibaugh, seconded by J. Seager,
"That the proposal for a Minor in English be
tabled."
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
3. Paper S.73-124 - Faculty of Interdisciplinary Studies - New Course
Proposals - GS 102-3 - Music in History I; GS 103-3 - Music in
History II
Moved by B. Wilson, seconded by S. Smith,
"That Senate approve, as set forth in S.73-124,
the new course proposals for:
General Studies 102-3 - Music In History I
General Studies 103-3 - Music in History II."
- 6 - ? S.M. 5/11/73
Amendment was moved by K. Rieckhoff, seconded by A. MacPherson,
"That Cs 102-3 and GS 103-3 be limited to one
offering and subsequent review by Senate."
K. Rieckhoff stated that the reason for the amendment was that
courses of this type should be temporary offerings pending possible
establishment of a Fine Arts Department when they could later be
considered for permanent placement therein. B. Wilson agreed to in-
corporation of the amendment in the motion. There was no objection
from the floor.
Question was called on the motion as amended, and a vote taken.
MOTION AS AMENDED CARRIED
4. Paper S.73-125 - Report on Curricular Issues Relating to Under-
graduate Education
It was agreed that, as the Chairman of the Senate Committee on
Undergraduate Studies is not a member of Senate, the Vice-President,
Academic would be considered the mover of each of the motions contained
in Paper S.73-125, and J. P. Daem would be recorded as the seconder, and
that each motion would be considered sequentially.
i
sMotion 1 - Procedures for Reviewing and Approving Curriculum Changes
"That Senate approve, as set forth in S.73-125,
a)
That SCTJS normally will consider the Faculty Curriculum
Committees to be the major investigatory body in matters
relating to curriculum and review.
b)
That the recommendations of Faculty Curriculum Committees
be received by the Senate Committee on Undergraduate
Studies except under four conditions.
i)
The documentation of the course proposed or program
change is inadequate,-i.e. the answers on the course
proposal form and supporting memoranda where appro-
priate do not indicate how the course fits into the
program, is too vaguely worded, etc.
ii) There is a specific reason, such as course overlap
with another department which has not been adequately
dealt with by the Faculty Curriculum Committee. The
difference from the first condition is that SCTJS must
state specifically the reason for referral, whereas
under the first condition, it may simply refer by
indicating areas of insufficient documentation.
- 7 -
?
S.M. 5/11/73
iii) Where a Faculty Curriculum Committee is unable to
resolve an issue, it should clearly state the nature
?
• ?
of the problem and refer to SCUS for a recommendation
which must then be approved by the department(s) and
Faculty Curriculum Committee(s) concerned. If the
parties involved agree to disagree, then the issue
accompanied by the alternative solutions will be
forwarded to Senate for resolution.
iv)
Where Faculty Undergraduate Curriculum Committee
proposals do not conform to Senate policy or to the
department's previously stated policy."
K. Rieckhoff requested that it be noted in the minutes that the
motions contained in Paper S.73-125 apply specifically to undergraduate
studies. He also requested that section b) of Motion 1 be amended to
read:
"That the recommendation of Faculty curriculum committees after
appropriate approval by the respective Faculty be received by
the Senate Committee on Undergraduate Studies except under four
conditions."
As there was no objection, the Chairman ruled that the amendment
would be incorporated in the motion. In the following discussion ?
?
. ? several Semantic points were conceded, resulting in the following re-
vision of section b) of Motion 1:
"That the recommendations of Faculty curriculum committees as
approved by the relevant Faculty will be returned after con-
sideration by the Senate Committee on Undergrdduate Studies
if one or more of the following conditions pertain."
At this point J. Wheatley offered a procedural suggestion that
dis-
cussion continue in a committee of the whole for half an hour on the
entire document, and gave notice of motion to refer the matter back to
the Senate Committee on Undergraduate Studies for redrafting.
Moved by J. Wheatley, seconded by A. MacPherson,
"That Senate continue for the next half hour to
consider S.73-125 informally."
Question was called on the motion for informal consideration
limited to one-half hour, and a vote taken.
MOTION FOR INFORMAL
CONSIDERATION CARRIED
During consideration of the document the following points were
noted:
- 8 -
?
S.M. 5/11/73
Issue 1 - Procedures for Reviewing and Approving Curriculum Changes
J. P. Daem expressed concern regarding lack of student representation
on Faculty curriculum committees in the Faculty of Arts and the Faculty of
Interdisciplinary Studies when such committees were recommended to be con-
sidered the major investigatory bodies.
J. Wheatley felt there could be clearer documentation requested in
subsection iii) to provide an indication of reasons for disagreement on
issues in order that SCUS might refer such unresolved matters appropriately.
J.
Munro was of the opinion that approval of the Faculty was required
on any curriculum committee recommendation prior to furtherance and that
this should be incorporated in all subsections of section b). A. MacPherson
suggested that all reference to Faculty curriculum committees should be re-
placed with reference to Faculties. It was accepted that the reference to
committees recognizes the principle of approval by Faculty-throughout._..
Issue 2 - Overlap of Course Content Between Courses Offered Within a
- ?
Department, Within a Faculty Across Faculties
K.
Rieckhoff asked that the wording of Motion 2 and all other sections
of the document be such that it is clearly understood that the actions of
curriculum committees do not carry legal weight until approved by the Faculty
concerned. ?
d''' ?
, ?
4. ,
. ?
P.
4ALt(4z.,
Copes, recognizing
,& c
fl V
Vfl
that
A
4jN4
many courses
ji!I _ J
overlap
?
to some ext'ent
Jt1?11tt.J"k4
with other
?
"' N
courses offered throughout the University, suggested Senate's concern should
be the degree of overlap. J. Wheatley felt the section should be rewritten
to identify an investigatory body responsible for considering allegations of
serious overlap, whether across Faculties, within a Faculty, within a depart-
ment. J. Munro considered that, in addition to naming an investigatory body,
the duties and responsibilities should be clearly defined. K. Rieckhoff felt
that if there was concern on overlap some person or body would identify the
concern, and this would initiate any required investigation.
J. P. Daem was of the opinion that overlap was a concern in courses num-
bered in the 100 and 200 levels, but in the upper levels a variation of expertise
in the same field could afford considerable benefit.
P. Wagner referred to part a) of the motion and requested a clear reference
to the authority involved in joint approval and justification of course proposals.
Issue 3 - Proliferation of Course Offerings
E. Banister commented that a machanism was provided in Motion 3 for con-
?
sideration of any question of the overlap of courses during departmental review.
Issue 4 - Use of Directed Readings, Directed Studies and Directed Research
Courses
P. Doherty registered objection to section f) of Motion 4 as he was of
the opinion that lower level students should be admitted to Directed Research!
Reading/Study courses even if only a limited number were admitted.
- 9 -
?
S.M. 5/11/73
P. Copes felt Issue 4 did not recognize two
classes
of Directed Reading
.
?
courses and that regulations should be specified for both, that is for those
so-called and for special circumstances where a regular course could be given
this way.
A. Hollibaugh asserted that instructor, rather than student, justification
of need for courses in this category was more realistic. K. Rieckhoff coun-
tered that proposals as set forth in the paper were intended to avoid abuse of
the availability of alternatives to standard methods of instruction.
P. Doherty wondered about deadlines for submission of student statements
of justification for admission to these courses.
On the question of standardizing credit hour assignment, J. D'Auria
received information to the effect that the task would be the responsibility
within rather than between Faculties.
Issue 5 - Use of Special Topics Courses
S. Aronoff questioned the need of burdening Senate with the requirements
of section f) of Issue 5. K. Rieckhoff responded that Senate had a vital
interest in the content of all course offerings. J. Munro added that the con-
dition of Senate ratification of non-credit offerings was equally as pertinent
to credit offerings. The Chairman concurred with the same legal reasoning and
indicated he would bring It to the attention of the Chairman of the Senate
Committee on Undergraduate Studies. A. MacPherson commented that there had
been a recommendation at an earlier meeting of Senate that .areport be submitted
on Special Topics courses but this had not been received. The Chairman res-
ponded that he had asked the Vice-President, Academic to check the Senate
reference and discuss the matter further with him. J. P. Daem noted that 5 i)
was in conflict with Issue 6.
Issue 6 - Course/Contact Hour Relationship (For regularly Scheduled Courses Only
J. Munro commented that the motion would be improved if it took the form of
• direction to departmental undergraduate curriculum committees that they Initiate
• review of credit or contact credit hour relationship in departments.
Issue 7 - Use of Vector Patterns (For Regularly Scheduled Courses)
There were no comments on this issue.
Issue 8 - Relationship between Contact Hours and Out-of-Class Graduation
Requirements
J. P. Daem said there were discrepancies between Faculties on this issue
and calendar guidelines were essential for student edification. He felt a
review in the Faculty of Science was required to establish an equitable work-
load in course offerings in relation to other Faculties. P. Wagner cautioned
that averages were difficult to establish because of individual differences
in relation to learning capabilities.
Issue 9 - Retroactivity of Calendar Changes as they Affect Graduation Requirements
.
?
?
R. Kissner commented that a student should be entitled to graduate under
the conditions of any calendar, which would permit him to apply for graduation
under the most advantageous regulations.
- 10 -
?
S.M. 5111/73
Issue 10 - Moratorium on Calendar Changes
J.
Munro expressed disappointment in the fact that the Senate Committee
on Undergraduate Studies had not submitted recommendations an this issue,
and suggested that further consideration be given to the matter with a view
to publishing a policy statement.
Issue 11 - Criteria for Numbering Courses
B. Wilson suggested a'revision was required by adjusting and correcting
the use of level and division in the wording of this issue. J. Munro was
interested in the volume of renumbering that would be required to meet the
criteria and wondered if it was practical or necessary.
Issue 12 - Operating Procedures for Waiving Course, Department and Faculty
Requirements
K. Rieckhoff noted that a report to Senate from the Registrar on waivers
granted during a semester appeared to be desirable.
S. Aronoff referred to section b) 2, and suggested that credit by exam-
ination was preferable to waiver by the departmental chairman.
Senate moved out of Informal discussion at 9:00 p.m. to give formal
• ?
consideration to Paper S.73-125.
Moved by J. Wheatley, seconded by P. Wagner,
"That Paper S.73-125 be referred back to the Senate
Committee on Undergraduate Studies for redrafting
in the light of the informal discussion."
B. Wilson spoke in opposition to referral, noting that substantive changes
had been requested only regarding Issues 1 and 11.
Question was called on the motion to refer, and a vote taken.
MOTION TO REFER FAILED
11 in favor
15 opposed
The assembly then returned to consideration of Motion 1 on Procedures
for Reviewing and Approving Curriculum Changes.
Moved by J. Munro, seconded by B. Wilson,
"That Motion 1 be referred back to the Senate
Committee on Undergraduate Studies."
0 ?
Question was called on the motion to refer, and a vote taken.
MOTION TO REFER CARRIED
- 11 -
?
S.M. 5/11/73
Motion 2 - Overlap of Course Content Between Courses Offered Within a
?
Department, Within a Faculty, Across Faculties
"That Senate approve, as set forth in S.73-125,
a)
That, in all cases where overlap in course content
exists, Faculty Curriculum Committees be charged
with requiring jointly approved and justified course
proposals to be submitted by the departments involved.
Such charge to apply to both departments within a
single Faculty and across Faculties.
b)
That, where a jointly approved course proposal is not
forthcoming from the departments involved, the issue
be referred by the departments involved, to the
Faculty Curriculum Committee(s) for resolution.
c)
That, where an overlap in course content cannot be
resolved at either the department or Faculty level,
the issue be resolved by Senate upon the recommenda-
tion of the Senate Committee on Undergraduate Studies."
B. Wilson commented that the main objection appeared to be concern
relating to identification of overlap in the same department, but Issue
• ?
3 had been designed to resolve any problem.
Question was called on Motion 2, and a vote taken.
MOTION 2 CARRIED
Motion 3 - Proliferation of Course Offerings
"That Senate approve, as set forth in S.73-125,
a)
At the time of internal or external departmental
review, departments be required to review all of their
course offerings with a view to eliminating those no
longer appropriate to the department's objectives.
b)
That justification for the continuance of any specific
course offering may be requested, at any time, by the
Faculty Undergraduate Curriculum Committee, the Senate
Committee on Undergraduate Studies or Senate.
c)
That any course not offered within a six semester period
be deleted from the Calendar unless adequate justification
for retaining the course is presented to the Senate
Committee on Undergraduate Studies and Senate. The Senate
Committee on Undergraduate Studies to be charged each
semester with reviewing course offerings under this ruling
and making appropriate recommendations to Senate."
. ?
- 12 - ? S.M. 5/11/73
In reply to a question by J. Munro on the proposed timing of departmental
reviews in the Faculty of Arts, S. Smith stated that an attempt was being made
to complete the entire series within three years, and to complete the review
of four departments this year. B. Wilson commented that internal or external
reviews provided an opportunity for review of courses, but curriculum committees
could address the question at any time.
Question was called on-Motion 3, and a vote taken.
MOTION 3 CARRIED
Motion 4 - Use of Directed Readings, Directed Studies and Directed Research
Courses
"That Senate approve, as set forth in S.73-125,
a) That the offering of all directed reading, directed study
and directed research courses offered within a department
be approved by the Departmental Chairman.
b)
?
That the chairman's approval be based upon a submission by
the instructor covering each of the following:-
1)
a statement of how the course is to be conducted
2)
a statement of how the student's performance will be
assessed for grading purposes
3)
a written statement by the student justifying his need
to take this particular course in lieu of one of the
regular courses offered by the department.
c)
?
That the present practice of having Senate approve the estab-
lishment of directed research/readings/and study courses for
departments but not the content of such courses be continued.
d)
?
As a general principle, that an instructor in a directed re-
search/readings/or study course should expect to meet' with
his students singly or together for weekly consultation.
e)
?
That departmental and Faculty curriculum committees be charged
with the task of standardizing the credit hours assigned to
their directed research/readings/and study wurses.
f) ?
That only upper level students (those who have completed at
least 60 semester credit hours) be eligible to enrol in directed
research/readings/and study courses.
g)
?
That all Faculties be required to recommend to Senate policies
. ?
regarding the maximum number of such courses (or credit hours)
a student must take for credit toward the degrees of that Faculty.
- 13 -
?
S.M. 5/11/73
h) That vector numbers for all directed research/readings or
study courses be deleted from both the University's Calendar
and Course Guide.
1) That directed research/readings/or study courses not be
permitted as substitutes for either required courses or
special topics courses."
An amendment was proposed by B. Wilson which would result in section e)
of Motion 4 reading as follows:
e)
?
"That departmental and Faculty curriculumicommittees,
subject to the approval of the Faculty, be charged
with the task of standardizing the credit hours assigned
to their directed research/readings/and study courses."
K. Rieckhoff questioned the need for such a motion, stating that the
inclusion of this fact in the minutes should be sufficient. The Chairman
concurred.
It was moved by A. Hollibaugh, seconded by P. Doherty, that section h) 3)
be deleted from Motion 4, but following discussion it was agreed by the mover
and seconder that rather than deletion the section could be amended to read
as follows:
. ?
b) ?
3) ?
"a written statement justifying the need to take
this particular course in lieu of one of the regular
courses offered by the department."
Question was called on the amendment, and a vote taken.
AMENDMENT CARRIED
Moved by P. Doherty, seconded by R. Kissner,
"That section f) of Motion 4 be deleted."
P. Doherty contended that lower level students could also gain con-
siderable advantage in academic experience by being eligible to take courses
of this nature. A. Hollibaugh concurred. K. Rieckhoff noted that consider-
able material is involved in directed readings and a restriction on enrolment
is preferable. He noted that Motion 12 provided flexibility to accommodate
unique situations. ?
-
Question was called on the motion to delete section f), and a vote taken.
MOTION TO DELETE FAILED
13 in favor
13 opposed
Considerable discussion ensued regarding section i) of Motion 4 and its
possible effect of precluding students from graduating on time or resulting:
in a longwàlting period to meet requirements for graduation.
- 14 -
?
S.M. 5/11/73
Amendment was moved by A. Hollibaugh, seconded by P. Wagner, "That
the word 'not' be deleted from section 1) of Motion 4, but on further
consideration the amendment was altered to read:
i) ?
"That directed research/readings/or study courses
may be permitted as substitutes for either required
courses or special topics courses."
It was noted that Issue 12 of Paper S.73-125 had relationship to the
motion under consideration.
Moved by J. P. Daem, seconded by A. Hollibaugh,
"That Motion 12 be considered now prior to con-
tinuing with consideration of Motion 4 and the
amendment to section i)."
Question was called on postponement of consideration of Motion 4 and
the amendment on the floor and for consideration of Motion 12, and a vote
taken.
MOTION TO POSTPONE CARRIED
Motion 12 - Operating Procedures for Waiving Course, Department and Faculty
• ? Requirements
"That Senate approve, as set forth in S.73-125,
a)
That departmental chairmen be empbwered in special
cases to waive departmental regulations on the
recommendation of the departmental undergraduate
curriculum committee; that Deans of Faculties be
empowered in special cases to waive Faculty regula-
tions on the recommendation of Faculty undergraduate
curriculum committees.
b)
That the primary criteria under which waivers may be
granted be established as follows:
1)
where a student has been misadvised and can provide
substantive evidence
2)
where a student can demonstrate to a department that
he has formal training or background for which he did
not receive direct course academic transfer credit.
(The waiver does not include the granting of additional
formal semester hours credit, but may remove the neces-
sity of undertaking certain prescribed courses.)
3)
where departmental programs have changed and eliminated
.
?
courses or otherwise substantially changed the gradua-
tion requirements affecting the student
4)
where a student has satisfied the spirit but not the
- 15 -
?
S.M. 5/11/73
letter of University, Faculty or departmental
regulations.
c)
That departmental offices, in the case of departmental
waivers, and the dean's office, in the case of Faculty
waivers, maintain documentation on all waivers granted
and advise in writing the department concerned, the
student and the Registrar where affirmative action has
been taken on a waiver request."
B. Wilson requested that a further section be added to Motion 12,
stating:
d)
"That the Registrar report to Senate all cases of
departmental waivers and faculty waivers on a semester
basis."
As there was no objection from the assembly, the addition to the
motion was accepted.
Moved by J. Seager, seconded by R. Kissner,
"That the words 'special cases' wherever they appear
in section a) of Motion 12 be deleted."
B. Wilson opposed the amendment, stating that departmental regulations
were Senate regulations and the reference was to the academic content of a
program which has some integrity, and it should only be waived in special
cases.
Question was called on the motion to delete, and a vote taken.
MOTION FAILED
10 in favor
17 opposed
Amendment was moved by R. Kissner, seconded by A. Hollibaugh,
"That section a) of Motion 12 be amended to read,
'That departmental chairmen be empowered in special
cases to waive departmental regulations, preferably
on the recommendation of the departmental under-
graduate curriculum committees; that Deans of
Faculties be empowered in special cases to waive
Faculty regulations, preferably on the recommendation
of the Faculty undergraduate curriculum committees."
R. Kissner commented that there were instances when a reply to a
petition for waiver was urgently required to permit graduation.
- 16 -
?
S.M. 5/11/73
0 ?
Question was called on the amendment, and a vote taken.
AMENDMENT FAILED
9 in favor
14 opposed
Amendment was moved by J. P. Daem, seconded by A. Hollibaugh,
"To add under section b), subsection 5) 'where
students may suffer undue hardships as a result
of prevailing regulations."
J. P. Daem was of the opinion that where a student can demonstrate
that not waiving a regulation would constitute a hardship, the regulation
should be waived and primary criteria stipulated in the paper to permit
such action. S. Aronoff agreed it was necessary to provide avenues to
permit graduation, but asked that the amendment be revised to indicate a
more direct
intent.
Several Senators suggested alternate phrasing.
Question was called on the amendment as moved, and a vote taken.
AMENDMENT FAILED
S. Aronoff then proposed a modification to section b) 2 to establish
.
?
?
the notion of credit by examination as an example of a waiver: "Where a?
student can demonstrate to a department by means of an examination that he
has formal training or background. (The waiver would include the
granting
of additional formal semester hours credit and would remove the necessity
of undertaking certain prescribed courses.)"
J. Munro proposed the following as an addition to section a):- Departmental
regulations are considered to be those contained in departmental sections of the
calendar and faculty regulations are those contained in the Faculty sections of
the calendar - but this wording currently could not operate.
Amendment was moved by J. P. Daem, seconded by A. Hollibaugh,
"That a new section c) be inserted in the motion
which would state 'where the lack of offerings of
a degree requirement would delay a student's
graduation unduly, the Chairman be permitted to
substitute a directed study/research/reading course,'
and the balance of the motion following be relettered
as required."
B. Wilson offered substitute wording to provide grammatical requirements,
"That departmental chairmen be empowered in cases where the unavailability of
required course offerings might cause undue delay to graduation to allow sub-
stitution of directed study/research/reading courses," and the substitution
was allowed.
- 17 -
?
S.M. 5/11/73
Moved by A. Emmott, seconded by K. Rièckhoff,
"That the previous question be put."
The Chairman noted that the motion was undebatable, and required two-
thirds majority vote to carry.
Question was called on the motion for the previous question, and a
vote taken.
MOTION CARRIED
24 in favor
Question was called on the amendment, and a vote taken.
AMENDMENT CARRIED
19 in favor?
3 opposed
Id
response to a request by J. Seager, the Chairman outlined Motion 12
as amended:
• ?
"That Senate approve, as set forth in S.73-125,
a)
That departmental chairmen be empowered in special cases to
waive departmental regulations on the recommendation of the
departmental undergraduate curriculum committee; that Deans
of Faculties be empowered in special cases to waive Faculty
regulations on the recommendation of Faculty undergraduate
curriculum committees.
b)
That the primary criteria under which waivers may be granted
be established as follows:
1)
where a student has been misadvised and can provide sub-
stantive evidence
2)
where a student can demonstrate to a department that he
has formal training or background for which he did not
receive direct course academic transfer credit. (The
waiver does not include the granting ot additional formal
semester hours credit, but may remove the necessity of
undertaking certain prescribed courses.)
3)
where departmental programs have changed and eliminated
courses or otherwise substantially changed the graduation
requirements affecting the student
.
?
4) where a student has satisfied the spirit but not the letter
of University, Faculty or departmental regulations.
- 18 -
?
S.M. 5/11/73
• c) That departmental chairmen be empowered in cases where
the unavailability of required course offerings might
cause undue delay to graduation to allow substitution
of directed study/research/reading courses.
d)
That departmental offices, in the case of departmental
waivers, and dean's offices, in the case of Faculty
waivers, maintain documentation on all waivers granted
and advise in writing the department concerned, the
student and the Registrar where affirmative action has
been taken on a waiver request.
e)
That the Registrar report to Senate all cases of depart-
mental waivers and faculty waivers on a semester basis."
Question was called on Motion 12 as amended, and a vote taken.
MOTION 12 CARRIED
UNANIMOUSLY
Motion 4 - Use of Directed Readings, Directed Studies and Directed
Research Courses
The Chairman drew attention to the amendment on the floor relating
to section 1) of Motion 4, but A. Hollibaugh stated that it was now
redundant and requested permission to withdraw his amendment. As there
was no objection, the amendment was withdrawn.
AMENDMENT WITHDRAWN
Amendment was moved by R. Kissner, seconded by A. Hollibaugh,
"That the title of the directed research/reading/
study courses reflecting course content be sub-
mitted by the instructor and the student to the
Registrar and be included on the student's trans-
cript."
R. Kissner stated that the logic of the amendment was that courses in
this category were in the same area as the student's program and should be
recorded on the permanent record. S. Aronoff was of the opinion that such
a proposal should not be entertained unless it has the approval of the cur-
riculum committee. B. Wilson said the content of any course should not
appear on the transcript unless it is approved by Senate. D. DeVoretz
commented that there were mechanisms to provide information on the content
of directed reading courses other than the transcript.
Question was called on the amendment, and a vote taken.
AMENDMENT FAILED
- 19 -
?
S.M. 5/11/73
0 ?
Moved by A. Dawson, seconded by J. P. Daem,
"That Motion 4 be referred back to the Senate
Committee on Undergraduate Studies."
Question was called on the motion to refer, and a vote taken.
MOTION TO REFER CARRIED
P. Doherty expressed the opinion that referral should be accompanied
by instructions to the Committee, but the Chairman responded that the Deans
attend the meetings of the Senate Committee on Undergraduate Studies and
they would be guided by the minutes of this meeting of Senate.
Motion 5 - Use of Special Topics Courses
"That Senate approve, as set forth in S.73-125,
a) That departments include in the University's
Calendar and Course Guide a general statement to
the effect that special topics courses are offered
and that students should obtain further information
from the department prior to registration. (Note:
this initial contact would give departments an op-
portunity to learn what special topics students want
.
?
to see initiated and thus facilitate the introduc-
tion of special topics courses.)
b) ?
That, as general University guidelines, special
topics courses should be utilized to:
1)
fill a particular gap In a department's curriculum
2)
respond to student/faculty interests which are
worthwhile at the moment but not necessarily of
continuing relevance to a department's program
3)
experiment with a particular subject matter area
before considering it for introduction into the
regular curriculum.
c) That all Faculties recommend policies to Senate re-
garding the maximum number of such courses (or credit
hours) a student may include for credit toward the
degrees of that Faculty.
d) That the present practice of having Senate approve the
establishment of special topics courses for departments
but not the contents of such courses be continued.
e) That the Chairman, on the advice of the Departmental
Undergraduate Curriculum Committee, be charged with
approving the content of all special topics courses
offered.
- 20 - ?
S.M. 5/11/73
f) ?
That once each semester, Deans of Faculties report to
Senate on topics covered under special topics, such
report to include:
1)
the calendar description of each course offered,
including the course number, credit hours, vector
description, course description.
2)
a detailed description of the specific courses
offered including the name of the responsible
faculty member, a course outline and/or syllabus,
a reading list, and method of instruction.
3)
the number of students enrolled in each course.
g) ?
That special topics courses be regarded as regularly
scheduled courses, i.e. that class meetings are held on
a regular basis.
h)
?
That vector patterns for special topics courses be
deleted from the University Calendar and incorporated
into the Course Guide.
i) ?
As a guiding principle for special topics courses, that
one contact hour be set equal to one credit hour.
J)
?
That where a department wishes to deviate from principle
i) above, a justification for the variance must be pro-
vided to the Faculty and Senate Undergraduate Curriculum
Committees and to Senate."
Amendment was moved by J. P. Daem, seconded by A. Hollibaugh,
"To delete sections i) and j) of Motion 5, and
substitute the following, as in Issue 6: 'That
the determination of the appropriate relationship
between credit and contact hours rest with depart-
mental undergraduate curriculum committees subject
to the approval of Faculty Curriculum Committees,
the Senate Committee on Undergraduate Studies and
Senate. "'
J. P. Daem was of the opinion that consistency of guidelines for special
topics and regularly scheduled courses was essential. I. Mugridge agreed
that some kind of guiding principle was considered desirable and possible
for special topics courses.
Question was called on the amendment, and a vote taken.
AMENDMENT FAILED
10 in favor
12 opposed
- 21 -
?
S.M. 5/11/73
0 ?
Question was called on Motion 5, and a vote taken.
MOTION 5 CARRIED
19 in favor
Motion 6 - Course/Contact Hour Relationship (For Regularly Scheduled
Courses* Only
* A regularly scheduled course is defined as a semester length course
expected to be meeting for a predetermined total number of contact hours
per week in lecture, tutorial, seminar or laboratory as approved by Senate.
"That Senate approve, as set forth in S.73-125,
That the determination of the appropriate relation-
ship between credit and contact hours rest with
departmental undergraduate curricilum committees
subject to the approval of Faculty Curriculum Com-
mittees, the Senate Committee on Undergraduate
Studies and Senate."
Moved by A. Dawson, seconded by A. MacPherson,
"That Motion 6 be referred back to the Senate
Committee on Undergraduate Studies."
Question was called on the motion to refer, and a vote taken.
MOTION TO REFER MOTION 6
CARRIED
17 in favor?
7 opposed
I. Mugridge asked that Senate provide instructions to the Committee.
A. Hollibaugh commented that he hoped it would be recommended to the.
Committee that sections 1) and j) of Motion 5 be incorporated with Motion
6 to achieve some degree of uniformity. J. Wheatley suggested that contra-
dictory statements be eliminated and that guidelines be developed in relation
to established limits.
Motion 7 - Use of Vector Patterns (For Regularly Scheduled Courses)
?
"That Senate approve, as set forth in S.73-125,
a)
That all vector patterns be eliminated from
University Calendars.
b) That each course description contained in
. ?
University calendars be accompanied by an
indication of the nature of the course, e.g.
lecture/tutorial, lecture/tutorial/laboratory,
seminar, etc.
- 22 -
?
.M. 5/11173
•
?
c) That within the total number of contact hours
assigned to a course, and subject to the approval
of the departmental undergraduate curriculum
committee, the Chairman be permitted to vary the
vector pattern. Such vector patterns to reflect
only the in-class requirements and the calendar
description of the course.
d)
That vector patterns for all regularly scheduled
courses be included in Course Guides.
e)
That only departmental approval be required for
all course vector patterns to be included in the
Course Guide; departmental approval to be in
writing and submitted to the Registrar."
Moved by A. Hollibaugh, seconded by J. Seager,
"That Motion 7 be referred until Motion 6 is
resolved."
A. Hollibaugh stated that the motion to refer was based on the wording
of section c).
Question was called on the motion to refer, and a vote taken.
40 ?
CARRIEDTO REFER MOTION 7
CARRIED
14 in favor
11 opposed
It was noted that there was no motion attached to Issue 8 - Relationship
between Contact Hours and Out-of-Class Preparation Time.
Motion 9 - Retroactivity of Calendar Changes as they Affect Graduation
Requirements
"That Senate approve, as set forth in S.73-125,
Before or upon entering the final 60 credit hours
(72 credit hours for the Honors program) students
must make a formal Declaration of Major (or Honors)
with this formal 'declaration to establish the re-
quirements for graduation as indicated in the
published Calendar in effect at the time of the
declaration. A change of major or honors field
will be deemed a new declaration."
The Secretary explained that the clause was applicable to the first
declaration, but a new declaration involving a change in field would be
. ?
under the regulations of the calendar in effect at the time of the subsequent
declaration.
- 23 -
?
S.M. 5/11/73
Amendment was moved by R. Kissner, seconded by J. P. Daem,
"That the words 'or future calendars at the
student's discretion,' be added at the end of
the first sentence of the motion."
R. Kissner said that rules change and the student should be governed
by his choice of calendars. B. Wilson was agreeable to the amendment.
Question was called on the amendment, and a vote taken.
AMENDMENT CARRIED
Question was called on the motion as amended, and a vote taken.
MOTION 9 AS AMENDED
CARRIED
18 in favor
It was noted that there was no motion attached to Issue 10 - Moratorium
on Calendar Changes.
Motion 11 - Criteria for Numbering Courses
40
?
"That Senate approve, as set forth in S.73-125,
That the following criteria be established as
guidelines for departments in determining the
number levels to be assigned individual courses:
1)
000 level courses
2)
100 level courses - are designed to introduce
students to a discipline at the University level;
students will normally be expected to enrol in
such courses during their first and second levels
of University; such courses will not demand pre-
requisites at the University level although previous
learning experiences in the discipline or related
disciplines at the secondary school level may be
recommended or required.
3)
200 level courses - assume either previous learning
experiences in the discipline or related disciplines;
both content and teaching level will be more advanced
than courses offered at the 100 level; students will
normally be expected to enrol in such courses during
their third and fourth levels of University; pre- and
la
?
co- requisites may be identified.
- 24 - ?
S.M. 5/11/73
4)
300 level courses - assume a substantive amount of
previous learning experiences in either the discipline
or related disciplines; both content and teaching level
will be more advanced than courses offered at the 200
level; students will normally be expected to enrol in
such courses during their fifth and sixth levels of
University; only in exceptional circumstances will
courses offered at this level not have pre- and/or
co- requisites associated with them.
5)
400 level courses - assume a substantive amount of
previous learning experiences in either the discipline
or related disciplines; both content and teaching level
will be more advanced than courses offered at the 300
level; students will normally be expected to enrol in
such courses during their seventh and eighth levels of
University; prerequisites will always be demanded for
courses offered at this level."
B. Wilson pointed out that the use of the words "level" and "division"
in a number of instances was incorrect, but the necessary adjustments could
be left to the Registrar.
Moved by B. Wilson, seconded by D. DeVoretz,
"That the motion be divided between Item 1 and Items 2, 3,
4, and 5."
Question was called, and a vote taken.
MOTION TO DIVIDE CARRIED
Moved by B. Wilson, seconded by D. DeVoretz,
"That Item 1 of Motion 11 be referred to the Senate
Committee on Undergraduate Studies for definition."
Question was called on the motion to refer, and a vote taken.
MOTION TO REFER ITEM 1
OF MOTION 11 CARRIER
Discussion continued on the remaining part of the divided question,
Items 2 - 5 inclusive.
Amendment was moved by J. Munro, seconded by D. DeVoretz,
"That there be added, after item 5, the last sentence
of the rationale on page 21, 'deviations from these
•
?
recommendations should be permitted provided they
are acceptable to the Faculty curriculum committee,
the Senate Committee on Undergraduate Studies and
Senate.
- 25 -
?
S.M.5/11/73
Question was called on the amendment, and a vote taken.
AMENDMENT FAILED
Amendment was moved by R. Kissner, seconded by J. P. Daem,
"That the last clause in Item 5 be deleted and
the last clause of Item 4 be substituted therefor,
i.e. replace 'prerequisites will always be demanded
for courses at this level' with 'only in exceptional
circumstances will courses offered at this level not
have pre- and/or co- requisites associated with them.'"
It was generally agreed that a full prerequisite scheme is impractical,
although S. Aronoff was of the opinion that the question involved the degree
of sophistication of the course. P. Copes considered that not all 400 level
courses require a prerequisite course; that the degree of maturity of the
student is often the prerequisite.
Question was called on the amendment, and a vote taken.
AMENDMENT CARRIED
Item 5 then read as follows:
"400 level courses - assume a substantive amount of
previous learning experiences in either the discipline
or related disciplines; both content and teaching level
will be more advanced than courses offered at the 300
level; students will normally be expected to enrol in
such courses during their seventh and eighth levels of
University; only in exceptional circumstances will
courses offered at this level not have pre- and/or co-
requisites associated with them.
Question was called on the main motion as amended.
MAIN MOTION ON THE
DIVIDED QUESTION
CARRIED
(Editorial changes to
be made)
6. REPORTS OF FACULTIES
There were no reports from Faculties
7. OTHER BUSINESS
1. Notice of Motion
1. Paper S.73-126 - Senate Rule - Reports of Committees (Senate
Committee on Agenda and Rules
The Chairman noted that this paper was subject to debate at the next
meeting.
- 26 -
?
S.M. 5/11/73
2. Date of Next Meeting
It was noted that the next meeting of Senate is scheduled for Monday,
December 3, 1973, at 7:30 p.m.
3. Other Items
1. Paper S.73-127 - Motion to Establish a Committee to Consider Expected
Paper on University-Government Relationships
Moved by J. D'Auria, seconded by A. Dawson,
1. "That an ad hoc committee be established by the
Senate of this University to consider the paper
from the task force on higher education established
by the Minister of Education of British Columbia
relating to the relationship between universities
and government and possible changes to the Universities
Act, - the SFU Senate committee to be charged with
preparing an assessment of such report and recommenda-
tions pertaining thereto for consideration by this
Senate; i.e. a report on the task force report by the
January meeting of Senate."
J. D'Auria commented that he had made a few editorial changes to the
motion set forth in Paper S.73-127, and that the task force intends to hold
open hearings on January 17. The Chairman added that he had received a
letter from the Commissioner of Education advising that the working papers
will be forthcoming for distribution.
Question was called, and a vote taken.
MOTION CARRIED
Moved by J. D'Auria, seconded by A. Dawson,
2.
"That this committee consist of three members of
Senate."
Amendment was moved by J. P. Daem, seconded by A. MacPherson,
"That the Committee consist of five members of
Senate, two members of faculty, two students, and
one academic administrator."
J. P. Daem said that if the committee is going to look at the recom-
mendations all bodies should be represented. J. D'Auria felt a smaller
committee would be more effective in working rapidly on a specific document.
Question was called on the amendment, and a vote taken.
0 ?
AMENDMENT FAILED
6 in favor
20 opposed
- 27 -
?
S.M. 5/11/73
0 ?
Question was called on the main motion, and a vote taken.
MOTION CARRIED
Moved by J. D'Auria, seconded by A. Dawson,
3.
?
"That Senate
for
tonight's meeting suspend its
rules on nominations and voting to now nominate
and elect the members to this committee."
Question was called, and a vote taken.
MOTION CARRIED
Moved by J. D'Auria, seconded by K. Rieckhoff,
"That R. Kissner, B. Beirne, and S. Smith be
nominated to the Committee."
The Chairman declared that it was usual to enquire if those nominated
were willing to stand for election. K. Rieckhoff then nominated J. Wheatley
to the committee. As all nominees were willing to stand for election,
ballots were distributed, and the Secretary reminded Senators that under
Senate election rules, in order to be valid, ballots must contain three votes.
Results of the election were announced as follows:
Elected: ?
B. P. BEIRNE
R. F. KISSNER
W.A.S.SMITH
4. Confidential Matters
The assembly moved into Closed Session at 11:58 p.m.
H. M. Evans
Secretary
0