.
DRAFT UNTIL APPROVED BY SENATE
Minutes of a meeting of the Senate of Simon Fraser University held on
Monday, March 6, 2000 in Room 3210 West Mall Centre
Open Session
Present:
?
Blaney, Jack, President and Chair
Absent: Al-Natour, Sameh
Atkins, Stella
Barrow, Robin
Benezra, Michael
Fletcher, James
Blackman, Roger (representing J
.
Pierce)
Heaney, John
Boland, Larry
Kanevsky, Lannie
Budra, Paul
Kirczenow, George
Chan, Albert
McFetridge, Paul
Chuah, Kuan
McInnes, Dina
Copeland, Lynn
Warsh, Michael
D'Auria, John
Wessel, Sylvia
Davidson, Willie
Wong, Milton
Delgrande, James
Yerbury, Cohn
Driver, Jon
Dunsterville, Valerie
Emerson, Joseph
Finley, David
Gillies, Mary Ann
Harris, Richard
Hart, Stephen (representing B. Clayman)
In attendance:
Hyslop-Margison, Emery
Knockaert, Joe
•
Jones, John
Marteniuk, Ron
Macdonald, Gregg
Olewiler, Nancy
Mathewes, Rolf
Mauser, Gary
McArthur, James
McBride, Stephan
Meredith, Lindsay (representing J.Waterhouse)
Munro, John
Naef, Barbara
Niwinska, Tina
Ogloff, James
Osborne, Judith
Paterson, David
Peters, Joseph
Peterson, Louis
Reader, Jason
Russell, Robert
Sanghera, Balwant
Smith, Michael
Steinbach, Christopher
To, Shek Yan
Wortis, Michael
Zazkis, Rina
Heath, Nick, Acting Registrar
Watt, Alison, Director, University Secretariat
Grant, Bobbie, Recording Secretary
S.M. 6 March 2000
Page 2
1.
Approval of the Agenda
The Agenda was approved as distributed.
2.
Approval of the Minutes of the Open Session of February 7, 2000
Reference was made to page 8, motion 3 and suggestion was made that the
minutes should make specific reference to the two committees - SCUS and SGSC.
On the same page, motion 4 (last sentence), suggestion was made that the word
'composition' be changed to 'membership' and 'the committee' be changed to
'Senate' since the results of SRC's survey reflected a perception of domination of
administrators on Senate.
Following these revisions, the Minutes were approved as amended.
3.
Business Arising from the Minutes
In response to an inquiry, Senate was advised that the location of the ceremony
to award Julie Payette an honorary degree had been changed from Centennial
High School to Images Theatre on campus as a result of a request from her office.
4.
Report of the Chair
i) ?
Paper S.00-22 -Revised 'Values and Commitments' document
Since the President wished to participate in debate of this item, J. Ogloff, Vice-
Chair of Senate took over as Chair.
?
0
N. Olewiler, Senior Policy Advisor, President's Office and Chair of the
Department of Economics, and C. Macdonald, Executive Director, President's
Office were in attendance in order to respond to questions.
Moved by J. Munro, seconded by J. Osborne
"that Senate endorse and recommend to the Board of Governors,
the 'Values and Commitments' document, S.00-22"
The President referred to the preparatory comments made at the January
meeting and advised that the revised document was the result of Senate
discussion at the January meeting and from comments received in writing and at
the open meetings held in January.
Brief discussion ensued with respect to the use of the word 'relish' (paragraph 2)
'pioneering' (paragraph 3) and 'can' (paragraphs 3 and 5), and minor editorial
suggestions were made related to these concerns. Opinions were also expressed
against the suggested editorial changes and suggestions made that the wording
not be changed. Since the substance of the statement was not in dispute,
suggestion was made that endorsement proceed without specific amendment;
the committee would then further discuss the comments made by Senate and
make whatever changes they deemed necessary.
L
S.M. 6 March 2000
Page
• Inquiry was made as to whether the statement that 'students can expect teaching
that is personal' was a long term commitment to the tutorial process. Senate was
advised that although the university was not necessarily at the level where it
would like to be with respect to the kinds of values and commitments referred to
in the statement, the document should serve as a reminder of the kind of
University the planning process should aim for.
Question was called, and a vote taken.
?
MOTION CARRIED
J. Blaney resumed the Chair.
5. ?
Reports of Committees
a)
Senate Nominating Committee
i) ?
Paper S.00-23 - Election
Senate Committee on International Activities (SCIA)
One Graduate Student (at-large) to replace Kevin Hewitt from date of election to
May 31, 2000.
Elected by acclamation:
?
Lorena Jara
b)
Senate Committee on International Activities
i) ?
Paper S.00-24
-
Annual Report (For Information)
J. Knockaert, Secretary of SCIA and Director of International Co-operation was in
attendance in order to respond to questions.
It was pointed out that previous annual reports included information about the
kinds and size of international projects that the University was involved in and
inquiry was made as to why this information was missing from the report before
Senate. Senate was advised that there had been no change in the projects from
last year.
C) ?
Senate Committee on Academic Planning and Senate Committee on
Enrolment Management and Planning
i) ?
Paper S.00-25 - Undergraduate Admission Targets for 2000/20001
Motion #1:
Moved by J
.
Munro, seconded by J
.
Osborne
"that Senate approve and recommend approval to the Board of Governors, as set
forth in S.00-25 , the following undergraduate admission targets for each basis-
of-admission group and for each semester in 2000/01, and that SCAP be
delegated authority to make adjustments based on changes to the overall
provincial enrollment targets for SFU and based on actual enrollment experience
in 2000-2 and 2000-3.
S.M. 6 March 2000
Page 4
Admission Targets for New Students
?
9
2000-2
2000-3
2001-1
Total
B.C. Gr. XII
80
1,837
125
2,042
B.C. College
459
669
604
1,732
Other BOA Groups
172
649
392
1,213
Total Intake
711
3,155
1,121
41987"
Question was called, and a vote taken.
?
MOTION CARRIED
A substantial decrease over the last 20 years in the number of mature students
being admitted to the university, together with a substantial increase in the
admission of high school students was noted and inquiry made as to whether
this was coincidental or the result of an active policy of the University. Opinion
was expressed that these changes were the result of an increase in the general
standards for admission and changes in patterns of enrolment in post-secondary
institutions whereby mature students tend to enter the university after having
completed two years at the community college level.
Motion #2:
Moved by J
.
Munro, seconded by J
.
Osborne
"that Senate approve and recommend approval to the Board of
Governors, as set forth in S.00-25, the undergraduate admission
targets to each Faculty as indicated in the attached table, and that
SCAP be delegated authority to make adjustments based on
changes to the overall provincial enrolment targets for SFU and
based on actual enrolment experience in 2000-2 and 2000-3"
Inquiry was made about why Applied Sciences was not being increased next
year but the Arts was planned to be increased by 500 students. Senate was
advised that it was felt that the college transfer admission GPA was too high in
the current year relative to the high school admission GPA and the increase in
the number of college transfers would result in more students being admitted to
Arts. The question of balance between supply and demand in Arts and Applied
Sciences would likely be a significant issue for the university in the future and
has been discussed in SCEMP and SCAP.
Question was called, and a vote taken.
?
MOTION CARRIED
S.M. 6 March 2000
Page 5
ii)
Paper S.00-26 - Limits on International Student Admissions to SFU
Moved by J
.
Munro, seconded by J
.
Osborne
"that Senate approve and recommend approval to the Board of
Governors, as set forth in S.00-26, that the number of international
students, excluding exchange students, who are admitted into
undergraduate programs at SFU be limited to 7% of all admissions
in the academic years 2000/01, 2001/02, and 2002/03"
Senate was reminded that this was simply an extension of the current limit and
that international admissions (4.9% on new admissions this year) were well
below the quota.
Inquiries were made with respect to how the limit at SFU compared to policies at
other provincial universities and what the percentage would be if exchange
students were included. Senate was advised that UBC had approximately the
same percentage of international students relative to the size of the university,
and that the current 125 exchange students would only make a slight change in
the percentage if included.
Question was called, and a vote taken. ?
MOTION CARRIED
iii)
Paper S.00-27 - Limits on International Student Admission to Faculty of
Business Administration
Moved by L. Meredith, seconded by G. Mauser
"that Senate approve and recommend approval to the Board of
Governors, as set forth in S.00-27, that the number of international
students, excluding exchange students, who are admitted into the
undergraduate programs in the Faculty of Business Administration
at SFU be limited to 10% of all admissions in the academic years
2000/01, 2001/02, and 2002/03"
Opinions expressed in opposition to the motion included the following
comments:
• the limit was unnecessary because the Faculty of Business Administration
was no where near the existing 10% limit
• imposing the limit discriminated against students who have already been
admitted to the University and treated them differently from other students
• it was unfair to admit students and then restrict their choice of programs
• if qualified, students should not be restricted because of a quota and by
having a higher quality of student in a class the learning experiences between
students increased
S.M. 6 March 2000
Page 6
Opinions expressed in support of the motion included the following comments:
• enrolment pressures within the Faculty were severe and as a public
institution there was a responsibility to serve the needs of domestic students
• without a limit the percentage of international students would significantly
increase which could have a serious impact on domestic students
• the demand from international students for Business programs was much
higher than other Faculties
Clarification was sought with respect to the wording of the motion relating to the
phrase '10% of all admissions". Senate was advised that the motion should in
fact read '10% of all admissions to the Faculty of Business Administration'; the
change was accepted as an editorial amendment.
If there was a concern about the differential for Business Administration but the
problem of not having a limit was recognized, it was suggested that the motion
could be amended to delete the reference to the Faculty of Business
Administration so that the limit would then apply to all Faculties.
Brief discussion ensued regarding the issue of differential fees and the historical
background related to the implementation of the existing limit.
Question was called, and a vote taken.
?
MOTION DEFEATED
iv) ?
Paper S.00-28 - PBD Admission to School of Computing Science (For
Ti- fr-rrrtn+;r%n) ?
0
Senate received information that admission to the regular Post Baccalaureate
Diploma Program in the School of Computing Science was suspended until
further notice. Admission to the ARC Internship PBD program in Computing
Science would not be affected.
d) ?
Senate Committee on Academic Planning
i) ?
Paper S.00-29 - Planning and Review Framework -
Motion #1:
Moved by J
.
Munro, seconded by J
.
Osborne
"that Senate approve the revisions to the Guidelines for External
Reviews as outlined in S.00-29"
Senate was informed that during the consultation process strong opposition from
departmental chairs had been expressed with respect to the interval between
successive external reviews and successive academic plans. It was also pointed
out that many chairs in the Faculty of Arts supported the concept that the
planning cycle be half the length of the external review cycle but were very
concerned that the proposed time period for external reviews was too short.
S.M. 6 March 2000
Page 7
0
?
Amendment moved by R. Blackman, seconded by M.A. Gillies
"that the planning period be 4 years and the external review period
be 8 years rather than 3 and 6 years respectively"
An amendment to the amendment was moved by L. Boland, seconded by S.
McBride
"that the planning period be 3 years and the external review period
be 9 years"
Opinion was expressed that external reviews were very expensive and having to
go through the process in a shorter period of time significantly increased the cost.
It was pointed out that one of the main measures of accountability both publicly
and within institutions was the review of academic programs on a regular basis,
and opinion was expressed that lengthening the review cycle would have a
negative impact on the accountability process. Suggestion was made that annual
reports from departments or the three year academic plans could be used to
satisfy accountability measures.
It was noted that it was difficult to recruit qualified external reviewers and
shortening the time period would make it even more difficult; opinion was
is ?
expressed it would be better to have less frequent reviews with more highly
selected reviewers.
Concern was expressed that the 3/6 plan/external review cycle was unrealistic
and too short to make significant curriculum and program changes and
departments needed the longer period to make meaningful evaluations between
reviews.
It was pointed out that whatever cycle was approved, the time line was not
immutable. Under the existing policy, changes were continuously made to
accommodate a variety of circumstances within departments each year, and it
was felt that increasing the time between reviews was not advisable because it
would then be possible for departments to go ten or eleven years between
reviews.
Some members suggested that external reviews were very labour intensive and
had a much bigger impact on smaller departments so a longer review period was
more feasible. However, it was pointed out that some departments may need a
review more frequently than others and it was suggested that procedures be
written into the process to allow flexibility in determining where in the cycle the
review should take place. Another senator suggested that external reviews were
not worthwhile at all.
It was pointed out that the orientation of external reviews was meant to be on the
academic character and academic quality of a department's teaching and
S.M. 6 March 2000
Page 8
research programs and not on difficult situations which were better handled
internally.
The view was expressed that with the renewal of faculty that would occur over
the next several years, there would be a need through the academic planning
process to review how departments were evolving at a more rather than less
frequent interval.
Moved by J
.
D'Auria, seconded by E. Hyslop-Margison
"that the motion be tabled to allow reconsideration by the Senate
Committee on Academic Planning"
Senate was informed that approval of the motion would refer the original motion
as well as the amendments back to SCAP.
Question was called, and a vote taken.
?
MOTION TO TABLE CARRIED
Motion #2:
Moved by J
.
Munro, seconded by J
.
Osborne
"that Senate approve the new Guidelines for Academic Plans as set
forth in S.00-29"
Senate was advised that the proposed plan interval was partly based on the
current time period and partly because the university was currently entering a
period of rapid change and a longer interval was not feasible. Outside funding
agencies were increasingly requesting the university to develop plans and up-to-
date departmental academic plans were vital to that planning process. The
guidelines reflected past practice and various parts of existing university policy.
It was pointed out that the motion before Senate recommended a 3 year planning
cycle. Senate tabled, as part of the previous motion, reconsideration of this issue,
and concern was expressed that the SCAP review would be limited by having
motion two approved because it would establish one part of the cycle that was to
be reviewed by SCAP.
Moved by R. Blackman, seconded by J
.
Reader
"that the motion be referred to the Senate Committee on Academic
Planning for reconsideration"
Question was called, and a vote taken.
?
MOTION TO REFER CARRIED
S
S
0
S.M. 6 March 2000
Page 9
0
?
e) ?
Senate Graduate Studies Committee
i) ?
Paper S.00-30 - Annual Report (For Information)
The annual report of the Senate Graduate Studies Committee was received by
Senate for information.
f)
?
Senate Committee on Agenda and Rules
i) ?
Paper S.00-31 - Senate Review Committee - Final recommendations on
SCUS and SGSC
Moved by J
.
Munro, seconded by M.A. Gillies
"that Senate approve the restructuring of the Senate Committee on
Undergraduate Studies and the Senate Committee on Graduate
Studies as follows:
SCUS and SGSC shall become committees reporting directly to
Senate. Membership of each committee shall consist of two student
members elected by Senate, the chair of each Faculty-level
committee plus one faculty member elected by each Faculty-level
committee, the Registrar (or designate) and the University
• Librarian (or designate). The Chair of SCUS will be the Vice-
President, Academic (or designate); the Chair of SGSC will be the
Dean of Graduate Studies"
As a point of clarification, it was noted that the students elected to the Senate
Committee on Undergraduate Studies would be undergraduate students, and
the students elected to the Senate Graduate Studies Committee would be
graduate students.
Discussion ensued with respect to the election of faculty members to the
committees. Suggestion was made that the faculty members should be elected
by and from Senate. It was pointed out that although the SRC had considered
this option, it was felt that it was too much of a constraint on faculty Senators.
Opinion was also expressed that the Chairs of the Faculty-level committees
needed to be on these committees in order for them to operate effectively.
Amendment moved by J
.
D'Auria, seconded by A. Chan
"that each faculty member be elected by and from respective
Faculties"
Brief discussed followed with respect to the electoral process and it was clarified
that the intent was for the elections to be conducted by the Secretariat Office
rather than by individual Faculties.
S.M. 6 March 2000
Page 10
Concern was expressed that a Faculty-wide election would not be as effective as
the original proposal to have the Chair and one member from the Faculty-level
committee serving on the Senate committee. Having members already familiar
with the curriculum process provided operational knowledge to the Senate
committee and since the Faculty-level committees have elected members the
confidence of the Faculty had already been given to these people.
Concern was expressed that there was no guarantee that any member on SCUS
or SGSC had any knowledge of the Senate process and that the amendment did
not address that issue.
Question was called, and a vote taken.
?
AMENDMENT DEFEATED
Question was called on the main motion,
and a vote taken.
?
MAIN MOTION CARRIED
ii)
-32 -
?
Ii
Referring to the Government's proposal to introduce 'innovation' as a fourth
mission together with teaching, research and community service, opinion was
strongly expressed that this step interfered with the academic autonomy of the
university. Concern was voiced that the report from the ad hoc committee did
not address this issue and the following motion was suggested by J
.
D'Auria:
"that Senate recommends that the Federal Government not get
involved in the academic governance of universities"
The Chair advised that he would be attending a meeting of the Canadian
Association of Universities and Colleges of Canada, and this issue was on the
agenda. He was personally opposed to adding a fourth mission to the university
and would express this view if the opportunity presented itself. The Chair
reported that there had been a lot of discussion within AUCC about the
Government's report and it would be interesting to see the Government's white
paper on the matter. The Chair also advised that he and two other university
Presidents were meeting with Minister John Manley next week and it was his
intention to raise this particular concern at that meeting. The Chair indicated
that he would report the outcomes of these two meetings to Senate at the next
meeting.
Given the Chair's comments, the proposed motion was withdrawn by J
.
D'Auria.
iii)
Paper S.00-33 - Ad hoc committee to review Research Ethics Revisions
(For Information)
The terms of reference and proposed timeline for report of the committee were
presented to Senate for information. Senate was also advised that the following
S.M. 6 March 2000
Page 11
Senators had agreed to serve on the committee: W. Davidson (Chair), J
.
Driver, S.
McBride, and B. Naef.
6.
?
Other Business
i)
MBA Program for Professional Accountants
In response to an earlier inquiry about the MBA Program for Professional
Accountants, Senate was advised that this program was in the process of
receiving assessment as a new program and would come to Senate for approval
in due course. During this period, under existing Senate policy, following
approval by the Senate Graduate Studies Committee, the program was currently
being offered on a cohort basis under Special Arrangements to start in September
this year.
ii)
Graduate Application Fees
In response to an earlier inquiry about how the graduate application fees were
spent, Senate was advised that 99% of the money was accounted for and that
68% was spent on graduate student travel, and the remainder was spent on the
recruitment of graduate students and direct research costs for graduate students.
7. ?
Information
Date of the next regularly scheduled meeting - Monday, April 3, 2000.
0 ?
Open Session adjourned at 7:15 pm; Senate moved directly into Closed Session.
Alison Watt
Director, University Secretariat
0