Amended by Senate
S.M. 2 November 2009
DRAFT UNTIL APPROVED BY SENATE
S
?
Minutes of a Meeting of the Senate of Simon Fraser University held on
Monday, October 5, 2009 at 5:30 pm in Room 3210 WMC
Open Session
Present
Stevenson, Michael, President and Chair of Senate
Beale, Alison
Bezglasnyy, Anton
Brennand, Tracy
Chapman, Glenn
Chiu, Christina
Copeland, Lynn
Cormack, Lesley
Dow, Greg
Driver, Jon
Easton, Stephen
Francis, June
Geisler, Cheryl
Gibson, Eli
Gordon, Robert
Hiscocks, Graham
Janes, Craig
Laba, Martin
Lee, Shara
Leznoff, Daniel
MacGrotty, Alysia
Magnusson, Kris
Myers, Gordon
Nadison, Ada
Parkhouse, Wade
Patel, Ravi
Paterson, David
Percival, Colin
Percival, Paul
Peters, Joseph
Pierce, John
Pinto, Mario
Plischke, Michael
Rajapakse, Nimal
Russell, Robert
Sahinalp, Cenk
Scott, Jamie
Sahpiro, Daniel
Tabin, Yvonne (representing T. Nesbit)
Tiffany, Evan
van der Wey, Dolores
Warner, D'Arcy
Williams, Tony
Zelezny, Joseph
Absent
Fizzell, Maureen
Funt, Elliott
Godson, All
Golnaraghi, Farid
Hannah, David
Harding, Kevin
Joffies, Michel
Krane, Bill
Li, Fiona
Louie, Brandt
Marshall, Beth
McArthur, James
Moubarak, Cristel
Noble, Cameron
O'Neil, John
Pavsek, Christopher
Ruben, Peter
Thompson, Steve
Underhill, Owen
Wakkary, Ron
Woodbury, Rob
Ross, Kate, Registrar and Secretary of Senate
Grant, Bobbie, Recording Secretary
.
S.M. 5 October 2009
Page 2
Approval of the Agenda
The Agenda was approved as distributed.
2.
Approval of the Minutes of the Open Session of September 14, 2009
Reference was made to the fourth paragraph on page 3. Opinion was expressed that
although the Chair's statement was recorded correctly, it was somewhat incorrect and
should be clarified. The Senate Policy Committee on Scholarships, Awards & Bursaries
was aware last year at the beginning of the fiscal year that the scholarship budget would be
overspent. Although the Chair felt that his statement was not inconsistent with the
opinion expressed, the difference of view would be noted for clarification. In reference to
the same paragraph, the Secretary of Senate was asked to make corrections to the
grammar. A misspelling of Senator Francis' name on page 4 was also noted for correction.
Following the above-noted corrections and clarification, the Minutes were approved.
3.
Business Arising from the Minutes
There was no business arising from the Minutes.
4.
Report of the Chair
There was no report from the Chair.
Question Period
i) ?
Paper S.09-114 - Report on Enrolment
The Vice-President Academic introduced the report by providing background
information with respect to the situation which resulted in over enrolment for the current
semester. Senate was advised that there were a number of unpredictable factors which
affected the University's ability to estimate the targets, particularly the number of domestic
and international students accepting offers and the number of returning students from the
previous year.
Reference was made to Table 4 and inquiry was made as to the reason why the number of
domestic students going into the Faculty of Science appeared to be lower than the target
for Science. It was pointed out that the grade point cutoff between Health Sciences and
Science was not harmonized. Therefore, students whose first choice was Science but could
not get into Science entered Health Sciences instead. Since many of these students take
the same Science courses the FTE course enrolments in Science were at capacity. In future
semesters, the GPA cutoff in Science and Health Sciences would be harmonized which
hopefully would correct some of the imbalance.
A concern was expressed about the impact of over enrolment on existing students who
were already struggling to get the courses they need. Senate was informed that the increase
in enrolment resulted in an increase of tuition fees. Some of this revenue would be
allotted to Faculties in the Spring and Summer semesters in order to increase course
capacity to help deal with the bulge in enrolment for this year. However, Senate was
reminded that this bulge in enrolment will have to work its way through the system over
the next several years so this will be an ongoing problem.
S.M. 5 October 2009
Page 3
In response to an inquiry as to whether there were any plans to increase the entry GPA,
Senate was informed that there were no current plans but the issue needs to be reviewed.
A small change of even one percent can have significant impact on whether enrolment is
under or over target so some modeling exercises need to be done before SCEMP can
make any recommendation in this regard.
In response to requests for additional enrolment data on issues such as gender balance,
anomalies by Faculty, and distribution on GPA averages and ranges, Senate was reminded
that much of this information is already available on the web site of Institutional Research
and Planning (IRP). The web site provides a wide range of updated information about
students and their participation in various areas of the University, and Senators were
encouraged to review the IRP web site for the information they were seeking.
Brief discussion took place with respect to GPA averages and grading. It was pointed out
that there is a 'grading report' on the IRP web site which provides information about
grading in different departments and Faculties. The data also provides a sense of what the
trends are in the University.
Post Meeting Note: Clarification was made that the discussion on grades related to information on
averages for high school grades which was not currently available on the IRP webs ite.
6. ?
Reports of Committees
0
?
A) ?
Senate Library Committee and Library Penalties Appeal Committee
i) ?
Paper S.09-109 - Annual Report (For Information)
Senate received the 2008/2009 Annual Report of the Senate Library Committee,
including a report from the Library Penalties Appeal Committee, for information.
B) ?
Senate Graduate Studies Committee
i) ?
Paper S.09-110 - Faculty of Applied Sciences - Curriculum Revisions (For
Information)
Senate's attention was drawn to the first bullet in the document. It was noted that the
specific name of the program - Computing Science - which was essential information was
missing from the documentation. In addition, opinion was expressed that this item was a
major change to a program and should have been brought to Senate for approval. The
Dean of Graduate Studies advised Senate that consultation about this issue with SCUP had
determined that this was a repackaging of existing courses which did not require approval
and therefore it was forwarded to Senate for information. P. Percival wished to register his
disagreement on the point.
• Following the above-noted discussion, the curriculum changes to Computing Science
approved by the Senate Graduate Studies Committee under delegated authority were
received by Senate.
S.M. 5 October 2009
Page 4
ii) ?
Paper S.09-111 - Facult
y
of Education - Curriculum Revisions (For Information) ?
S
Senate received information that the Senate Graduate Studies Committee, acting under
delegated authority, approved curriculum changes to existing courses and programs in the
Faculty of Education.
C) ?
Senate Nominating Committee
i) ?
Paper S.09-112 Revised - Elections
Senate's attention was drawn to the revised Senate paper which had been distributed prior
to the start of the meeting. The Secretary reported that additional nominations were noted
on the paper and that an election was required for an undergraduate student to DQAC.
An online ballot would take place following the Senate meeting. All other names as
shown on Senate Paper S.09-112 Revised were declared elected by acclamation.
Outstanding vacancies would be carried forward to the next meeting of Senate.
Post-meeting note: The online ballot resulted in the election of Anna Shoemaker for the
Undergraduate Student position on the Diverse Qualifications Adjudication Committee
(DQAC) for term of office to May 31, 2010.
7.
?
Other Business
i) ?
Paper S.09-113 - Process to Review Agreement with Fraser International College
(For Information)
The Vice-President, Academic introduced the paper by providing brief background
information. In March 2006 Senate approved the academic affiliation with FTC and
required the Vice-President, Academic to prepare a report due in June 2010 prior to
renewal of the affiliation. A list of review topics requested by Senate are outlined in the
document before Senate, as are a number of additional issues which the VPA felt needed
to be addressed. The review process was also described in the document. Essentially, an
external review analogous to the process used for external reviews of academic
departments will be used. The review will be initiated by a self study which will primarily
be prepared by the Vice-President Academic's office and the review team will then be
given the self study and a set of terms of reference. Expectations are that the review will
be sent to Senate by next June or earlier, and the list of documents which Senate will
receive are listed in the last paragraph on page 3.
Clarification was requested with respect to what was meant by the specification that
members of the review team must have expertise in international education, and by the
condition that members have no previous involvement with FTC. Senate was advised that
the specification for expertise in international education was deliberately vague and could
relate to a number of things such as people involved in recruitment of international
students, or people doing research on international students in North America. With
regard to the condition about no previous involvement with FIC, the intent was to have
people on the review team that are as far removed from the relationship with FTC as
S.M. 5 October 2009
Page 5
S ?
possible. Ideally it would not include faculty members in departments that have a lot of
interaction with FIC and would not include anyone in any kind of administrative or
oversight position.
Concern was expressed that excluding faculty from departments that are closely associated
with FIC, eliminates people with the most expertise in areas where the majority of
students are coming from. It was pointed out that academic units involved with FIC will
be consulted with regard to their relationship and experience with FIG so the opinion and
experience of these units will be given serious consideration in the review process.
Support was expressed for modeling the review process on the external review process of
other academic units, and the Vice-President, Academic was complimented on what
appears to be a very sound approach to this review.
Returning to the issue of qualifications for review team members, the Vice-President,
Academic wished to seek the advice of Senate on having non-faculty as members of the
review team. He explained that in anticipation of getting the process started, he had begun
looking for potential members and, going outside the University, had been referred to
individuals who are not faculty members but are heavily involved in international post
secondary education. The document before Senate specifies that the review team would
consist of faculty members. Senate's advice was sought on the advisability of including
non-faculty individuals who have a professional interest in international education, such as
• a Director of the Office of International Students at a university, or someone who works
for a major national or international development agency. Following a brief discussion, it
was determined that the majority view of Senate was that the review team should consist
of faculty members.
8.
?
Information
The date of the next regularly scheduled meeting of Senate is Monday, November 2,
2009.
The Chair reminded Senators of the upcoming Convocation ceremonies on October 8'
and
9th,
2009 and encouraged as many Senators as possible to attend.
The Open Session adjourned at 6:09 pm, and Senate moved directly into Closed Session.
Kate Ross
Registrar and Secretary of Senate
0