-
A
Se,lti s/aoJ
.
?
DRAFT UNTIL APPROVED BY SENATE
Minutes of a meeting of the Senate of Simon Fraser University held on
Monday, September 14, 1998 at 7:00 pm in Room 126 Halpern Centre
Open Session
Present: ?
Blaney, Jack, President and Chair
Absent:
Berggren, Len
Akins, Kathleen
Blackman, Roger (representing J. Pierce)
Barrow, Robin
Boland, Larry
Beattie, Suzan
Bowman, Marilyn
Clayman, Bruce
Burton, Lynn Elen
Copeland, Lynn
Chan, Albert
Dunsterville, Valerie
Cheng, Winnie
Harris, Richard
Coleman, Peter
Jones, Cohn
D'Auria, John
Mathewes, Rolf
Dhillon, Khushwant
Mauser, Gary
Emerson, Joseph
Segal, Joseph
Emmott, Alan
Warsh, Michael
Finley, David
Wickstrom, Norman
Fletcher, James
Gagan, David
Giffen, Kenneth
Gilhies, Mary Ann
In attendance:
Jones, John
Brown, Robert
Kanevsky, Lannie
Johnson, Rick
Kirczenow, George
Peterman, Randall
Lewis, Brian
Selman, Mark
Marteniuk, Ron
Ward, Roger
McInnes, Dina
Morris, Joy
Naef, Barbara
Ogloff, James
Osborne, Judith
Overington, Jennifer
Percival, Paul
Peterson, Louis
Peters, Joseph
Reader, Jason
Russell, Maya
Russell, Robert
Sanghera, Balwant
Tam, Lawrence
Veerkamp, Mark
Waterhouse, John
Wortis, Michael
Zazkis, Rina
Heath, Nick, Acting Registrar
Watt, Alison, Director, Secretariat Services
Grant, Bobbie, Recording Secretary
0
PA
C!
4.
S.M. 14/09/98
Page 2
The Chair welcomed new Senator, Dr. Lynn Elen Burton, Dean of Continuing
Studies to Senate.
Approval of the Agenda
The agenda was amended to add the following items under Item 6 - Other
Business:
6.0
?
Mid-Semester Break
6.iv) Advertisements in the Calendar
6.v)
?
Exam Schedule/Last Day of Classes
Following the above additions, the agenda was approved as amended.
Approval of the Minutes of the Open Session of June 1, 1998
The Minutes were approved as distributed.
Business Arising from the Minutes
There was no business arising from the Minutes.
Report of the Chair
Paper S.98-60 - Annual Financial Statement (For Information)
Roger Ward, Vice-President Finance and Administration was in attendance in
order to respond to questions.
?
0.
In response to an inquiry about the increase in the non-recurring expenditures
from 1997 to 1998, Senate was advised that the amount varies from year to year
depending on a variety of circumstances. Senate was advised that full details of
the expenditures are provided in the University's budget which is posted on the
Web under Financial Services.
ii)
The Chair reported that on September 23, 1998 the Minister of Advanced
Education, Training and Technology, the Honorable Andrew Petter will be on
campus for several hours. Most of his time will be spent at the campus barbeque
meeting students.
iii)
The Chair reported that the Vice-Presidents and Deans had met over a
two day period to do some initial budget planning for 1999/2000. He explained
that this is an accelerated budget planning process and the deliberations of that
meeting will be presented to SCUB at its next meeting. The intent is that this
year's budget planning process will follow the same principles as last year and will
be as open and as consultative as possible.
iv)
The Chair advised that at the next meeting Senate will receive a
discussion paper entitled 'President's Agenda'. Comments and advice will be
sought from Senate and the Board of Governors.
0
S.M. 14/09/98
Page 3
I
.
5. ?
REPORTS OF COMMITTEES
a)
SENATE NOMINATING COMMITTEE
I) ?
Paper S.98-61 - Elections
The following are the results of elections to the following Senate Committees:
Committee To Review University Admissions (CRUA)
One (Alternate) Faculty Member
to replace Norbert Haunerland from date of
election to May 31, 1999.
Elected by acclamation:
?
Heeson Bai
Senate Appeals Board (SAB)
One (Alternate) Graduate (at-large)
to replace Andrea Welling from date of
election to May 31, 2000.
Elected by acclamation: ?
Thomas du Payrat
b)
SENATE COMMITTEE ON ACADEMIC PLANNING
Paper S.98-62 - Cooperative Resource Management Institute
Moved by D. Gagan, seconded by
J.
Osborne
"that Senate approve and recommend approval to the Board of
Governors, as set forth in S.98-62, the proposed Cooperative
Resource Management Institute, as a Schedule A institute"
Randall Peterman, School of Resource and Environmental Management was in
attendance in order to respond to questions.
Senate was advised that the proposal had been discussed at length by SCAP and
referred back to the School with a number of recommendations with respect to
making the new Institute more inclusive to a larger group of researchers both on
and off campus. The proposal before Senate has been revised to reflect the
suggestions from SCAP.
Reference was made to the composition of the Advisory Board and concern was
expressed that representatives from SFU appeared to be in the minority. It was
pointed out that the structure is very typical and it was not unusual for an advisory
board to be dominated by external members. Brief discussion followed with
respect to the role of the Advisory Board, and Senate's attention was drawn to
the supporting documentation which indicates that the Advisory board has no
legal responsibility and exercises no direct control over the Institute.
0 ?
Question was called, and a vote taken.
?
MOTION CARRIED
S.M. 14/09/98
Page 4
ii)
?
Paper S.98-63 - SCAP Annual Report (For Information)
The Annual Report of the Senate Committee on Academic Planning was
received by Senate for information.
c) ?
SENATE COMMITTEE ON ACADEMIC PLANNING/SENATE COMMITTEE
ON CONTINUING STUDIES
Paper 5.98-64 - Non-Credit Certificate Program: Certificate in Leadership
Learning
Moved by D. Gagan, seconded by J. Osborne
"that Senate approve and recommend approval to the Board of
Governors, as set forth in S.98-64, the Non-Credit Certificate
Program: Certificate in Leadership Learning"
Mark Selman, Associate Dean of Continuing Studies, was in attendance in order
to respond to questions.
Opinion was expressed that the central strength of the University rested in its
academic expertise within academic departments. Concern was expressed that
non-credit programs such as the one being proposed respond to the needs of the
outside community but fall outside the core academic areas of
departments/schools. It was suggested that the development of such
programming reflects a change of emphasis in the University and concern was
expressed that outside people were teaching programs under the University's
name in areas where there is no core expertise within the University.
It was pointed out that individual programs and course offerings have to be
approved by the Senate Committee on Continuing Studies, a committee whose
academic membership reflects a wide spectrum of views. The University has a
mandate to provide continuing education and it is the responsibility of the
Committee to make sure its non-credit programming complements the
academic expertise in the University. It was also noted that non-credit programs
are very popular, self-supporting, and they put the University in touch with many
businesses and industries who end up supporting SFU through contributions.
They also create goodwill and credibility in the community at-large. SFU has a
reputation for being an innovative university in the area of continuing education
because it has always geared its non-credit offerings to the expertise and interests
of its faculty members and the strengths of the University.
Brief discussion followed with respect to the specific ICBC program and its
potential for growth as well as the process for developing other programs under
this certificate.
In response to a suggestion that either SCAP or some other committee look at
the role of Continuing Studies vis-a-vis academic programs and how it views itself
in the future, Senate was advised that the three-year plan from Continuing
S.M. 14/09/98
Page 5
. Studies is widely available for perusal. Suggestion was also made to the Dean of
Continuing Studies that she may wish to initiate inquiries within the University
with respect to perceived priorities for continuing studies.
Question was called, and a vote taken. ? MOTION CARRIED
d)
SENATE APPEALS BOARD (SAB)
Paper S.98-65 - Annual Report (For Information)
The Annual Report of the Senate Appeals Board was received by Senate for
information.
e)
SENATE COMMITTEE ON ACADEMIC PLANNING/SENATE COMMITTEE
ON UNDERGRADUATE STUDIES
or I
Senate received information that the Senate Committee on Undergraduate
Studies, acting under delegated authority, approved minor revisions to existing
courses and programs within the Faculty of Education, including Minor Programs
in Environmental Education and Early Childhood Education, and B.Ed. as a
• ?
Second Degree.
0
?
SENATE COMMITTEE ON ACADEMIC PLANNING/SENATE GRADUATE
STUDIES COMMITTEE
i)
Paper S.98-67 - Graduate Curriculum Revisions - Department of English
(For Information)
Senate received information that the Senate Graduate Studies Committee,
acting under delegated authority, approved revisions to the calendar description
of the graduate program reflecting the expanded role of the Writing Centre, the
teaching of Writing and Rhetoric within the English Department, and the
addition of a new heading and section 'Specialization in Print Culture 1700-
1900".
ii)
Paper S.98-68 - Graduate Curriculum Revisions - Department of
Geography (For Information)
Senate received information that the Senate Graduate Studies Committee,
acting under delegated authority, approved two new courses in Urban Studies -
URB 600, URB 601.
iii)
Paper S.98-69 - Graduate Curriculum Revisions - Department of History
(For Information)
I s ?
Moved by D. Gagan, seconded by R. Blackman
S.M. 14/09/98
Page 6
"that Senate approve and recommend approval to the Board of
Governors, as set forth in S.98-69, the following addition to the
Calendar entry:
Full-time thesis-option students are expected to complete their
degree requirements in a maximum of five semesters, and project-
option students in a maximum of three semesters. Part-time thesis-
option students are expected to complete their degree
requirements in a maximum of eight semesters and part-time
project option students in a maximum of six semesters"
Moved by M. Russell, seconded by
J.
Overington
"that the motion be tabled until the recommendations of the
Graduate Students Survey Implementation Task Force have been
received"
Initial results from the graduate survey indicate that completion time is a fairly
salient issue and suggestion was made that it would be prudent to wait until the
Task Force has completed its work before Senate considered this matter.
Question was called, and a vote taken. ?
MOTION TO TABLE CARRIED
Senate received information that the Senate Graduate Studies Committee,
acting under delegated authority, approved minor revisions to existing courses
within the Department of History, including deletion of HIST 863, 866, 889, and
new courses HIST 812, 825.
g)
?
SENATE COMMITTEE ON AGENDA AND RULES
Paper S.98-70 - Report - Ad Hoc Committee to Review the Role of
Senate regarding University Policies
Moved by D. Gagan, seconded by B. Sanghera
"that Senate approve the addition of section 3 to the terms of
reference of the Senate committee on Agenda and Rules:
3. To receive, in a timely manner, all proposed new University
Policies and all proposed revisions to existing policies (excluding
those policies negotiated with employee groups), and to
determine which policies should be forwarded to Senate.
Senate consideration will take one of the following forms:
Approval For those proposed policies and policy revisions which
SCAR determines to fall within Senate's jurisdiction as
defined by the University Act.
Advice For those proposed policies and policy revisions which
SCAR determines to be of direct interest to Senate
and which should be discussed at Senate.
S.M. 14/09/98
Page
7
• Information For those proposed policies and policy revisions which
SCAR determines should be circulated to Senate for
information."
It was noted that the motion pertained to proposed new policies and future
revisions to existing policies. Inquiry was made as to the process to be followed if
there were concerns about existing policies not under revision. Senate was
advised that these concerns could be brought forward to Senate for consideration
at any time.
Question was called, and a vote taken.
?
MOTION CARRIED
Inquiry was made as to the status of the remainder of the statements on the blue
cover sheet of document
S.98-70, particularly the two statements at the top of
page two. Senate was advised that they are statements of what SCAR has agreed
to do but do not form part of the formal motion. If Senate desired, they could be
moved as motions. It was pointed out that the policies referred to were currently
under revision and therefore would come to Senate probably by the end of next
semester.
Opinion was expressed that the Policy Gazette was a good idea but concern was
raised that not everyone may have access to the Web. Suggestion was made that
the information, in some form, be advertised in SF News in order to alert a wider
•
?
section of the university community. There were no objections to this suggestion.
ii)
?
Paper
S.98-71 -
Voting Eligibility - Part-time Employees
Motion #1 - Continuing Faculty
Moved by D. Gagan, seconded by R. Blackman
"that Part-time tenure-track and tenured faculty (Instructors,
Assistant Professors, Associate Professors and Professors including
faculty on post-retirement contracts) and continuing Lecturers,
Senior Lecturers and Lab Instructors and Librarians with
appointments of 50% or greater be granted the same rights as full-
time colleagues holding the same rank, to nominate, stand for
election and vote in the following:
• elections to Senate committees;
• elections for search committees for chairs/directors, deans, vice-
presidents and president
• elections of chairs/directors
• ratification of chairs/directors and deans (internal candidates)
• recall votes for chairs/directors and deans"
Question was called, and a vote taken. ?
MOTION #1 CARRIED
Motion #2 - Limited Term Faculty
Moved by D. Gagan, seconded by R. Blackman
S.M. 14/09/98
Page
"that Part-time Limited Term faculty (Instructors, Assistant
Professors, Associate Professors and Professors) and Limited Term
Lecturers, Senior Lecturers and Lab Instructors and Librarians with
appointments that are 50% or greater and longer than one year, be
granted the same rights as full-time colleagues holding -t ' he same
rank, to nominate, stand for election and vote in the followig:
• elections to Senate committees
• elections for search committees for chairs/directors, deans, vice-
presidents and president
• elections of chairs/directors
• ratification of chairs/directors and deans (internal candidates);
• recall votes for chairs/directors and deans"
Opinion was expressed that it was inappropriate to give limited term
appointments the same rights and privileges as faculty who have long term
commitments to the University.
It was pointed out that a number of limited term appointments are made
because of the nature of funding for the position in question, and the process of
appointment and renewal is equivalent to the tenure-track process. In such
cases, the appointments result in tenure-track positions and opinion was
expressed that they should have the same rights and privileges.
The view was expressed that while there may be some limited term
appointments such as those described above which ought to be included, there
were many other limited term appointments which were not equivalent to
tenure-track positions and should not be given the same rights. Unless adequate
wording was offered to distinguish between the different groups, opinion was
expressed that the motion was inappropriate. Objection was also made to giving
part-time limited term appointments the same rights and privileges as continuing
faculty.
Question was called, and a vote taken. ?
MOTION #2 DEFEATED
Motion #3 - Support Staff
Moved by D. Gagan, seconded by R. Blackman
"that Part-time continuing support staff with appointments of 50%
or greater with terms of longer than one year, be granted the same
rights as full-time colleagues holding the same type of appointment,
to nominate, stand for election and vote in the following:
• elections for search committees for deans, vice-presidents and
president"
Objection was raised with respect to allowing support staff to vote on search
committees in general, and opinion expressed that extending this privilege to
part-time support staff went too far.
Question was called, and a vote taken.
?
MOTION #3 CARRIED
?
S
S.M. 14/09/98
Page 9
iii)
?
Paper S.98-72 - Revision to SCAP Membership
Moved by D. Gagan, seconded by
J.
Osborne
"that Senate approve that the membership of SCAP be amended
to replace the Director of Extension Credit Programs with the Dean
of Continuing Studies"
Question was called, and a vote taken.
?
MOTION CARRIED
6. ?
OTHER BUSINESS
Mid-Semester Break
Senate's attention was drawn to the mid-semester break announced in the new
Calendar affecting classes on Monday, February 16th, 1999 and Tuesday, February
17th, 1999.
It was noted that the idea for a mid-semester break originated from a student
held referendum in which approximately 60% of the votes cast were in favour of
the idea. However, the academic staff had no input or opportunity to debate this
issue and this matter should have been addressed by Senate. It was pointed out
that scheduling a mid-semester break required the approval of Senate.
Therefore,the break
g h
ft"u
ILhe declared not to exist and SenateThe given an
opportunity at the next meeting to consider how a mid-semester break might be
accommodated.
Points of order were raised but the concerns were resolved by agreement that
the Registrar be instructed to bring forward to the next meeting, an appropriate
motion, together with rationale and all possible options, for a mid-semester
break.
It was also agreed that the University community would be notified that no mid-
semester break had been approved by Senate at this time, and that Senate
would consider this matter in October.
ii)
?
Paper S.98-73 - Burnaby Mountain Development
Moved by A. Chan, seconded by
J.
Reader
"Under the authority outlined in Section 370)(o) of the
University
Act, 1996 R.S.B.C., Chap. 468, Senate recommends that the Board
of Governors submits any and all construction plans regarding the
Burnaby Mountain Development Project to Senate for full
consultation purposes before the Board gives its final approval to the
project"
El
S.M. 14/09/98
Page 10
R. Brown, President Designate of the Burnaby Mountain Community
Corporation, and R. Johnson, Director of Facilities Management, were in
attendance in order to respond to questions.
R. Brown indicated that while he had no problem with the principle of the
motion, he was concerned with the specific language which he felt was
unworkable. He explained that it was perfectly reasonable to bring the major
issues pertaining to the development project to Senate for information and
discussion but he pointed out that the Board of Governors had already approved
what property of the University will be developed and had endorsed the Official
Community Plan which has been approved by the City of Burnaby. R. Brown
went on to say that there were two items on the immediate agenda which he felt
would be very interesting for Senate to discuss. A vision statement for the project
is currently in preparation and once that has been agreed to by the community, a
master plan for the overall development of the project will be undertaken. He
indicated he would be quite happy to bring both of these items to Senate for
discussion and consultation prior to taking them to the Board.
A suggestion by
J.
Overington to change the motion as follows, was accepted as a
friendly amendment:
"Senate recommends that the Board of Governors submits any and
all community development plans regarding the Burnaby Mountain
Development Project to Senate for full consultation purposes
before the Board gives its final approval to the project plans"
Senate was advised that students were largely concerned with the human
component of the plan rather than detailed planning documents, and R. Brown
indicated that the two items which he had previously referred related to this type
of issue.
Question was called, and a vote taken.
?
MOTION (AS AMENDED) CARRIED
iii) ?
Paper S. 98-74 - Student Day of Action
Motion #1
Moved by
J.
Morris, seconded by
J.
Overington
"that faculty consider student participation in the National Day of
Action on Friday, October 16, 1998 as grounds for academic
concession"
Federal cuts over the past several years to post-secondary education were referred
to, and Senate was advised that the Canadian Federation of Students had
organized a national Day of Action to protest these cuts and call upon all levels of
government to assume responsibility for the adequate funding of post-secondary
education. Since increased funding benefits everyone at the University, it is
hoped that students and faculty could work together to ensure that students who
wish to participate in the Day of Action would not be penalized for missing class.
S.M.
14/09/98
Page 11
Opinion was expressed that Senate had an obligation to remain neutral and it
would be inappropriate for Senate to grant preferential treatment and
concessions to students who have certain beliefs and wish to engage in a
particular political activity.
Since the focus of the student activity was directly related to education and was
being coordinated for increased funding which would benefit everyone,
suggestion was made that Senate might perhaps be able to support a more
general motion.
Opinion was expressed that the request was very modest and only required
minimal action on behalf of the University. It was pointed out that the motion, as
it was worded, does not obligate or force anyone to do anything; rather it makes a
statement which faculty may or may not consider. Therefore, it should be viewed
as mild support for an issue of importance to students rather than as making a
strong political statement by Senate.
Clarification was requested about the meaning of the term 'academic concession'
and whether the motion, if approved, requires faculty to consider student
participation as grounds for academic concession or whether it means that faculty
may consider it as grounds. It was suggested that "academic concession" would
allow a reasonable opportunity for students to learn the material they have
• missed, as would be provided if they were sick, and faculty would be obliged to
consider student participation as grounds for academic concession but it would
be up to individual faculty members to decide whether participation was
adequate grounds or not.
Opinion was expressed that while it was commendable for students to organize
and participate in this kind of political activity, students should balance their
participation with their individual academic activities as it would be inappropriate
for Senate to condone particular actions on particular topics.
Concern was expressed that the motion, as it is worded, does not allow
consistency between different Faculties or faculty members and some students
may be penalized while others may not.
Question was called, and a vote taken.
?
MOTION #1 DEFEATED
Motion #2:
Moved by J. Morris, seconded by
J.
Reader
"that faculty be encouraged to reschedule any exams, quizzes and
mandatory assignments scheduled for October
16, 1998"
Senate was advised that this motion simply gives faculty members advance notice
of the Day of Action and asks them to give some consideration to help students
. ?
who wish to participate in something that directly benefits everyone at the
University.
S.M. 14/09/98
Page 12
Senate was advised that the Student Society has organized some informational
workshops on this issue and Senators were encouraged to either attend or review
the material available.
It was suggested that perhaps this type of activity should be planned on a
weekend or that students participate between classes. It was noted that the
protest is held downtown and it would not be easy for students to travel back and
forth. Past experience has shown that students have to choose between their
class and participation and it would be helpful if they didn't have to face missing a
quizz or exam.
Question was called, and a vote taken.
? MOTION #2 DEFEATED?
Moved by M. Veerkamp, seconded by P. Percival
"that faculty are advised that October 16, 1998 is a day of action
and protest and they are requested to avoid exams and quizzes on
that day"
Suggestion was made that the motion is out of order since it is essentially the
same as motion #2. The Chair ruled that a vote would be taken on the motion
without lengthy discussion.
Question was called, and a vote taken.
? MOTION DEFEATED
iv) ?
Advertisement in the Calendar
J. D'Auria moved the following Notice of Motion for discussion at the next
meeting of Senate:
"that advertising not be allowed in the Calendar until the principle
has been approved by Senate and the relevant procedures on how
the advertising will be selected are discussed"
Last Day of Classes/Exam Schedule
Senate was reminded of a motion it had previously passed specifying that when
the start of classes falls on a Tuesday after a Monday holiday, the last day of classes
is extended by one day into the exam schedule. This did not happen this
semester even though classes started on the Tuesday after Labour Day.
Senate was advised that when Labour Day falls on the last possible day it can, such
as the case this year, the formula to extend the semester into the exam schedule
does not work. Given all of the steps that the Registrar must take to get the
grades in and check student performances for registration/non-registration in the
following semester, all of the work must be completed by midnight December
24th. If the last day of classes were to take place on December 7th instead of
December 4th, the grading process required to be carried out by the Registrar's
S.M.
14/09/98
Page
13
•
?
Office would run into Christmas Day. This situation happens once every seven
years.
Opinion was expressed that the objection was that the Registrar did not bring this
to the attention of Senate and ask for an exemption.
In light of the various Calendar issues which have come up, suggestion was made
that it might be appropriate to set up a calendar committee or designate one of
Senate's standing committees to oversee the Calendar and have the Calendar
officially approved by Senate. The Chair indicated that SCAR would consider the
suggestion and report back to Senate.
7. ?
Information
The date of the next regularly scheduled meeting of Senate is Monday, October
5, 1998
and will be held in
WMC 3210.
The Open Session adjourned at
9:20
pm. Following a brief recess, the Assembly moved
into Closed Session.
Alison Watt
Director, Secretariat Services
0