Page 1
Page 2
Page 3
Page 4
Page 5
Page 6
Page 7
Page 8
Page 9

S.95-21

SIMON FRASER UNIVERSITY

Memorandum

To: ?

Senate

From: ?

Senate Committee on Agenda and Rules

Date: ?

February 20, 1995

Subject:

Amendment of SCAP's Terms of Reference and Membership

Action undertaken by the Senate Committee on Academic Planning at its meetings of

December 14, 1994, February 8, 1995, and January 11, 1995 gives rise to the

following motions:

Motion #1

"that Senate approve that the terms of reference for the Senate

Committee on Academic Planning be amended with the

following addition to section 1:

e) to advise the President annually through the Vice-President,

Academic on the priorities which should be attached to the

central allocation of resources which are required to

implement approved new programs"

Motion #2

"that Senate approve that the terms of reference for the Senate

Committee on Academic Planning be amended with the

following change to section 2:

2. To consider and make recommendations to Senate on all

proposals involving new undergraduate and graduate

programs and courses, or major modifications to existing

programs and courses according to the criteria

and the

guidelines specified in

S.81-157,

and to report,

in summary

form, to Senate (for information) and the Board (for

ratification) revisions to existing courses and programs which

have been approved by SCUS or SGSC acting under

delegated authority."

Motion #3

"that Senate approve that Continuing Studies representation on

the Senate Committee on Academic Planning be changed from

the Vice-President Harbour Centre and Continuing Studies to

the Director of Extension Credit Programs."

SIMON FRASER UNIVERSITY

MEMORANDUM

To:

Senate

From:

J.M. Munro, Chair, Senate Committee on Academic Planning

Subject:

Amendment of SCAP's Terms of Reference and Membership

Date: ?

14 February, 1995

1. ?

Addition of I e) to Terms of Reference

Action undertaken at the meeting of the Senate Committee on Academic Planning

on December 14, 1994 gives rise to the following motion:

Motion:

That the terms of reference for the Senate Committee on Academic

Planning be amended with the following addition to section 1:

e) to advise the President annually through the Vice President,

Academic on the priorities which should be attached to the central

allocation of resources which are required to implement approved

5 ?

new programs."

In the fall, Senator Swartz

raised a question at Senate and then wrote to the Senate

Committee on Agenda and Rules concerning the process of program approval and

implementation of approved programs.

This matter was discussed at SCAP twice in the Fall semester. SCAP considered

The revision to the terms of reference would require that prior to the allocation of

new funds to any new program, the Vice-President, Academic would bring this

matter to SCAP for consultation. It would leave the approval process for new

programs as it stands, separate from the process of program implementation, but

would provide a mechanism for the priorization of programs which require

university funds. This revision is consistent with the recommended revisions to

the terms of reference of the Senate Committee on University Budget.

Two additional comments are required. First, new programs which do not require

allocation of University-level funding will be implemented by decision of the

Dean of the Faculty. Second, enrollment growth funding for expansion of existing

programs (as opposed to enrollment growth through new programs) would not be

S ?

included in the consultation process, since these programs are not new.

Finally, I should add that my practice with programs which require University-

level funding has been to consult with the Committee before implementation. An

example of

this

was the procedure we followed in

discussing allocations from the

1994/95 Academic Enhancement Fund. : H H

Item 2 of SCAP's terms of reference

Action undertaken at the meeting of the Senate Committee on Academic Planning

on February 8, 1995 gives -rise to the following motion:

Motion:

That the terms of reference for the Senate Committee on Academic

Planning be amended with the following: change to section 2:

2. ?

"To consider and make recommendations to Senate on all proposals

involving new undergraduate and graduate programs and courses, or major

modifications to existing programs and courses according to the criteria

and

the guidelines specified in S.81-157,

and to report,

in summary form, to

Senate (for information) and the Board (for ratification) revisions to existing

courses and programs which have been approved by SCLIS or SGSC acting

under delegated authority.

S.81-157 contains the current guidelines SCAP uses for dealing with new program

approval, including the current approval in principle guidelines. This needs to be

included in SCAP's terms of reference. In addition, the end of the paragraph has

also been reworded (also in italics) for darity.

Revision of membership.

Action undertaken at the meeting of the Senate Committee on Academic Planning

on January 11, 1995 gives rise to the following motion:

Motion:

"That Continuing Studies representation on the Senate Committee on

Academic Planning be changed from the Vice-President Harbour Centre and

Continuing Studies to the Director of Extension Credit Programs."

In forwarding this recommendation to SCAP, Dr. Blaney noted that the Director of

Extension Credit Programs works with all Faculties with regard to the planning

and offering of their extension credit programs and should be fully informed of all

Senate approved policies and regulations.

Senate Committee on University Budget - Terms

Reference

The proposed revision of the terms of reference of the Senate Committee on

University Budget are consistent with the proposed revision Of SCAP's terms of

reference.

Senate Committees - October 1994

2. SENATE COMIM1TTEE ON ACADEMIC PLANNING (SCAP)

- Standing (Reporting Category "B")

Vice-President Finance

Ex-officio

and Administration

(Non-voting)

Dean of Applied Sciences

Dean of Graduate Studies

Vice-President Harbour Centre

and Continuing Studies

30/95

30195

yrs.

Secretary, Ex-officio

1. To be responsible for the implementation of a system of academic planning based on S.80-98.

•

Specifically, the Committee will undertake the following responsibilities:

to provide periodic assessments of the present and probable future environments of the University, its

students, and its community;

to identify priorities for the development of new academic programs and emerging research areas;

to gather information concerning initiatives in the development of programs at all levels in the

University;

to ensure coordination of academic planning

with the provision of facilities and services, with financial

Senate Committees - Octóbèr 1994

resources, and with planning for the total post-secondary education system in British Columbia.

To consider and make recommendations to Senate on all proposals involving new undergraduate

graduate programs and courses, or major modifications to existing programs and courses, according t

criteria specified in S.80-98, and to report to Senate for information and the Board for ratification,

summary form, all proposed revisions to an existing course or program for which SCUS or SGSC, acting

under delegated authority, has concluded all matters.

To review existing programs according to the criteria set out in S.80-98 for the purpose of assessment

and, in some cases, possible expansion, curtailment, or discontinuance.

To receive and review recommendations for the establishment of centres and institutes under AC

and

forward recommendations to Senate and the Board of Governors.

In carrying out its responsibilities, the Senate Committee on Academic Planning may establish task forces

or sub-committees to deal with particular tasks.

Delegation of Senate Authority to SCAP:

Senate approved on April 6, 1987 that SCUS become a subcommittee of SCAP (S.87-8), thereby having

reporting responsibilities to' SCAP rather than Senate, and that responsibilities previously delegated to SCUS

by Senate be delegated to SCAP with the understanding that SCAP might further delegate appropriate

responsibilities to SCUS.

At the meeting of SCAP on September 16, 1987, SCAP approved the delegation of those responsibilities to

SCUS, with appropriate amendments to require that such items be reported to SCAP in a timely manner.

Notwithstanding this authority, SCAP retains the right to forward for consideration by Senate any matter

which, in the judgement of the Committee or its Chair, requires such consideration.

Approved by Senate at its meeting of October 6, 1975 to replace the former

Presidential Committee - Academic Planning Committee. Changes in members

and changes in terms of reference approved by Senate, December 1, 1980. Revi

in membership approved by Senate, October 4, 1982 (S.82-99). Revision

membership to reflect University reorganization approved by Senate, May 13, 1985

(S.85-33). Senate approved that the delegation of Senate authority previously

granted to SCUS, be transferred to SCAP with the understanding that SCAP may

further delegate appropriate responsibilities to SCUS - April 6, 1987 (S.87-8).

Responsibilities delegated to SCUS at the meeting of SCAP on September 16, 1987

(SCAP 87-4). Revision in membership approved by Senate October 1, 1990 (S.90-

41). Revision in terms of reference approved by Senate July 6, 1992

(S.92-52).

Revision in membership approved by Senate June 6, 1994 (S.94-46)

Committee meetings normally are scheduled monthly on Wednesdays, two days after the scheduled meeting

date of Senate, at 2:00 p.m., with adjournment not later than 5:00 p.m.

SCAP reports to Senate in May of each year.

SIMthNkliA

Lti

U1"IYI11'II I 

MEMORANDUM

SENATE 

J. MUNRO, CHAIRMAN 

From

....................................................

SENATE COMMITTEE ON ACADEMIC PLANNING 

PROPOSED REVISIONS TO GUIDELINES FOR 

Subject.

?Y9S ?

SENATE . 

?

ON ? 

.

Date.P ?

.-7.,. .

8..............................

ACADEMIC PLANNING 

Actions taken by the Senate Committee on Academic Planning, at its meetings of 

October 7 and November 4, 1981 give rise to the following motion: 

MOTION: ? 

That Senate approve, as set forth in.S.81-157, the 

revised Guidelines for Program Review, as follows: 

REVISIONS TO GUIDELINES FOR PROGRAM REVIEW 

As revised in Paper S.8Q-16, the Senate Committee on Academic Planning has 

three- .major teirns of reference. -The first of these, the implementation of a 

system of academic planning, is presently being addressed by 

.

a series of planning 

task-forces. The second and third involve reviewing and recommending to Senate 

concerning proposals for new programs, or major modifications to existing programs 

and the review of existing programs for the purposes of assessment, expansion, 

curtailment or discontinuance. In paper S.81-81, Senate approved guidelines for 

• ? 

the review of programs by SCAP. Subsequent expressions of concern by members of 

the Committee and other members of Senate over the impact of increasing fiscal 

• ? 

constraints on the operation of existing academic programs have led to the follow- 

ing proposal to revise the Guidelines for Program Review. It is also intended 

• ? 

that SCAP will revert to the practice of closing its meetings during the final 

consideration and voting on program proposals. 

1.

Accoiding to the definition of Universities Council, "A program is a sequence 

of cre-dit courses leading to 'a University credential. A credential is a 

diploma, certificate, degree or other type of official recognition awarded 

to a student by a University." 

2.

Decisions concerning whether proposed changes to existing programs are "major," 

and therefore fall within the terms of reference of SCAP, will be made jointly 

by the Secretary of Senate, and the Chairman of the Senate Committee on Academic 

Planning. 

3.

New Programs are to be brought forward for approval in principle well in 

advance of detailed program preparation. The purpose of seeking in-principle 

approval is to guide departments and individual faculty members away from pro- 

gram planning that is inconsistent with long-term University goals and resources. 

In-principle approval does not bind SCAP to recommending full approval under 6. 

below. 

Programs brought forward for approval in-principle shall: 

al Rave received endorsement by the Faculty and, in the case of graduate 

•

?

programs by the Senate Graduate Studies Committee; 

b) Be accompanied by information establishing the need for the program and 

•

?

describing its impact on, and, relationship to, existing programs; 

ci Be accompanied by an outline of anticipated development of the department 

over the next few years; 

d) Be accompanied by information concerning the objectives of the program, 

an outline of its structure, enrolment estimates, and resources required. 

4. When a program is given in-principle approval SCAP stail assign one or tre 

following priority classifications to the program, based on 3a), 

-

d), above: 

"essential," "important," "desirable." 

5. Once approval iri-principl 

g

has been given, detailed program planning can com- 

mence. Liaison should be maintained with the Offices of the Vice-President, 

Academic and Analytical Studies during the program planning phase. The 

information than is required for consideration of new programs at the UBC 

level is 

contained in the Program Coordinating Committee Guidelines. Program 

proposals should be prepared following the topical outline used in the PCC 

Guidelines. It should be noted that outside consultation and review are 

expected in the case of significant new programs. 

6.

When

a program that has received in-principle approval is presented for full 

approval by the Senate Committee on Academic Planning, the following informa- 

tion will be included: 

a). A statement On the academic merit and importance of the program and its 

im p 

act on other programs in the University. 

b)

Enrolment projections. 

c)

Staffing and other operating budget requirements. The Dean of the 

Faculty may be rquested to indicate the source of required new expen- 

ditures. 

d)

Space requirements. 

e)

Equipment requirements. 

In considering its recommendations, the Senate Committee on Academic Planning 

will follow the "Criteria for Program As    

?

contained in paper 5.80-98 

(see Appendix A to this memorandum) . The responsibility of the Senate Committee 

on Academic Planning is to assess the academic merit of programs but not to 

make a decision as to whether funds should actually be spent on the program. 

However, SCAP does have a role in assessing the reasonableness of estimated 

resource needs of new programs. Also, this information does interact with 

considerations of academic merit. 

7. The Senate Committee on Academic Planning will recommend to the President on 

the priorities to be attached to new programs as required (usually by March 31) 

by the UCEC Program Coordinating Committee. 

8. The Committee will, by January31 each year, recommend priorities for the 

implementation of all new programs approved by Senate, BOard, and Universities 

Council and scheduled for implemntation in the next fiscal year. 

9. In recognition of the deadlines of 

•

the UCEC Program Coordinating Committee, 

the annual deadline for receipt of new program submissions for final approval 

by the Senate Committee on Academic Planning will be October .20. 

10. The Senate Committee on Academic Planning may initiate the review of an existing 

program: ? 

a) on its own motion; 

b)

at the request of the Vice-President, Academic or the appropriate 

Dean; 

c)

as requested by Senate. 

The Committee shall, when it initiates a review, approve the composition and 

terms of reference of the review committee, including the distribution of the 

committee's report. The review committee may include persons from outside the 

University. The criteria attached in Appendix A will guide the review of exist- 

ing programs. 

U. The Program Guidelines of the UCBC Program Co-ordinating Committee ate aached 

for information, Appendix B 

-.

'p

The reason for the suggested revision in item 10 is to make the 

procedure for initiating, carrying out, and-reporti 

n

g the review of 

existing programs more workable. The provision of the UCBC Program 

Co-ordinating Committee Program Guidelines is intended to make this 

information more generally available to the University. 

V

J.M. Munro

I *

APPENDIX A

As approved by Senate 

CRITERIA FOR PROGRAM

ASSESSMENT 

It is expected that the identification of. 

-

the purposes to which Simon 

Fraser will direct its efforts and, energies will encourage and facilitate 

the development of a number of new and innovative programs. Assigning 

priorities to various proposals 

will be a difficult task. Ranking should 

be based partly on how a proposal is measured against the following charac- 

teristics. 

1.

The program has intrinsic academic excellence and is 

something this University can expect to do well. 

2.

The program substantially enriches the existing 

teaching programs of the University. 

3.

The program builds upon existing 'programs and 

resources in the University. 

4.

The program anticipates' provincial or national 

needs. 

5.

The program does not unnecessarily duplicate 

existing programs at other universities in,the 

Province. 

6.

The excellence of the program attracts students 

to the University. 

Existing programs should also be subject to periodic review. Such 

reviews provide an opportunity to assess individual programs and to provide 

a basis for recommending their expansion, curtailment or discontinuance. 