.
?
DRAFT UNTIL APPROVED BY SENATE
Minutes of a meeting of the Senate of Simon Fraser University held on
?
Monday, May 10, 2004 at 5:30 pm in Room 3210 WMC
Open Session
Present: Stevenson, Michael
President and Chair of Senate
Absent:
Beynon, Peter
Apaak, Clement
Brennand, Tracy,'
Atkins, Stella
Budd, James
Clayman, Bruce
Cameron, Rob (representing B. Lewis)
Dunsterville, Valerie
Collinge, Joan (representing C. Yerbury)
Fung, Edward
Copeland, Lynn
Gordon, Robert
da Silva, Gisele
Grimmett, Peter
D'Auria, John
Gupta, Kamal
Dickinson, John
Heaney, John
Driver, Jon
Higgins, Anne
Fizzell, Maureen
Kaila, Pam
Giacomantonio, Chris
Kalanj, Tiffany
. ? Gill, Alison
Krane, Bill
Gillies, Mary Ann (representing
J.
Pierce)
Love, Ernie
Gregory, Titus
Mauser, Gary
Haunerland, Norbert
McArthur, James
Hira, Andy
Scott, Jamie
Honda, Barry
Shaker, Paul
Horvath, Adam
Smith, Don
Li, Zi-Nian
Van Aalst, Jan
McFetridge, Paul
Wong, Milton
Percival, Paul
Yoo, Rick
Peters, Joseph
Plischke, Michael
Rozell, Sara ?
In
attendance:
Sears, Camilla
Dinning, Mike
Tombe, Trevor
Hanlan, Lee
Waterhouse, John
Krebs, Dennis
Weeks, Daniel
Wessel, Silvia
Wong, Josephine
Woodbury, Rob
Heath, Ron, Dean of Student Services/Registrar
Watt, Alison, Director, University Secretariat
Grant, Bobbie, Recording Secretary
a
S.M. 10 May 2004
Page 2
1.
Approval of the Agenda
The Agenda was approved as distributed.
2.
Approval of the Minutes of the Open Session of April
5, 2004
The Minutes were approved as distributed.
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.
5.
Question Period
There were no questions submitted.
Reports of Committees
A)
Senate Appeals Board
i) ?
Paper S.04-36 - Annual Report (For Information)
L. Hanlan, SAB Chair, and M. Dinning, SAB Secretary, were in attendance in order
to respond to questions.
There were no questions, and the Annual Report of the Senate Appeals Board was
received by Senate for information.
B)
Senate Committee on University Priorities
i) ?
Paper S.04-37 -
Undergraduate Curriculum Implementation Task Force
Recommendations
D. Krebs, Chair of the Task Force and several members of the Task Force and the
Support Groups were in attendance in order to respond to questions.
By way of introduction, Senate was advised that the report and recommendations
currently before Senate provide details with respect to the implementation of
writing, quantitative and breadth requirements previously approved in principle by
Senate.
C
S.M. 10 May
2004
•
?
Page 3
Recommendation 1
Moved by
J.
Waterhouse, seconded by M. Fizzell
"that University-wide WQB graduation requirements be implemented
for students admitted to SFU for the Fall
2006
semester as outlined in
the memorandum dated April
27, 2004
from D. Krebs"
Senate was informed that the following notation which was inadvertently omitted
needed to be added to the information under Recommendation 1 in the above-
noted memorandum: Students
must obtain a grade of C- or better in all of the
courses in question.
A motion to divide the question so that the WQB requirements could be voted on
separately was ruled out of order by the Chair because the intention of the original
motion as approved by Senate in-principle was to legislate these requirements as a
package.
The ruling of the Chair was challenged and the following motion was moved by P.
Percival, seconded by
J.
D'Auria
0 ?
"that the ruling of the Chair be over turned"
Question was called, and a vote taken.
?
MOTION FAILED
Request was made by a Student Senator to consider Recommendation 4 prior to
Recommendation 1. Student Senators felt it was important to have assurances that
adequate support and resources would be put in place to assist students before
actually passing any of the new requirements. There was no objection to the
request, and the motion with respect to Recommendation 1 was set aside in order
to deal with Recommendation
4.
Recommendation
4
Moved by C. Giacomantonio, seconded by
J.
Waterhouse
"that a Task Force or equivalent body be created to explore the
establishment of a Student Learning Centre"
Amendment moved by S. Rozell, seconded by
I.
Wong
"that the following statement be added to the end of the existing
•
?
motion: and
to ensure that adequate resources are put in place to
support the
continuation and graduation requirements, and the
foundational
skills courses"
S.M.lO May 2004
Page 4
The Vice-President, Academic advised that every effort would be made to put in
place the support mechanisms needed to enable students to succeed but he could
not guarantee an open ended commitment to provide resources. The Task Force
had already extensively considered the question of resources and the intent of the
Vice President Academic was to receive advice from the existing task force as well
as advice from the new task force with respect to appropriate resources.
The following concerns were expressed with regard to the wording of the
amendment:
• consideration of resources was largely
ultra vires
to Senate legislation;
• no clear meaning as to what was meant by 'adequate resources' and therefore
no way to measure success/failure;
• the word 'ensure' concerned several Senators. Alternative suggestions were
made;
• the purpose of the Student Learning Centre was not defined and if aims/goals
were stated, the questions of resources and the Centre's success/failure could
be more easily measured.
Senate was advised that the intent of the amendment was to leave the definition of
'adequate resources' to the discretion of the task force. It was hoped that the task
force would consider more than just the creation of a Student Learning Centre and
take into account the needs of the University's various campuses when determining
the adequate resources needed to support these new requirements.
Concern was expressed that there was too much micromanagement and too much
detailed instruction in the motion as amended. It was noted that under the original
motion the task force would look at and receive input with respect to all of the
issues raised and there was no need to have so much detail at this point.
Question was called on the amendment,
and a vote taken.
?
AMENDMENT FAILED
In response to an inquiry on the main motion, Senate was advised that the Vice
President Academic would be responsible for the establishment of membership and
terms of reference of the task force.
Concern was expressed that the documentation made no reference to the
recommendations of the task force coming back to Senate, and opinion was
expressed that as senior academic body, Senate should have input in the
establishment and operation of a Student Learning Centre. Senate was advised that
the task force will make recommendations to the Vice-President, Academic and
that the Vice President Academic will take the necessary recommendations to
SCUP and, as required, to Senate. Suggestion was made to include reference to
this process in the motion. However Senate was assured that any recommendation
I,
S.M. 10 May 2004
Page 5
respecting the Student Learning Centre would come back to Senate and this
understanding would be recorded in the Minutes.
Question was called on the main motion,
and a vote taken.
?
MOTION (RECOMMENDATION 4) CARRIED
Recommendation 1
Discussion returned to Recommendation 1 which had already been moved and
seconded.
Moved by P. Percival, seconded by
J.
D'Auria
"that B be removed from the expression WQB"
One Senator expressed doubt that general breadth requirements could be
mandated across Faculties, and concern was expressed with the formula proposed
by the Task Force. Senators were reminded that this question was fully debated
when Senate approved this issue in principle and subsequent consultations by the
Task Force across the University found significant support for legislated breadth
requirements.
L-1
?
Question was called on the amendment,
and a vote taken.
?
AMENDMENT FAILED
Amendment moved by P. Percival, seconded by J. D'Auria
"that third bullet under Recommendation 1 in the Krebs memo dated
April 27, 2004 be changed to "all undergraduate major and honors
programs include a minimum of 24 credits of breadth but the details
of the breadth requirements be left up to Faculties"
The following comments/opinions were expressed with respect to the above-noted
amendment:
• Programs in various departments and Faculties were quite varied and giving
flexibility to each Faculty would result in positive changes;
• Earlier attempts to deal with breadth simply characterized breadth in terms of
taking courses outside one's own discipline or Faculty and did not provide
much benefit to the students. The current proposal, without the amendment,
was a significant improvement since all designated breadth courses had to meet
certain criteria so students were exposed to different modes of thought which
was more beneficial than just taking courses outside their own discipline and
Faculty;
• Concern was expressed, especially with respect to Science courses, that
students would not have the required background/prerequisites needed to take
the courses that would expose them to a true mode of scientific thought and
therefore these details should be left up to individual Faculties.
S.M. 10 May
2004
Page
Question was called on the amendment,
and a vote taken.
?
AMENDMENT FAILED
Opinion was expressed that the
2006
deadline seemed rather short. Senate was
advised that the development of breadth courses had already begun and that
writing intensive courses would be offered this Fall to approximately
2,000
students. The Task Force was aware of existing courses and how many new
courses had to be created and felt that the
2006
deadline was realistic.
In response to an inquiry about resources for new courses, Senate was advised that
some resources have already been made available and expectations were that the
additional funds required would be allocated.
The issue of disqualifying courses with specific prerequisites was raised and Senate
was advised that the underlying spirit was to provide intellectually accessible and
appropriate courses to students outside the discipline who do not have
background, but students majoring in the discipline could fill the requirements by
taking appropriate courses that have prerequisites.
Reference was made to the writing classes which would be offered in the Fall, and
inquiry was made about class size. Senate was advised that class sizes differ
considerably and different courses employ different models to teach writing, but in
all cases, relatively small groups of students would be given very close attention by
providing additional TA assistance.
Question was called on Motion 1,
and a vote taken. ?
MOTION CARRIED
Recommendation 2
Moved by
J.
Waterhouse, seconded by M.A. Gillies
"that applicants to SFU be required to demonstrate their competence
in English language skills, to be in effect in the Fall
2006
semester as
outlined in the memorandum dated April
27, 2004
from D. Krebs"
Senate was informed that on page 3 regarding Recommendations
2,
reference to
the required grade should be changed to a
minimum grade point average of C-.
Brief discussion occurred with respect to the language requirements between SFU
and other local universities.
Question was called, and a vote taken.
?
MOTION CARRIED
I
?
S.M. 10 May 2004
.
?
Recommendation 3
?
Page 7 ?
Moved by
J.
Waterhouse, seconded by M. Plischke
"that admission standards pertaining to quantitative skills be in effect
in the Fall 2006 semester as outlined in the memorandum dated April
27, 2004 from D. Krebs"
Senate was informed that a reference to
obtaining a grade of
C-
was inadvertently
omitted on page 4 and had to be added to the information under Recommendation
2 in the above-noted memorandum.
Question was called, and a vote taken.
?
MOTION CARRIED
It was noted that there was no mention of timeline and reference to the
memorandum dated April 27, 2004 from D. Krebs was missing from both
Recommendations 5 and 6. Senate was advised the implementation timeline for
all recommendations was Fall 2006 and the reference to the memorandum had
inadvertently been omitted. Inclusion of both these items was accepted as a
friendly amendment to both motions.
S
?
Recommendation 5
Moved by
J.
Waterhouse, seconded by M.A. Gillies
"that new Foundational Writing Skills courses be developed for
students admitted to SFU with low grades in English and/or low
scores on a language proficiency test as outlined in the memorandum
dated April 27, 2004 from D. Krebs, effective Fall 2006"
Brief discussion ensued about the impact of new courses on space, teaching, and
financial resources.
Question was called, and a vote taken.
?
MOTION (AS AMENDED) CARRIED
Recommendation 6
Moved by
J.
Waterhouse, seconded by M. Fizzell
"that the new Foundational Quantitative Skills courses be developed
for students with low grades in Mathematics, as outlined in the
memorandum dated April 27, 2004 from D. Krebs, effective Fall
2006"
0
?
Question was called, and a vote taken. ?
MOTION (AS AMENDED) CARRIED
S.M.lO May 2004
Page 8
On behalf of Senate, the Chair thanked members of the Task Force for all of their
hard work.
ii) ?
Paper S.04-38 - Annual Report (For Information)
The Annual Report of the Senate Committee on University Priorities was received
by Senate for information.
C) ?
Senate Committee on Undergraduate Studies
i)
?
Paper S.04-39 - Curriculum Revisions - Criminology
Senate received information that the Senate Committee on Undergraduate Studies,
acting under delegated authority, approved the reinstatement of Crim 440 from
temporarily withdrawn status.
7.
Other Business
On behalf of Senate, the Chair conveyed thanks and appreciation to the following
Senators whose terms of office end on May 31, 2004: John D'Auria, Alison Gill,
Titus Gregory, John Heaney, Andy Hira, Pam Kaila, Tiffany Kalanj, Joseph Peters,
Jan Van Aalst, Rick Yoo. Certificates to thank and recognize service on Senate
were presented.
?
0
8.
Information
The date of the next regularly scheduled meeting of Senate will take place on
Monday, June 7, 2004.
Open Session adjourned at 6:45 pm, and Senate moved directly into Closed Session.
Alison Watt
Director, University Secretariat
El