Page 1
Page 2
Page 3
Page 4
Page 5
Page 6
Page 7
Page 8
Page 9
Page 10
Page 11
Page 12
Page 13
Page 14
Page 15
Page 16
Page 17
Page 18

S-01-26

SIMON FRASER UNIVERSITY ?

oreAd

MEMORANDUM ?

bje\Q#e-

TO: ?

Senate ?

y'-

FROM: ?

J. Waterhouse, Chair,

Senate Committee on Enrollment Management and Planning

SUBJECT:

Undergraduate Admission Targets for 2001/02

DATE: ?

February 16, 2001

Action undertaken by the Senate Committee on Enrollment Management and

Planning (SCEMP) gives rise to the following motions:

Motion 1:

"That Senate approve and recommend to the Board of Governors the following

undergraduate admission targets for each basis-of-admission group and for

each semester in 2001/02, and that SCEMP be delegated authority to make

adjustments based on changes to the overall provincial enrollment targets for

SFU and based on actual enrollment experience in 2001-2 and 2001-3.

Admission Targets For New Students

459

40.4

67-9

Motion

"That Senate approve and recommend to the Board of Governors the

undergraduate admission targets to each Faculty as indicated in the attached

table, and that SCEMP be delegated authority to make adjustments based

on changes to the overall provincial enrollment targets for SFU and based on

actual enrollment experience in 2001-2 and 2001-3.

SIMON FRASER UNIVERSITY.—INTAKE TARGETS FOR NEW

UNDERGRADUATE STUDENTS BY FACULTY, SEMESTER AND

BASIS OF ADMISSION

Applied ?

Science

Arts

Education

Science

Unspecified

University

SIMON FRASER UNIVERSITY

MEMORANDUM

TO:

Senate Committee on

FROM: W. Wattamaniuk, Director,

Enrollment Management

Analytical Studies

and Planning

RE: Undergraduate Admission

DATE: February 13, 2001

Targets for 2001/02

Enrollment Status Report for 2000/01

SFU was funded for

13,910

full-time equivalent (FTE) undergraduates in

2000/01. This included an increase of

230

funded FTE,

of which were targeted for

Hi-Tech related courses.

Based on actual enrollments for summer, fall, and spring, we will surpass our

funded enrollment target by approximately 212 FTE and will report an actual

enrollment of 14,122 FTE to the Ministry of Advanced Education, Science and

Technology.

Enrollment Funding for 2001/02

Although we have received no formal notice from the Provincial Government

regarding increases to our funded target in 2001/02, our best information is that

SFU's allocation will be similar to last year at 230 FTE. This being the case, we need

to increase our enrollment by only

FTE in 2001/02 to match our target.

I am proposing enrollment and admission targets for 2001-2, 2001-3 and 2002-

as follows. These targets are similar to to those proposed last year at this

time.

Admission Targets for 2001/02 by Semester

Allowing for the generation of FTE by undergraduates continuing from previous

semesters, my estimate of new students required to achieve the funded enrollment

targets for 2001/02 is as follows:

Intake of New Students

0 ?

3,300

Table 1 provides a comparison with actual new registrants from last year.

SFU's total intake of new students will have to decrease by

462

students in 2001/02.

The decrease is necessary since roughly 400 more new students registered last year

than expected.

The modeling of the intake targets is constrained to ensure that minimum

entry GPAs are stable over the three semesters and that historical proportions of new

students by basis of admission are roughly maintained, and course supply is

manageable in each semester.

Admission Tar

ets for 2001/02 b

Basis of Admission and by Semester

Within the global targets identified above, there are, broadly speaking, three

. ?

groups of students for which separate targets must be identified at this time. These

are B.C. Secondary, B.C. College Transfer, and "Other." "Other" includes University

Transfer, Degree Holders, Mature, Out-of-Province Secondary or College Transfer,

Visiting, Special Entry, Concurrent Studies, B.C. GRXI, B.C. Technical School, etc.

I am proposing that the admission targets for each group be established as

shown below for each of the semesters in 2001/02.

1,922

125

B.C. College

459

700

604

"Other"

172

679

392

Total Intake

711

3,300

1,121

For B.C. college transfer students with an associate degree, a minimum GPA of

2.00 will be required consistent with Senate policy. Note that the proposed increase

in new students would have the effect of increasing the proportion of new students

entering from B.C. Colleges from 31.9% recorded last year to 34.4%.

Admission

Targets

Facult

for

2001/2002

are being proposed in 2001/02 for

each Faculty as shown in Table 2. The target for Applied Science is the sum over each

of Computing Science, Communications, Engineering Science, and Kinesiology.

Note that these are admission targets for new students to each Faculty. The

Faculty of Business and each School in Applied Sciences also admit many continuing

students into its programs through internal transfers. The Education target is an

estimate of the number of new-to-SFU students who will be admitted into the

PDPIPBD programs.

L--.Ij

TABLE

SIMON FRASER UNIVERSITY

....

INTAKE

TARGETS FOR

NEW

UNDERGRADUATE STUDENTS BY

SEMESTER AND

BASIS OF

ADMISSION

SIMON FRASER UNIVERSITY ....

INTAKE TARGETS FOR NEW UNDERGRADUATE

STUDENTS BY FACULTY. SEMESTER AND BASIS OF ADMISSION

Applied ?

Science

Education

Science

Unspecified

SIMON FRASER UNIVERSITY

MEMORANDUM

TO: Members of Senate

FROM: ?

Alison Watt

Director

University Secretariat

SUBJECT: Notice of Meeting

DATE: ?

January 23, 2001

A meeting of Senate

will be held on Monday, February 5, 2001 at

5:30 pm?

in ?

Room 3210 - West Mall Centre

Please note earlier start time

Due to the earlier start time, the Senate dinner is

cancelled. Normal catering (coffee, tea, cookies, etc)

will be available at the meeting.

. ?

SENATE OF SIMON FRASER UNIVERSITY

AGENDA - OPEN SESSION

Monday, February

2001 ?

5:30 pm Room 3210 West Mall Centre

Approval of the Agenda

Approval of the Minutes of the Open Session of January 8, 2001

Business Arising from the Minutes

Report of the Chair

i) ?

Response to Senator Finley's Questions

S.01-12

Question Period *

Reports of Committees

A) Senate Nominating Committee

i) Elections to Senate Committees

S-01-13

Other Business

Information

Date of Next Regular Meeting - Monday, March

2001.

Senate agenda is available on the Web (

tp://www.reg.sfu.calSenate_agenda.html) and papers for

Senate meetings are accessible in the Library Reserves (SEN.000).

* Questions

Registrar's

should

Office

submitted

by e-mail

writing

watt@sfu.ca

to the

Secretary

January

31,

Senate,

2001 at

Alison

9:00 am

Watt,

Bobbie Grant,

Agenda items and papers for the March meeting will be required by the Secretary by 11:30 a.m.,

Thursday, February

15,

2001. Submissions may be e-mailed to bgrant@sfu.ca

but must be followed up

by signed paper submissions. These items will be considered by the Senate Committee on Agenda and

Rules on Tuesday, February 20, 2001 with Senate distribution on Friday, February 23, 2001.

Alison Watt

Director, University Secretariat

DRAFT UNTIL APPROVED BY SENATE

Minutes of a meeting of the Senate of Simon Fraser University held on

Monday, February 5, 2001 at 5:30 pm in Room 3210 WMC

Open Session

Absent: England, William

Gerson, Carole

Hill, Ross

Jones, John

Livadiotakis, Georgia

Present: Stevenson, Michael, Chair and President

Andrews, Ian (representing R. Barrow)

Dunsterville, Valerie

Miralles-Sanchez, Veronika

Steinbach, Christopher

Heath, Ron, Dean of Student Services and Registrar

Watt, Alison, Director, University Secretariat

sGrant, Bobbie, Recording Secretary

S.M. 5 February 2001

Page

1. ?

Approval of the Agenda

The Agenda was approved as distributed.

2.proval of the Minutes of the Open Session of January 8, 2001

The Minutes were approved as distributed.

Business Arising from the Minutes

Senate was advised that the Senate Committee on Agenda and Rules had

appointed Geoffrey Rosen as the undergraduate student on the Ad hoc Senate

Committee to Review and Develop the Undergraduate Curricula.

Report of the Chair

i) ?

Paper S.01-12 - Response to Senator Finley's Questions

Question 1

As a follow-up to the preliminary response summarized in the minutes of the

last meeting, and following consultation with SCAR, the Chair reiterated his

position that questions having to do with employment histories or other privacy

protected matters were not appropriate issues for Senate. Nevertheless, in order

to avoid possible concerns that these issues were being avoided on procedural

technicalities, the Chair indicated that he wished to elaborate on his previous

remarks. With respect to question 1(a) concerning mechanisms available to

faculty and staff who wish to bring grievances against administrators, the Chair

reiterated that the matter was covered by grievance and dispute procedures in

negotiated agreements with employee groups. With respect to question 1(b)

concerning the accountability of administrators, the Chair noted that there was

no requirement to respond to allegations by themselves except through normal

mechanisms which have been approved to investigate such complaints. He

further noted that administrators were not accountable to the public or to

possible victims of allegations. They were accountable to their immediate

supervisors and ultimately to the Board of Governors. If on investigation an

administrator was found to have acted inappropriately, the Board or their

immediate supervisor would take appropriate action if required.

Question 2

With respect to question 2 which concerned issues about the Donnelly case, the

Chair advised that he was unable to answer the questions in full because they

involved privacy protected matters. However, as a general comment, the Chair

expressed his view that this was a tragic episode in the history of the university

and had resulted in a very detailed investigation and complicated legal

resolution. The case had exposed defects in the harassment procedure and as a

result the harassment policy had been revised. A mandated review of the new

policy following three years of operation would be initiated this Spring. The

Chair stressed that there had been a great deal of public information but that

details of private, personal matters and the legal agreements that settled the case

must remain private. He concluded by stating that he considered the matter

closed as he hoped Senate and the wider university community would consider

S.M.5 February 200l

Page 3

it closed, and that the University should move on from this unfortunate incident

of the past.

Question Period

A question relating to costs associated with an arbitrated dispute between the

Student Society and the University over maintenance costs on the rental

agreement for the Maggie Benston Centre had been received. The Chair reported

that the University's cost with respect to the arbitration process was

approximately $20,000 and the total cost in previous years as the dispute

developed would not have exceeded $5,000. In response to an inquiry as to

whether the issue was finalized, the Chair noted that the University believed that

the determination by the arbitrator was final and binding on both parties but it

was his understanding that the Student Society had served notice of its intent to

appeal the arbitrator's decision to the British Columbia Supreme Court so the

University would be required to answer to that process.

A question relating to the five year capital plan and the robotic book storage

system for the library was received from A. Chan. The University Librarian

provided background information with respect to plans for library expansion

and indicated that this issue had received detailed investigation over the past

several years. While the preference would be to expand by building

conventional library space which would allow users to browse shelves, the most

feasible option at this time was still the robotic storage facility.

in response to the questions he had submitted, and indicated that additional

response would be provided if necessary.

Reports of Committees

A) ?

Senate Nominating Committee

i) ?

Paper S.01-13 - Elections to Senate Committees

The following are the results of elections to Senate committees. There were

insufficient nominations to fill all positions; vacancies will be carried over and

brought forward to the next meeting of Senate.

Senate Committee on Continuing Studies (SCCS)

One Student Senator for term of office to May 31, 2002.

No nominations received

Senate Committee on Disciplinary Appeals (SCODA)

One Student Alternate (at-large) for term of office to May 31, 2001.

No nominations received

Senate Committee on University Honours (SCUH)

. ?

One Senator (at-large) for term of office to May 31, 2001.

Elected by acclamation: ?

There was no other business.

Information

The next regularly scheduled meeting of Senate is Monday, March 5, 2001.

Open Session adjourned at 5:55 pm. Following a brief recess, Senate moved into Closed

Session.

Alison Watt

Director, University Secretariat

David

X-Sender:

Finley,

finley@popserver.sfu.ca

1/3/018:40 AM

-0800, Question One: Revised

S.01-12

Date: Wed, 3 Jan 200108:40:23 -0800

•

To: watt@sfu.ca

, bgrant@sfu.ca

From: David Finley <finley@sfu.ca

Subject: Question One: Revised

Question Number One

The issue of Administrator responsibility for disciplinary actions has

recently been raised by various professors accusing administrators of

misconduct in their dealings with them and with others.

There are specific mechanisms for punishing students who go astray as we

well know. There seem to be a variety of policies for punishing erring

professors on top of which the Administration also assumes the right to use

ad hoc procedures when the others are too burdensome or fail to fit. There

are also procedures for disciplining staffpersons. Yet I am not aware of

any such procedures for disciplining Administrators who abuse or violate

the rights of their employees.

Questions

(a)

Is there any mechanism accessible to the faculty or staff for

charging, investigating, and disciplining administrators who violate the

rights of employees or students?

(b)

What are the circumstances where administrators need to account to the

public and possible victims for allegations of misconduct in administering

disciplinary procedures?

David Finley

Simon Fraser University (604-291-4604)

email: finley@sfu.ca

website: www.sfu.ca/ —finley/

David Finley, 1131019:30 AM -0800, Question Number Two: Revised

X-Sender: finley@popserver.sfu.ca

Date: Wed, 3 Jan 200109:30:55 -0800

To: watt@sfu.ca

, bgrant@sfu.ca

From: David Finley <finley@sfu.ca

Subject: Question Number Two: Revised

Question Number Two

This concerns the Donnelly case. This case resulted in an innocent person

being publicly denounced as being guilty of sexual assault and fired with

cause after his case had been pending for 18 months. During this time the

administration had ample opportunity to determine whether the case against

him was sound. Yet within ten weeks of Donnelly's dismissal, the

Administration conceded that there had been major procedural

irregularities, which were known to the Administration and withheld from

Donnelly.

The Administration also conceded that the principal accuser had made

inconsistent statements in her submissions and therefore could not be

considered a credible witness. Moreover, a careful reading of the Panel

Report reveals that evidence of Donnelly's guilt was conspicious by its

absence and that improper reasoning, bogus evidence, and prejudice against

the accused were conspiciously present. Further it is apparent that all

the above information was known or should have been known to the

Administration, since none of it depended on anything subsequently

introduced by Donnelly.

The above information would indicate, not only that the case was grossly

mishandled, but would strongly suggest that there was serious and possibly

egregious misconduct on the part of the Administrators dealing with this

case. In view of these circumstances, I am asking the following:

(a) Why has there been no independent investigation to determine what went

wrong?

(b) Why has there been no public reporting of what went wrong and why has

the Administration reneged on its previous pledge (made by then President

Stubbs) to provide a full explanation?

for this ethical failure?

(d)

Why has there been no institutional apology to Donnelly for both the

unwarranted finding of guilt and the numerous willful violations of his

rights perpetrated by the Administration?

(e) Why has Donnelly received no compensation for suffering (which must

have been substantial), where in contrast, even dubious sexual harassment

complainants have been liberally compensated?

(f)

Are there any plans to consider any of the actions implied by the

above questions?

aC4(9n,QriO&

Albert Chan,28 0101

10:37

PM -0700,Question for Senate's February meeting..

X-Apparently-From: <aytchan@ yahoo. com

• ?

From: "Albert Chan" <aytchan@yahoo.com

To: "Alison Watt" <Alison Watt@ sfu.ca

>, <bgrant@sfu.ca >

Subject: Question for Senates February meeting

Date: Sun, 28 Jan 2001 22:37:41 -0700

MIME-Version: 1.0

X-Priority: 3 (Normal)

X-MSMaiI-Priority: Normal

Importance: Normal

X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2919.6600

Dear Alison and Bobbie,

I plan to raise the following item in person for the Question Period of the

February Senate meeting:

"Pursuant to Senate Rules and the University Act, Senators should be

informed on the significant issues affecting the university. Underfunding

is one of our serious problems. As a convocation senator, I regret to

realize that our own university was forced into an arbitration with our

student society over a maintenance cost dispute on the rental agreement of

the Maggie Benston Building. Money was spent by both sides on unnecessary

costs, instead of spending on endeavours that could be more beneficial for

the university community. Fortunately, the arbitrator has concluded the

dispute and apparently seems to rule in favour of our university. My

question for Mr. Chair is how much money have we spent on resolving this

issue? Is the dispute finalized? Also, could Mr. Chair or another member of

S ?

the administration please explain to us the background of this dispute and

disclose all available information, particularly factual details, except

those marked confidential?"

Best regards,

Albert

Albert Chan - aytchan@yahoo.com

Web: www.geocities.com/aytchan/

Do You Yahoo!?

Get your free @yahoo.com

address at http://mail.vahoo.com

Printed for Bobbie_Grant@sfu.ca

Albert Chan,30 01 01

6:55

PM -0700,Second question for Feb. Senate meeting.. ?

X-Apparently-From: <aytchan @yahoo.com >

• ?

From: Albert Chan' <aytchan@yahoo.com

To: "Alison Watt' <Alison_Watt@ sfu.ca >, <bgrant@ sfu.ca >

Subject: Second question for Feb. Senate meeting....

Date: Tue, 30 Jan 2001 18:55:09 -0700

MIME-Version: 1.0

X-Priority: 3 (Normal)

X-MSMail-Priority: Normal

Importance: Normal

X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2919.6600

This question is related to the five year capital plan and the robotic book

storage system for the library.

Our university's capital budget has been frozen by the government for over

five years. In July 2000, the Board of Governors approved the newest

capital plan, which included a robotic storage system for the library. The

plan was submitted to the provincial government for consideration. Could

Mr. Chair report on the status of our capital plan and whether there is any

progress for new capital funding allocation?

The Senate Library Committee had some discussion on the robot system in

1998. With the assumption that no money was secured for any library

expansion project and that the robotic book storage system costs only a

portion of a conventional library system, the SLC encouraged the library

administration to pursue this endeavour.

However, many library users, including faculty members, students and

librarians are not happy with the fact that this new library expansion

approach diminishes their ability to browse through books on the shelves.

Our overall book collection is already the lowest among other benchmark

institutions according to the library annual report. We are currently

highly depended on inter-library loans to supplement our research needs.

Building a robotic storage system, instead of constructing a new library

building could mean further enlarge our competitive disadvantage. Besides,

it is always a good idea to aim at a higher and better target.

Given that we have a new senior university administration and that we may

face a new provincial government in the near future, what is our

administration's view on this subject matter?

What are the administration's lobbying and fund-raising directions? Is the

administration ready to revisit the robotic storage idea and perhaps try to

lobby for more capital development funding on building a new library,

Best regards,

Albert Chan

Convocation Senator

----------------------------------------------

Do You Yahoo!?

Get your free @yahoo.com

address at http://mail.vahoo.com

Printed for Bobbie_Grant@sfu.ca ?

S.O1-13

Simon Fraser University

Memorandum

To: ?

Senate

From: ?

Alison Watt

Secretary, Senate Nominating Committee

Date: ?

January 18, 2001

Subject: ?

Elections at Senate Meeting - Monday, February 5, 2001

The following vacancies on the undernoted Senate Committees are outstanding and are

brought forward to the February meeting of Senate. Elections, if required, will be

conducted by ballot at the Senate meeting of February 5, 2001.

Under Senate regulations, any Senator who wishes to add nominations

to those shown below may do so by notifying the Secretary of Senate in

writing (e-mail

watt@sfu.ca )

of such nominations. Nominations must be

received by the Secretary of Senate no later than Friday, February 2,

2001.

Nominations received after that time cannot be accepted. Senators making nominations

must ensure in advance that the nominee is willing to stand for election.

Senate Committee on Continuing Studies (SCCS)

One Student Senator

for term of office to May 31, 2002.

Senate Committee on Disciplinary Appeals (SCODA)

One Student Alternate (at-large)

for term of office to May 31, 2001.

Senate Committee on University Honours (SCUH)

One Senator (at-large)

for term of office to May 31, 2001.

/JI6v+ CAar