For Information
?
S.93-17
a
?
SIMON FRASER UNIVERSITY
MEMORANDUM
To: ?
Senate
?
From: ?
Nick Heath
Secretary, SAB
Subject:
Senate Appeals Board (SAB)
?
Date: ?
February 11, 1992
Annual Report 1992
The Senate Appeals Board met 13 times in 1992.
Membership
E. Chapman- Chair
From SUAB -1 Member
D. Ryeburn
A. Rogow
From Senate - 1 Member
P. Winne
E.
Palmer
16
1 f
—74m
T. Pagliacci
J. Cox
J. Flores
P. Horton
Nominated by SAB on 12 June 1992 and ratified by SUAB on
17 June 1992, student alternate since July, 1991
(S. Bukovac resigned as Chair effective May 31, 1992)
Faculty member - February, 1981
Alternate member - October, 1990
Faculty member - June, 1989, alternate from June, 1988
Alternate member - June, 1989
Student member appointed August, 1989
Student member appointed June, 1992
Alternate member appointed July, 1991
Alternate member appointed August, 1992
Members leaving SAB
S.
Bukovac ?
Chair from December 21, 1991 to May 31, 1992, student
member appointed July, 1991, student alternate from
Oct. 1990
T. MacPherson ?
Student member appointment May, 1991. Resigned May,
1992
Page 1
is
Effective October 1991, revised procedures were implemented and the Secretary of the Senate Appeals
Board no longer exercised delegated authority. Instead, each appeal was first screened by the Chair and
the Secretary of the Senate Appeals Board, as approved by Senate in the revised SAB Terms of
Reference and Procedures for Appeal. This has resulted in the following action:
'Leave to Appeal'- Appeal forms screened by Chair and Secretary of the SAB to determine if special
circumstances are present:
Appeals - cancelled (no special circumstances)
Admission ?
63
Readmission
?
9
Retroactive withdrawal ?
11
Selective Retroactive withdrawal
?
5
Other ?
1
Total
?
89
S
The new procedure has resulted in the significant decline in the number of readmission appeals (see
Table 1) from 1991 to 1992.
Comments on revised procedures
The revised procedures have worked well, and, in particular, cases at either end of the spectrum have
been dealt with more efficiently than in the past. Frivolous or groundless cases have been dealt with
without taking the time of the SAB; well-founded cases, which were adequately documented, have been
approved at Stage 1, requiring only a brief discussion of the case and without the need for the student to
attend.
Readmission criteria for students who were required to withdraw have also helped to significantly reduce
the caseload of readmission appeals (see Table 1 - totals for 1992 versus 1991), and seem to have been
accepted more readily than the previous time-consuming review of each case by the SAB.
ADDeal
Forms
Revised appeal forms were issued March, 1992.
Isp
Page 2 •
