Page 1
Page 2
Page 3
Page 4
Page 5

SIMON FRASER UNIVERSITY

S.89-69

MEMORANDUM

TO:

Senate

FROM:

L. Salter

Chair, Senate Committee

on Academic Planning

RE: Fraser Valley Initiative

DATE:

November 16, 1989

In responding to the report of the Fraser Valley Planning Committee, and the

consultations which followed it, SCAP recommends:

Whereas:

(i) demographic studies indicate that a high level of population growth will

occur within Simon Fraser's catchment area in the Fraser Valley;

(ii)

Simon Fraser has been assigned a role within the Provincial Government

Access Program and a spirit of cooperation has been engendered by

Simon Fraser's response to it;

(iii) the Provincial Government has assigned Simon Fraser a role in the

planning initiative for a new institute of higher learning within the Fraser

Valley;

(iv)

the Fraser Valley Planning Committee found the Fraser Valley campus to

be a viable option, having considered the response from the University

Community to its report;

(v)

the prevailing sentiment within Simon Fraser about a potential Fraser

Valley Campus is positive (estimated mainly on the basis of the written

responses to the consultation and, additionally, from the meetings with

various Faculties);

(vi)

it is important to address the widespread concern within Simon Fraser that

"catch-up" growth and development at existing campuses should be the

first priorities in any further initiatives,

it is therefore recommended that Senate approve, and recommend approval to the

Board of Governors, the following motion:

MOTION:

'Within the context of a growth and development strategy that places first

priority on its existing campuses, Simon Fraser University should lead in

the planning of a new Institution of higher learning in the Fraser Valley."

Registrar's Note: 

Copies of Senate paper S.89-34 "Report of the Fraser Valley 

Planning Committee" distributed at the Oct. 30/89 meeting of 

Senate available on request. 

. ?

COPY OF BACKGROUND PAPER CIRCULATED TO THE SENATE COMMITTEE ON ACADEMIC 

PLANNING REGARDING FRASER VALLEY INITIATIVES 

November 10, 1989

Dear Colleague:

As you know, the Fraser Valley Planning Committee submitted its report

in September. This report was disseminated widely within SFU and comments

were invited from members of the university community. The Fraser Valley

Planning Committee reconvened on October 16 to assess the comments

submitted by that date, and they have now reported their findings. This letter is

in response to the original report, the final submission of the committee and the

many responses received by the Vice-President's office.

The Committee's task was to consider the potential for a Simon Fraser

campus in the Fraser Valley. It was thought that the Fraser Valley campus could

not be assessed, among other options, until sufficient information about the

scope and nature of such a campus had been explored in some detail. During

the time in which the committee conducted its work, and afterward, the

administration has been examining all options, including the capacity for growth

and development at the Burnaby and Harbour Centre campuses.

With respect to a possible Fraser Valley campus, the Committee was

asked to address such issues as (i) the demographic situation; (ii) the

experience of other multi-campus universities; (iii) the range of possible

programs and model for academic development [the mission]; (iv) the questions

pertaining to infrastructure and services, budget, administration; (v) the planning

process for further development. It was understood by the committee, and it

should be emphasized now, that these specific suggestions are intended to be

illustrative of the approach to academic programs that might be taken. It would

have been unrealistic to expect the committee to develop a full range of

considered programs for a proposed Fraser Valley campus. Equally, it would

be wrong now to consider the committee's proposals as anything other than

illustrative of the types of programs that might be located at such a campus. The

committee's specific suggestions, plus the response of the university community

to them, are properly referred to normal processes for academic planning, to the

various departments, faculties and the Senate. In the meantime, it is entirely

appropriate that the debate about new programs for Simon Fraser continue

within the university community.

In response, then, to the Fraser Valley Committee report and the

comments received to date, let me begin by expressing the appreciation of the

Vice-President's office and of the community as a whole for the quality of the

report. Given the time available and the short notice provided, it is a tribute to

the Committee that it was able to provide such a thoughtful document.

The response of the communityoverall was positive (approximately 2:1

in favour). Among those negatively inclined, a number of people raised

questions and concerns which, if addressed adequately, would alter their

opinion of the Fraser Valley option and provide even further support for it. In

considering these responses, the Fraser Valley Planning Committee concluded

that no additional work on the report was necessary at this time and that the

development of a Fraser Valley campus is a viable option for the growth of the

university.

Questions and concerns were raised by people both favourably and

negatively inclined toward the Fraser Valley campus. These questions and

concerns are valid ones. It will be useful to review these concerns and to

respond to them. '-

First: The primary concern raised by people both favourably and negatively

inclined toward the Fraser Valley campus option was that "catch-up" and

growth should occur, to the maximum degree possible, at the Burnaby and

Harbour Centre campuses before embarking upon the full development of

Simon Fraser at any new campus site.

This concern is well-founded, and indeed it is now the intention to explore fully

the opportunities, costs and constraints of development and "catch-up" at the

Burnaby and Harbour Centre campuses and to propose proceeding with the

Fraser Valley campus option in the context of an overall strategy which places

emphasis on the developments at Burnaby Mountain and Harbour Centre as

the first priorities.

Second: Some people felt that the planning and development effort connected

to a new Fraser Valley campus would "drain" initiative and resources from the

Burnaby and Harbour Centre campuses. However, others felt that the Fraser

Valley option offered opportunities for new initiatives. This latter group pointed,

as one example, to the current strength of the units originally "nursed" within

FIDS and to the difficulty of adding innovative new programs to the mix at the

Burnaby campus.

There is merit to both sides of this argument. The caution raised by those who

fear the diversion of energy is well taken, in any case. In any future planning

efforts, care must be taken to ensure that the resources (human and other)

necessary to carry them out represent net additions to the complement of

resources at Simon Fraser overall. Furthermore, the Fraser Valley Committee

has been asked to consider which of its many programming proposals might

well be initiated regardless of their eventual location.

Third: A concern was raised about how the relationship of Simon Fraser to the

colleges might be affected by any SFU developments in the Fraer Valley.

There is no question but that any Simon Fraser initiative must be properly

coordinated with the colleges, but also that Simon Fraser must act in such a

way as to maintain leadership and the integrity of its planning process and

academic programs.

Finally: A number of people stressed the following:

(i)

the need for consistent admission and other standards at any and

all campuses of Simon Fraser;

(ii)

the need to limit the use of sessional instructors for delivery of

academic programs, both at the Burnaby and Harbour Centre

campuses and at any new campus in the Fraser Valley;

(iii)

the need for a unique mission and range of programs at any new

campus in the Fraser Valley, combined with the concern that

programs offered there represent the core disciplines adequately;

(iv)

the need to avoid proliferation of different types and kinds of

degrees;

(v)

the need to address further questions related to the relationships

between the various SFU campuses and to the administrative

structure that might be put into place. It was widely felt that these

questions had not been addressed fully in the Fraser

Valley Committee report;

• ?

(vi) the need for further planning is required with respect to academic

services at a multi-campus university, in order to ensure both the

quality of these services and the proper coordination of services

among the campuses;

(vii)

the need for bolstering library resources as an integral part of any

plan for growth and development of Simon Fraser University;

(viii)

the need to pay further attention to the potential for and method of

achieving a significant research and graduate studies component

to the Fraser Valley campus.

These suggestions are all constructive ones, and they will inform future

planning.

In responding to the Fraser Valley Committee report, it is important to

recognize these issues:

(i)

the high level of population growth that falls within Simon Fraser's

catchment area in the Fraser Valley;

(ii)

the role Simon Fraser has been assigned within the provincial

government access program and the spirit of cooperation

engendered by Simon Fraser's response to it;

(iii)

the role assigned by the provincial government to Simon Fraser

• ?

University on the initiative of an institute of higher learning within

the Fraser Valley;

(iv)

the fact that the Fraser Valley Planning Committee found the

Fraser Valley campus to be a viable option, having considered the

response from the university community to its report;

(v)

the two-thirds majority of positive sentiment within Simon Fraser

about a potential Fraser Valley campus;

(vi)

the importance of addressing the widespread concern within

Simon Fraser that "catch-up," growth and development at existing

campuses be the first priorities in any further initiatives.

It is the recommendation, then, that the following motion be taken to Senate for

approval.

Motion: ?

Within the context of a strategy that places first

priority on growth and development of its

existing campuses, Simon Fraser University

should lead in the planning

an institution

of higher learning in the Fraser Valley.

In conclusion, the debate about the Fraser Valley Planning Committee

Report has been both thoughtful and productive, and the many contributions

from faculties, departments and individuals are greatly appreciated.

Yours sincerely,

Liora Salter

Acting Vice-President,

Academic

LS:cr