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

To ? 

SENATE. 

SiMON FRASER

MEMORANDUM

UNIVERSITY

S-79-76

As amended and approved by Senate 

at its meeting July 9th, 

From .

SENTEO 

1979

A COMMITTEE 

?

c4P. ......

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

........

*-

Subject...

B,EORG ? 

AflONOFTHEDEPARTMENTcF . 

Date

.............22

.1.9.7.9 

ECONOMICS AND COMMERCE 

MOTION: 

"That Senate approve and recommend approval to the 

Board of Governors the following recommendations 

of the Senate Committee on Academic Planning, as 

set forth in Paper S.79-76: 

1.

That the Department of Economics and Commerce be 

reorganized into a School of Economics and 

to be affiliated with the 

Faculty of Arts, and that the Department of 

Economics and Commerce be-discontinued upon the 

establishment of the School. 

That 

Econom 

the

?

ics, 

. ?

School 

and Muir 

be,

Lommerc 

st-u-a 

made up 

?

e. ? 

ua_ttof 

two

uth

.

departments, 

ss,

each with 

•

its own Chairman. 

Commerce 

3.

That the School of Economics and 

Studio 

?

will have one undergraduate studies 

committee and one graduate studies committee to 

serve both departments. 

Commerce 

For

Information: ? 

The School of Economics and 

Adminisative 

Ctuê±cs 

will be administered by a Director who will also 

hold the position of Associate Dean for the Faculty 

of Arts. 

luj

SiMON FRASER UNIVERSITY

MEMORANDUM

To ........ . ........ H. D. NAGEL 

?

..

ACTING REGISTRAR 

Subject

REORGANIZATION OF THE DEPARTMENT OF 

ECONOMICS AND COMMERCE 

From

J. M. MIJNRO 

ICE-PRESIDENT,AçADEMIc........................................ 

Date ...... JUNE 22, 1979 

Attached is the report of the Senate Committee on Academic 

Planning containing the recommendations of the sub-committee pertaining 

to the proposed reorganization of the Department of Economics and 

Commerce. 

Would you place this on the agenda for the consideration of 

Senate at its meeting of July 9, 1979. 

end. 

is

SiMON FRASER UNIVERSITY

MEMORANDUM

To ? 

SENATE 

Subect

REORGANIZATION OF THE DEPARTMENT OF 

I.........CONOMTCS ANP 

•           MME 

1

.

j E ? 

..

From

SENATE COMMITTEE ON ACADEMIC ..ING 

Date.....

JUNE 22, 1979 

At its meeting of June 13, 1979 the Senate Committee on 

Academic Planning accepted the report of the sub-committee to examine 

the rationale and organizational structure of all departments and 

faculties within the University. The Senate Committee on Academic 

Planning supports the following recommendations pertaining to the 

reorganization of the Department of Economics and Commerce: 

1.

That the Department of Economics and Commerce be 

reorganized into a School of Economics and Administrative 

Studies to be affiliated with the Faculty of Arts. 

2.

That the Department of Economics and Commerce be discon- 

.

tinued upon the establishment of the School of Economics 

and Administrative Studies. 

3.

The School to be administered by a director who will also 

hold the position of Associate Dean in the Faculty of Arts. 

4.

The School to be made up of two departments, Economics and 

Administrative Studies, each with its own chairman. Terms 

of reference for the chairmen will be analogous to those of 

chairmen as specified in Senate document S.71-80. 

5.

The two departments will share a common undergraduate studies 

committee and a common graduate studies committee. The 

existing department committees will continue. 

IMPLEMENTATION SCHEDULE 

If approved by Senate at its meeting of July 9th, these recommenda- 

tions will be forwarded to the Board of Governors for approval at their 

meeting of July 24th. Additional matters requiring Board approval will 

also be presented (these are outlined elsewhere in this document). 

Following these approvals, the reorganization proposal requires the 

approval of the Universities Council of B.C. . We will be seeking this 

at September meetings of the Program Coordinating Committee and the full 

Council. We would expect to implement the reorganization on October 1, 

1979. 

is

ATTACHMENT A

(

SE.O

FRASER UNIVERSY

MEMORANDUM

To. ?

Bob Brown, Tom Calvert, Cohn Jones 

Departmental Reorgani z a t i on, 

Subject.. Econ 

,

pflcS & Co 

mmerce 

Dept. 

?

.......... 

From

Daniel ? 

R. ? 

Birch ? 

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

?

Acting Vice-President, Academic 

Date..... ?

197903.19 

?

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

Thank you for agreeing to serve as a task force to prepare a recom- 

mendation for SCAP on the reorganization of the Department of Economics 

and Commerce. Please feel free to consider the larger question of separate 

faculty status incorporating one or both of the units which would result from 

a division, and the question of reorganizing, existing faculties with the 

transfer of some departments. However, It may be that consideration of these 

questions requires a more comprehensive procedure and a longer time. The 

essential question is whether Economics and Commerce should separate and 

should you recommend that you may wish to suggest several separate steps 

through which reorganization could be achieved. 

Please consult with representatives of the DEC and feel free to call 

on the Registrar, the Director of Analytical Studies and on me. I trust 

your recommendations can be brought before SCAP quite soon. 

Attached for your information are the paper brought before SCAP and 

a memo from Cal Hoyt to Peter Kennedy. 

4"_^4s^ 

C

__^

Daniel R. Birch 

att. 

:jeh 

cc. K. G. Pedersen 

H. M. Evans 

J. Chase 

P. Kennedy 

G.C. Hoyt 

.

-2 - 

BACKGROUND 

On November 20th, 1978 the Chairman of the Department of 

Economics and Commerce submitted to the Acting President a 

formal request from the Department for approval in-principle 

of Faculty status for the Department. This request reflected 

the result of extended discussion and referenda within the 

department which indicated that: 

(a)

a majority of the department was in favour of a 

re-organization of the department into two separate 

departments and, 

(b)

the majority of the department felt that the proper 

administrative structure for such a re-organization 

• ? 

should be that of a Faculty consisting of the two departments. 

The Acting President referred the request to the Senate Committee 

on Academic Planning who, in turn, considered it at its meeting 

on December 6th, 1978. The proposal was placed before the Committee 

for consideration at that time in order to identify the range of 

possible responses and to determine the most appropriate method for 

examining the issues raised by the proposal. 

Following discussion, the Senate Committee on Academic Planning 

unanimously agreed to the following motion: 

"To establish a sub-committee of the Senate 

Committee on Academic Planning to examine 

the rationale and organizational structure 

of all departments and Faculties within 

the University. Further, that the 

Chairman of the Committee be requested 

to select the members of the sub-committee, 

provide them with specific terms of reference 

and a time frame for completion of their 

deliberations." 

1^1

In; March, 1979, the Acting Academic Vice-President struck 

a sub-committee consisting of R. C. Brown, Dean, Faculty of 

Arts, T. W. Calvert, Dean, Faculty of Interdisciplinary Studies 

and C.H.W. Jones, Department of Chemistry to serve as members 

of the sub-committee. Dr. Jones was appointed Chairman of 

the sub-committee. The terms of reference for the sub-committee 

are shown as Attachment A. 

On June 5th, 1979, the sub-committee submitted its report 

which was considered by the full Committee at its meeting on 

June 13, 1979. (Attachment B). The Committee voted to accept 

the report. The motions presented above are designed to implement 

its recommendations. 

RATIONALE 

In considering an appropriate course of action, the sub- 

committee was faced with a major dilemma. For a variety of 

• ? 

reasons, which are enumerated below, it was desirable that some 

form of reorganization be initiated as quickly as possible. At 

the same time, the proposal from the department for the establishment 

of a new Faculty raised a variety of issues relating to the most 

appropriate long-term academic organization of the University. 

The problems and issues associated with the latter cannot and 

should not be resolved quickly. Thus, the sub-committee was faced 

with providing an interim solution to the needs of the department 

without foreclosing any long-term reorganization options. 

The solution proposed is to establish a School of Economics 

and Administrative Studies within the Faculty of Arts encompassing 

the two, existing departments. This will allow for separate 

decision-making processes for those areas which are most contentious 

within the Department while ensuring that curricular issues remain 

the responsibility of an integrated body. 

-4-

Why is Change Required? 

The major reasons justifying the need for change are the 

following: 

-(1) Size and Diversity 

In terms of faculty, programs, staff and student enrollment, 

the Department has grown to the point where administrative 

burdens have become unacceptable. it is not sheer size alone 

that has caused this, but rather the combination of size, the 

diversity of faculty backgrounds and interests, and the complexity 

of the Department's academic programs. Faculty in the 

organizational behaviour area have little in common with the 

faculty in economic theory, for example, and in a large 

department their administrative and social contact is less 

frequent. As a result the department has become badly fragmented 

as it has grown. 

There are also different perspectives characterizing the 

two disciplines in question. Economics is largely research 

and graduate-work oriented with an outlook inclined toward the 

international market place. On the other hand, the discipline 

of Commerce is work-place and practitioner oriented in teaching 

with an outlook inclined more towards the local than the inter- 

national market. Further, departments of business traditionally 

grew out of applied economics. This is no longer true. The 

parent disciplines for many faculty in Commerce are Psychology 

and Sociology. Thus, there can be a quite different focus for 

faculty in Commerce than for those in Economics. This general 

problem has existed in the department for a long time. 

(2) Complexity of the Department's Program 

The Department's academic programs are many and varied. 

There are undergraduate degree programs in Economics, in 

Commerce and in Economics and Commerce, with corresponding 

Honours Programs. At the graduate level there is Masters 

of Business Administration Program, Masters and Doctoral 

Programs in Economics, and an innovative academic program 

combining Economics and Commerce. in addition to this, the 

Department must co-ordinate with off-campus programs associated 

with professional institutes such as the Institute of Chartered 

Accountants and the institute of Canadian Bankers as well as 

respond to the needs of their own Continuing Studies programs. 

(3)

Conflict 

In the past few years the differences of opinion between 

the two major disciplines within the Department have become 

serious. Although this escalation has not directly involved 

more than 

.

a minority of faculty it has touched off in the minds 

of others a review of the areas associated with these differences. 

The most serious issues relates to appointments. Conflicts between 

the two sides concerning whether or not additional appointments 

should be made in the Economics or the Commerce area has reached 

an all-time high; neither side is willing to place a premium on 

people with a background in both the Economics and Commerce 

areas. Furthermore, both sides have developed specific (and 

opposite) views on the relative desirability of certain types 

of appointments and on the criteria by which prospective 

faculty members should be judged. This latter problem also 

arises within the Departmental Tenure Committee. Interpretation 

by the two sides of the Department of the criteria used to 

evaluate their colleagues can be different and as a result each 

side feels that some decisions are inappropriate. 

(4)

Other Concerns 

The administrative burden in the Department is heavy and 

is being carried by a few people. The downtown contacts of the 

Commerce faculty are substantial. The business community is 

accustomed to dealing with the Faculty of Commerce at the 

University of British Columbia which is a separate entity with 

its own Dean. The implication of this arrangement is that, in 

comparison with U.B.C., the business community may perceive 

our Department of Economics and Commerce and our students as 

second class because of the dual curriculum in which they are 

involved and because they (the business community) can deal 

only with the chairman of a department rather than the dean 

of a Faculty. For a long period of time, the Commerce discipline 

at Simon Fraser lived in the shadow of the Economics discipline 

and this further exacerbated the perceptions of the Department 

by the downtown business community. 

-6-

ORGANIZATIONAL ALTERNATIVES 

Five options were contained in the proposal from the Department 

of Economics and Commerce: 

(1)

Do nothing 

(2)

Modified joint department (would allow the Department to structure 

two separate appointments committees, two completely separate 

promotion and tenure committees, and appoint two associate 

chairmen one of whom would be responsible for Commerce-related 

activities, particularly with respect to the development of 

a Commerce Faculty identity at the undergraduate level. 

(3)

Two separate departments in the Faculty of Arts 

(4)

New Faculty for Commerce; Economics in Arts 

(5)

Two departments in a new Faculty 

In discussion concerning these organizational options, the Committee 

came to the following conclusions: 

(1)

A split of Commerce from Economics is inevitable. Thus, to 

pursue the first of the five options contained in the proposal 

from the Department is not viable. 

(2)

There is a very strong desire to maintain contact between 

the two disciplines at the curriculum level, both under- 

graduate and graduate. 

(3)

While splitting the Department appears highly desirable, the 

appropriate organizational location for each department is less 

clear. 

There is some question of the admiiistrative and legal feasibility 

of the proposals contained in the second option. Even ignoring these 

issues, however, one can anticipate the consequences stemming from 

either a Commerce or Economics Committee recommendation which is 

not acceptable to the affected party. 

Creating two separate departments in the Faculty of Arts would 

permanently separate Economics and Commerce with no chance of ever 

re-uniting them. Their academic ties would over time drift further 

and further apart leading to the loss of the new Commerce graduate 

academic program that has been developed in conjunction with the 

Economics graduate program. Commerce would continue to grow and 

would encounter difficulty living within the Faculty of Arts, since 

-7-

its basic professional orientation is not typical of Arts departments. 

It would eventually outgrow the Faculty of Arts and have to be 

relocated elsewhere. 

Creating a new Faculty of Commerce while leaving Economics in 

the Faculty of Arts will likely result in a severe reduction of the 

articulation between the curriculum of the two departments; Commerce 

students would likely not enrol for Economics courses, and vice-versa, 

and students in other disciplines would not take as many courses in 

Commerce or pursue cross-disciplinary programs. The proposals 

would, however, solve the appointment, promotion and tenure,and 

salary issues facing the Department as well as providing for the 

Commerce student a degree more recognizable as a degree in Commerce 

and thus more acceptable to the business community than any of 

the alternatives. 

The establishment of the two departments in a new Faculty 

recognizes the inevitability of the creation of a new Faculty. 

It compromises on the dilemma of split versus no-split by splitting 

yet keeping the two tied together. This proposal also retains the 

possibility of developing a viable "joint" structure, rather than 

giving upon on this problem. Removing Economics and Commerce from 

the Faculty of Arts will restore some balance to the relative sizes 

of the different Faculties at Simon Fraser. On the other hand, it 

might be difficult to find a high-quality dean willing to take on 

an Economics Department in addition to Commerce. Further, the 

Economics Department may lose some status if it is moved out of the 

Faculty of Arts. 

Both of these last two proposals have one primary disadvantage 

in common. Specifically, they both limit future organizational 

options as well as foreclosing debate on the question of whether 

or not such an arrangement is the best possible organizational 

location for the two disciplines. 

It is because this latter issue is so paramount that both the 

sub-committee and the full Committee were reluctant to consider 

recommending to Senate any organizational arrangement that 

' does not 

continue to tie the departments together within the Faculty of Arts. 

Rather, the sub-committee sought an interim solution which would 

achieve the following goals: 

-8-

(1)

To provide a greater "visibility" for Economics and Commerce 

in the outside community. 

(2)

To allow Economics and Commerce faculty to achieve, where 

appropriate, separate goals in their separate disciplines 

while retaining undergraduate and graduate curricula; while 

providing a separation of administraive responsibilities in the 

key areas of appointments, promotion, tenure and salaries, the 

proposal avoids a complete split of the two departments by 

retaining common undergraduate and graduate programs. 

(3)

To ease the heavy administrative load in this large and 

complex Department. 

(4)

To provide a framework for immediate action. 

The proposed arrangement provides an interim solution acceptable 

to the majority of members of the Department of Economics and 

Commerce. It also ensures that the University will have sufficient 

time to consider the larger question of the most appropriate long- 

term academic organization of the University 

COST 

It is intended that the Director/Associate Dean and the two 

?

Departmental Chairmen will be drawn from within the existing Faculty 

of the Department of Economics and Commerce. Because of the reallocation 

of teaching loads that will be required because of these administrative 

appointments, it will be necessary to authorize the establishment 

of one additional Assistant Professor position. Also, an additional 

Departmental Assistant will be required. Thus, the estimated 

incremental costs of the above recommendations amount to approximately 

$45,000 per annum. 

Scr° 7c/3

ATTACHMENT B

SCAP TASK FORCE REPORT ON THE RE-ORGANIZATION 

?

OF THE DEPARTMENT OF ECONOMICS AND COMMERCE 

In December 1978, the Senate Committee on Academic Planning met 

to consider a request from the Department of Economics and Commerce 

(SCAP 78-18) for in-principle approval of Faculty status for that 

Department. As a result of those discussions, the Acting Vice-President, 

Academic, established a task force to 

... prepare a recommendation for SCAP on the re-organization 

of the Department of Economics and Commerce." 

The task force was also advised that it should feel free to 

"... consider the larger question of separate Faculty status 

incorporating one or both units which would result from a 

division (of the Department) and the question of re-organizing 

existing Faculties with the transfer of some departments." 

- The task force met in an open forum with faculty from the 

Department on May 10th and this was followed by meetings with individual 

faculty or groups on May 17th and during the following week. In addition 

•

?

to the many oral presentations, a number of written briefs were also 

received. 

the task force quickly focussed its attention on a possible 

restructuring of the Department as a School and a further meeting was 

held on May 31st with the Chairman and three representative members of 

the Department at which a preliminary proposal was outlined. A number of 

constructive criticisms and recommendations were made by the Department 

representatives and these have been taken note of in the present recommen- 

dations. 

The present recommendations are an attempt to achieve the 

following important goals. 

1.

to provide a greater "visibility" for Economics and Commerce 

in the outside community. 

2.

to allow Economics and Commerce faculty to achieve, where appro- 

priate, separate goals in their separate disciplines while 

retaining common undergraduate and graduate curricula; while 

providing a separation of administrative responsibilities in 

the key areas of appointments, promotion, tenure and salaries, 

the proposal avoids a complete split of the two departments by 

retaining common undergraduate á'nd graduate programmes. 

.

-2-

3. to ease the heavy administrative load in this large and complex 

Department. 

4. to provide a framework for immediate action. 

RECOMMENDATIONS 

1.

That the Department of Economics and Commerce be re-organized 

into a School with the possible title: The School of Economics 

and Administrative Studies. (The Department may wish to select 

an alternative name for the School). 

2.

The School will be affiliated with the Faculty of Arts. 

3.

The School will be administered by a Director who will also hold 

the position of Associate Dean in the Faculty of Arts. 

4..' The Director will report to the Dean of the Faculty of Arts, but 

will carry the major responsibility for reviewing, on behalf of 

the Faculty of Arts, recommendations on tenure, promotion, 

salaries and appointments for faculty in the SchoOl. 

5. The School will be made up of two divisions, Economics and 

Commerce, each with its own Chairman. The terms of reference 

for the Chairmen will be analogous to those of Chairmen in the 

Faculty of Arts. 

6. Each division will have separate appointments committees and 

separate departmental tenure committees. Recommendations on 

faculty salaries will be made separately by the two Chairmen. 

7. The two divisions will share common undergraduate and graduate 

curriculum committees, the composition of which will be determined 

by the-Director and the Chairmen of the two divisions. For the 

immediate future, the existing department committees will con- 

tinue. The M.B.A. programme will be administered by the Commerce 

division. 

In addition it may be noted that: 

(a)

any additional, office space implicit in this proposal will be 

made available from within the present Faculty of Arts allotment. 

(b)

the estimated costs entailed in stipends and additional teaching 

allotments resulting from the implementation of this proposal, 

together with secretarial and D.A. support, will be approximately 

$45,000. 

-3-- 

(c) since the present proposal does not involve the Creation of a 

new Faculty or the transfer of departments within existing 

Faculties, the more general question of the Faculty structure 

of the University remains to be considered. 

/tb

1979-06-05 

SCHOOL OF ECONOMICS 

?

.

AND

ADMINISTRATIVE STUDIES 

(Affiliated with the Faculty of Arts) 

Director 

(Associate Dean of 

Faculty of Arts) 

?

Chairman ? 

Joint ? 

Chairman 

?

Economics ? 

(1) Undergraduate Program Comm. 

?

Administrative 

?

Department ? 

(2) Graduate Program Comm. 

?

Studies 

Department 

I ?

AppointmentsCommittee 

??

DepartmentalCommitteeTenure 

???

AppointmentsCommittee 

??

M.B.A. ? 

Departmental 

Committee 

Tenure 