Page 1
Page 2
Page 3
Page 4
Page 5
Page 6
Page 7
Page 8

SENATE ? 

SENATE COMMITTEE 

.

ON

.

4GENDA AND RULES 

-

.......... 

Subed ?

PROPOSED AD HOC SENATE 

?

Ds.

JANUARY 23, 1978

I ?

COMMITTEE ON STUDENT REPRESENTATION 

--

(ssR) 

MOTION: "That Senate establish the Senate Committee on 

Student Representation (SCSR), ad hoc, Reporting 

Category "C". 

The terms of reference shall be: 

1. To develop and recommend to Senate a set of 

guidelines for student representation in University 

governance in 

a.

the Faculties and their committees, and 

b.

the academic Departments and Programs and their 

committees. 

.

?

2. These guidelines shall be used to assist Senate 

in consideration of all rules submitted to Senate 

by the faculties concerning 

student representation

in is. and lb. above. 

3.

These guidelines shall also assist the individual 

faculties in establishing rules and regulations 

regarding student representation in Faculties, 

academic Departments and Programs. 

4.

This committee shall invite submissions from all of 

the Faculty Deans, chairpersons of academic Daparbmnts 

and Programs, departmental 

student unions and other

interested parties. 

5.

The meetings and proceedings of this committee shall be 

open to all interested members 

of the University

Coaunity. 

6.

This committee shall 

make

its reconmandationo to Senate 

not later than October 31, 1978. 

The composition of this committee shall be as follows: 

- two faculty members elected by and from the members of 

Senate, and 

W ?

two students appointed by the SFSS Student Forum, and 

- one person elected by Senate from among the lay members 

of Senate. 

The chairperson shall be elected by and from the members 

the committee." 

ASSOCIATION d.$ ETUDIAN8I WON FRAM

do SOON FRASER

STUDENT SOCIETY

Dr Paul,ine-jamet.t ? 

i ?

Brad Palmer 

:-

4rç Li* eneLo*It' 

incdorates the points we 

agreed to in our 

-,

dLtu$tófl tht 

?

g4g the nature and terms of reference of 

the

4 ?

student representation. 

I have also 

incørporètèd a 

$4ç1pni.agsestions regarding terms of reference 

!!Pd 

cppLt&ont, if yoethitd 

that further discussion would be useful 

before th ?usd1iy 

rnea 

1

ting 

of .C.A.R. please leave word 

be

SFSS 

Secretary 

,

atocol 3l8L ?

I ?

ILl

HIflk Benott is 

Ls the process of preparing, 

a aevhat 

'lengthly

rItionale for 

our propoeaj. i.idi he 

will forward to you at the beginning of next week. 

aon fraser vnfretsl2y

burnsW 2, b.c.

tsislioas 251-3111

svsrs•

simon fraser

bvrnsby 2, a--b-

Isisfon 251.3151

\\

RATIONALE 

.

The proposal to establish a Senate committee on student representation 

should he seen as part of a continuing process of defining an appropriate 

role for students in the 'governance of the University. In the early 

spring of 1976 the Committee on Student Rights for Participation in 

University Covrnance was established in the Faculty of Arts. This 

committee was chaired by the former dean of the Faculty, W.A.S. Smith, 

and it was created at the request of President Jewett as a way of 

initiating what was hoped to become a university-wide review of the 

issue of student representation. 

The Smith Committee saw as its terms of reference to collect informa- 

tion and then make recommendations for ways to improve the involvement 

of students in the governance activities of the University. 

The Committee collected copies of departmental constitutions and policies 

and procedures regarding student representation. Unfortunately, for 

several reasons it was unable to complete its plans for a set of meetings 

(or interviews) with department chairpersons, faculty members and mem- 

bers of student unions. The Committee was also unsuccessful in soliciting 

written submissions from these and other interested parties. 

In his final report Dean Smith cited the following as among the reasons 

for the Committee's inability to complete its work: 

1.

a problem in maintaining a constant and complete membership 

in part as a result difficulties caused by the summer semester, 

2.

the lack of well established student unions in most of the 

departments of the Faculty. 

In this same report Dean Smith made the following recommendations: 

... it seems to me essential that the focus move from the Faculty 

to the University level if real progress beyond the descriptive 

or data collecting phase is to occur. Thus I think it is impor- 

tant that your (President Jewett's) office, possibly Through 

the appointment or delegation of responsibility for chairing 

the activities, assume responsibility for the Committee." 

It is important to note that since the writiri', of this report (Sept. 30, 

1976) there have been a number of significant developments within 

the student Community that serve to focus attention on the question 

of student involvement in university governance. Perhaps the most 

significant of' these developments has been in the formation of depart- 

mental student organizntions or student unions. 

Tn Augwt of 1Q76 the Simon Fraser Student Society created th position 

of Student Union Fieldworker as a full-time staff position to assist 

and counsel students in the formation and development of student un 

In September the members of the SFSS Executive Council established 

a standin g 

committee to administer a system of semesterly operating 

grants and other funds required to finance the operations of the unions. 

To legitimize this new level of student involvement major revisions 

-2-

• ? 

in the Student Socity's constitution were approved by the membership 

'at there annual general meeting. A new by-law was incorporated which 

clearly states the conditions that must be satisfied for a student 

union to be recognized by the Society as the legitimate medium of 

student representation within a university department or academic 

program. Finally the primary policy-making body of the Student Society 

'was altered to provide the members of each student union with a voting 

representative on the new Student Forum. 

Since the time when Dean Smith presented his final report to President 

Jewett there has been a dramatic increase in the number of established 

and recognized departmental student unions. At present there are no * 

less than eighteen student unions out of a potential total of twenty 

five if one includes General Studies and the five area studies programs 

of the Faculty of I.D.S. The students, working through their depart- 

mental student unions are now in an excellent 

,

position to respond to 

a request for submissions from the proposed Senate committee on student 

representation. 

In addition to these structural or organizational changes there have 

been a number of events in recent months which point to the need. 

for a clear set of guidelines to cla'ify the rights of students to 

participate in the governance of the University in the Faculty and 

Departmental levels. 

• ? 

There continues to exist a number of academic departments which 

operate without voting student representatives on any departmental 

committees. Among those departments which make some provision for 

student representation there continues to exist a significant variation. 

Many Faculties and departments provide for student representation only 

on their standing committees and not within their "general meetings" 

which usually retains the authority for making "final' decisions on 

most questions of direct concern to students. 

During the previous semester the members of several student unions 

have made attempts to obtain representation on departmental com- 

mittees and general meeting. These attempts have largely been unsuc- 

cessful in part as a result of the lack of a clear set of guidelines 

or policy within their particular Faculties. 

The recent experience of several student unions with the S.C.US. 

grading proposals has also served to illustrate the need for the 

establishment of a clear and consistant set of minimum standards 

for student representation. These student unions found that they 

were not able to fully participate through elected representatives 

in their Department's consideration of the grading proposals. 

The issue of student representation was also a topic of considerable 

discussion at the Common Goals Workshop held in Sechelt in November 

of last year. Among the students, faculty members and administrators 

who attended the conference there was general agreement as follows; 

-0

-3-

"The Senate should strike a Senate Committee on University 

Governance. The Committee should work toward more student 

representation, especially at the Departmental level, and 

toward University-wide standards." 

from the minutes of the 

Conference as recorded by 

Bill Stewart, Director, 

Student Services 

As a final point it is interesting to note'hat since the passage of 

the new Universities' Act the only Faculty, to our knowledge, that 

has proposed rules and regulations concerning student representation 

has been the Faculty of Arts. At the request of representatives of. 

the Simon Fraser Student Society, Dean Munro has agreed to postpone 

bringing the proposed regulation before Senate until Senate has had 

an opportunity to develop policy to ensure the consistent treatment 

of proposed rules and regulations. of a similar nature which should 

be forthcoming from the o.ther Faculties of the University. 

In conclusion thereis a pressing need for Senate to establish a 

clear set of guidelines, concerning student representation. The 

members of the student community see this issue as a high priority, 

and, working through their departmental student unions, they are 

prepared to co-operate in every possible way with a Senate committee 

formed for this purpose. 

?

SiMON FRASER UNIVERSITY

MEMORANDUM

•• SENATE 

?

From

SENATE COITTEE ONAGENDA AND RULES.... 

STUDENT REPRESENTATION ?? 

.... 

Date.

J.NUARY 

Subject ?

Attached is a draft regarding the nature and terms of 

reference of a proposed ad hoc Senate Committee on Student Repre- 

sentation, submitted by Senator Brad Palmer. 

Upon the recommendation of the Senate Committee on 

Agenda and Rules and with the concurrence of Senator Palmer, the 

proposal with accompanying rationale is now presented to Senate 

for information and informal discussion at its February 6, 1978 

meeting. 

It is intended that after determining the general desires 

of Senate, the Senate Committee on Agenda and Rules in cooperation 

with the proposer of the original request will undertake to present 

a proposal for formal consideration by Senate at its meeting on 

March 6, 1978. 

It is intended that discussion at the February meeting 

not exceed thirty minutes.               

.

-r ?

SEwrE, -

,ç,

afi4qOv1

- ?

APE/J

TELEPHONE;

GORDON S. SHRUM

8 ?

46041

see

-2153

L. II(ITh LIDDIC

SNOLTO Hf SENTOW

R.PAUL

BLCRMAN

TELEX

04-84289

WIPITO4 DERSY

JOHN

MITCHELL

W. LUTES

DROPPER

8li2U)1, LIDDLE $

UBBBNTO1

ROBERT SCWCU

RONALD N. STERN

JOHNPARSON ?

BANN

STERS 4 S

OLICITORS

EIGHTEENTH rLOO*, SOS SURRARS SL,'$CWER,CANA0* V75 *O

RALPH C. HUDSON

C. LYNN SMITH

DYRAN GIBSON

1(0 ZACRS

GORDON TURRI,r

TREVOR W.BELL

February 1, 1978 

GINA M.OUIJANO

JAMES H. MACMASTER

CATHERINE

BRUCE

JAMES A. TITEPLC

Simon Fraser University 

Burnaby, B.C. VSA 1S6 

Attention: Mr. H.M. Evans, 

Registrar 

Dear Sirs: 

Re: Relations between Constituent 

?

Parts of the University 

You have asked us two questions with respect to the 

relations between constituent parts of the University. Your 

first question relates to the meaning of the expression "with 

the approval of" or "subject to the approval of" which is found 

in section 28(e) and 37(q) of the Universities Act (the "Act"). 

In section 28(e), the expression is used in a provision stating 

that the board has the power to establish procedures for the 

recommendation and selection of candidates for president, dean, 

etc., with the approval of the senate. In section 31(q), the 

Act states that the senate has the power to enter into agreements 

with certain corporations and societies to prescribe and conduct 

examinations, subject to the approval of the Board. 

In our opinion, these provisions establish 

what we

describe as a "twin-veto" procedure. That is, each of the bodies 

must concur in the decision before it becomes effective. By 

concur, we mean that each body must reach the same deciiOn. If 

there is some dispute as to the language in which the decision 

is expressed, then there is no decision. It is not open for one 

or the other bodies to re-phrase the decision of the other 

in a

situation where the language used has any different maning. 

Differences of mere form may be disregarded but the substantive 

meaning of each decision must be the same. For example, while 

it would be open for a body using traditional dating such as 

"January 25th, 1978" to substitute this expression if another 

part of the University has used "metric" dating (1978:1:25), 

it would not be permissible for 

one

body to substitute the word 

"significant" where the other body has used the word "important". 

We appreciate that the result of our opinion is that 

5ltiUd,

useia a 

Sinn Fraser University 

Page Two 

?

February let, 1978 

when one

body determines something 

significantN 

which another 

body determines as "important" an impasse remains and no decision 

applies until suchtime as the two bodies can negotiate wording 

acceptible to each of them. We suggest that to avoid such a 

difficulty the approving body adopt the proposal by specific 

reference to the resolution or. other decision of the other body, 

and perhaps attach the proposal as an appendix. 

Your second question is more difficult. You have 

asked whether the senate can set guidelines for student par- 

ticipation and impose those guidelines on faculties. Section 

40(b) of the Act provides that a faculty has the power and duty 

to provide. for student representation in the meetings and pro- 

ceedings of the faculty. Section 40(o) provides that a faculty 

has

the

power and duty 

make rules and regulation, for the 

govØrisnt, direction and management of the faculty and its 

afflire and

business, subject to the approval of the senate. 

Section 43 States that a general rule or regulation is not 

effective 

or

enforceable until a copy of such rule or regulation 

has bOon sent to the senate and received senate approval. These 

statutory provisions appear to conflict with each other. When 

such conflict arises, the rule of statutory construction is 

that one must attempt to find room for each provision to operate. 

In our 

opinion,

the overriding intent of the Act is 

that the main authority of academic government is the senate. 

We reach this conclusion in 

reliance

on the principal part of 

section 37, on the plain language of section 

41 and on

the fact 

that of the eight subsections of section 40, no fewer than five 

of them refer to the controlling power of the senate. We con- 

c.lude therefore that if the senate has made rules relating to 

student representation in faculties, then those rules must be 

followed by every faculty. If however, the rules developed 

by

the senate for student

representation are merely permissive, 

then it is

up to each faculty to decide the manner in which 

students participate in its government. Hence, in answer to 

your query Our answer would be in the affirmative, that the 

senate can set guidelines for student participation and can 

impose those guidelines on faculties. 

Yours very truly, 

SHRUM, LIDDLE & HEBENTON

Ted

z4s

cc. Don Ross, Bursar 