-I
SiMON FRASER UNIVERSITY
?
S-7411
MEMORANDUM
•T0
?
SENATE
?
From
SENATE COMMITTEE ON WORKING PAPER ON
UNIVERSITY GOVERNANCE IN BRITISH COLUMBI
Subject
?
REPORT TO SENATE
?
Date DECEMBER 27, 1973
MOTION: ?
"That Senate select one or more of its number
to present its views on the Working Paper to
the Committee on University Government at the
hearing scheduled for 16 January 1974 at
Simon Fraser University."
.
0
•
?
SiMON FRASER UNIVERSITY
?
S-
74-11
MEMORANDUM
0
To ?
The Registrar
?
From,
Dr. B.P. Bèirne, Director,
.Pestology Centre, Bio Sciences Dept.
Subject ?
Report 'to,
?
Date..December 27, 1973
Attached is a copy of a report by an ad hoc committee of Senate
on the Working Paper on University Governance in British Columbia.
The content of the report was agreed upon by the committee but Dean
Smith and Senator Kissner did not have the opportunity of editing this
draft. If they have any changes or additions to suggest they will
communicate them to you within the next week, before the report is
reproduced for distribution for the next meeting of Senate.
BPB:ct ?
,.
?
. '
?
. .
?
Bryan P. Beirne,
Enclosure ?
.
?
Director.
cc: Dean Smith
.
?
Senator Kissner.
Li
Report of Senate Committee on the?
Working Paper on University Governance
in Riftfch ?
1,,1,4.,
Committee members:' B.P. Beirne
R.F. Kissner
W.A.S. Smith
Proposed Motion (to follow Senate discussion of this Report):
That Senate select one or more of its number to present its views on the
Working Paper to the Committee on University Government at the hearing
scheduled for 16 January 1974 at Simon Fraser University.
December 27, 1973
.
n
?
1.
That this report is critical of certain of the proposals in the
Working Paper shouldnot be permitted to obscure the fact that the
Committee on University Governance has done a conscientious job for
which its members must be congratulated.
However, a general weakness of the Working, Paper is that it does
not provide a philosophical framework as a basis for the proposals on
restructuring the university system in British Columbia in that it does
not state clearly what reasonable goals for the universities are perceived
to be. It therefore does not state how the proposals would facilitate
the achievement of such goals. Consequently we often had difficulty
in proposing alternatives to their proposals in the absence of a yardstick
against which to measure them.
The main weakness of the proposals are certain undesirable con-
sequences that could fallow implementation. Some proposals could make
the position of the president intolerable and even untenable by making
him responsible to two bodies that conceivably could disagree and account-
able for decisions made by a committee and with which he may disagree.
Other proposals could tend to encourage the development of partisan
politics in Senate. Still others could reduce community participation
in university operation.
Purposes of recommendations in this report are to clarify obscure
but important points and to indicate alternatives to proposals made in
the Working Paper. Because of the complexity of the subject and of time
constraints, the report is concerned more with principles than with
•
?
details. For example, it is concerned with the identities of the con-
stituents of a body but not with their actual numbers or relative
proportions. When principles have been decided, details can then be
considered.
.
2.
C
I. The Universities Council of British Columbia
We support in principle the proposal to establish a Provincial
Universities Council, on the grounds that any agency that tends to
promote integration and cooperation and to eliminate unnecessary
duplication can be valuable. However, this Committee is unable to
comment constructively on the proposed Council, for two main reasons: -
First, the Council cannot coordinate the activities of the
universities effectively and intelligently, or at least convince the
universities that it can do so, until it knows what the universities
are supposed to be doing, and the universities have not yet got defined
goals.
Second, what the Council will attempt and accomplish will depend on
presently unknown factors,, namely the experience, opinions, attitudes,
and views of people 'yet to be named: the members of the Council, its
executive director, and three new university presidents.
General Recommendation:
That the establishment of an independent Universities Council of
• ?
British Columbia be approved in principle.
Council Membership: Alternative Recommendations:
(a)
That the membership be as proposed in paragraph 30 of the
Working Paper.
(b)
That the membership be as in
• (a) plus' members elected by and
from the senates of the universities.
(c)
That the membership be as in (a) plus members elected by
and from convocations.
(d)
That the membership be as in (a) plus members elected by
and from the' student bodies of. the universities.
(e)
That the membership be as in (a) plus members elected by and
from the senates, convocations, and student bodies of the
universities.
The advantages and disadvantages of combining the universities
into a. single Provincial university should be explored.
0
3.
.
II. Alternative Systems of Governance
The Working Paper does not propose alternatives to the present
system in which each university is governed essentially by two bodies,
a Board and a Senate. But the Senate would become involved in
finances-and thus of necessity in related matters of general interest
to the university community. The distinction between the functions of
the two bodies would then become blurred. The chief distinction
between them apparently would be the ostensible one that the Board
would consist largely of members of the public and the Senate wholly
of academics from within the university.
A unicameral system
A logical extension of the proposals would result in the Board and
Senate being combined so that the university would have a unicameral
system of government. This would recognize pragmatically the futility
of trying to divorce academic matters from financial ones. The single
body, which presumably would be termed Senate, could include representa-
tives from all valid components of the university community.
Recommendation:
.
?
That the advantages and disadvantages
,
of a unicameral system, as
compared with those of the present Board plus Senate system, be
examined and evaluated seriously and in detail at all levels,
and perhaps tested at one of the universities.
The Cabinet system
Participation by the university community In internal decisions,
including budget formulation, could be accomplished by the president
having an advisory Cabinet or Executive Committee that would include at
least several members elected by and from Senate. This Cabinet desirably
should be small in total membership to operate efficiently.
Recommendation:
That the advantages of a Cabinet system be evaluated, its
composition determined, and the system perhaps tested.
Participatory Interest
Any committee-type governing body is liable to include members
elected by and from particular components of the university community
(e.g. students, faculty, convocation, staff). We feel that If a component
wants representatives on a body it should demonstrate adequate Interest in
electing them. .
0
n
4.
Recommendation:
That no election to the Board, Senate, or other governing
committee be valid unless 20 percent or more of the available
electorate votes.
III. The Board
Composition
We regard the arguments for excluding faculty and, particularly,
students from Boardmembership as unconvincing rationalizations. it can
be variously argued tht the public, the students, and the faculty are
each beneficiaries or each trustees. We can see no critical reason why
students and faculty should be excluded from Board membership, and note
that (a) boards of other universities that include both appear to work
well and (b) the SF0 Board worked well with student participation.
The presence of students, faculty, and/or convocation members on a Board
is a key to the demystification of its role..
Alternative Recommendations:
(a) That, as proposed in the Working Paper, the Board consist of
members elected by Convocation, Members appointed by the Lieutenant-
Governor-in-Council, and the President and Chancellor.
(b)That the Board be constituted as in (a) with the addition of
members elected by and from the student body.
(c)
That the Board be constituted as in (a) with the addition of
members elected by and from the faculty.
(d)
That the Board be constituted as in (a) with the addition of
both members elected by and from the student body and by and
from the faculty.
Functions
The efficiency of university operation could be improved if decisions
on expenditures already approved in the budget would rest with the President
and not require approval at the Board level, though the President would
remain fully accountable to the Board for his decisions.
0
S
?
5.
Recommendation:
That this matter be studied in detail with a view to modifying
appropriately Section 46 (notably paragraphs (c) and (d)) of
the Universities Act.
IV. The Senate
Functions
A proposal in the Working Paper is that a standing committee of
Senate should assist the President in budget formulation. Presumably
this is an attempt to overcome the present situation in which Senate
makes decisions that,. if implemented, will involve major costs without
itself considering
,
those costs.
Statements in the Working Paper on this matter are in part somewhat
vague, so that this Committee must make certain assumptions:
That the proposed Senate committee would be Involved only in
• ?
budget preparation and not in decisions on expenditures of funds in an
approved budget, as otherwise the position of the President would become
untenable in that he would be responsible to two bodies, Board and
Senate, on expenditures;
That the role of the proposed Senate' committee would be purely
advisory, as otherwise the President could be in the untenable position
of being accountable for financial decisions made by a committee and with
which he may disagree; and
That the term open budgeting refers to the completed budget and
that, as is standard practice everywhere, discussions leading to Its
preparation are not public.
Weaknesses of Senate involvment in budget preparation are:
That Senate, If constituted as proposed In the Working Paper as a
purely academic body, would become involved In non-academic matters, namely
in budgeting related to staff, services, and facilities, in addition to
academic matters. In this event it would no longer be an academic body,
and it then logically should have non-academic members; and
That the existence of. this Senate budget committee would tend to
make it and Senate . political bodies In that people may try to get elected
to protect or promote financial Interests of their segments of the
university. ?
.
S
1.,
S
Alternative Recommendations:
(a)
That a Senate committee be established to advise the President
on priorities for expenditures in academic programmes.
(b)
That, as implied in the Working Paper, a. Senate committee be
established to advise the President on all aspects of budget
formulation.
(c)
That a non-Senate presidential committee be established to
advise the President on budget formulation, and that this
committee include representatives elected by and from Senate.
(Note that the Cabinet idea, suggested earlier In this report,
would cover this committee.)
Chairperson
We are opposed to the proposal that the President no longer chair
Senate for the reason that he would be able to participate more actively
than now in the debates, as we believe that this would tend to force
the President to develop a party structure and become a de facto party
leader In attempts to avoid votes against him that, conceivably, could
force his resignation. We are not opposed to the proposal that Senate
. ?
elect its own chairperson annually. This would tend to ensure that Senate
has an effective chairperson which a particular President might not be.
However, in this event the President desirably should not be a member of
Senate for the reason indicated .above.
Alternative Recommendations re Chairperson:
(a)
That, as at present, the chairperson of Senate be the President.
(b)
That, as proposed In the Working Paper, Senate elect Its own
chairperson annually.
(c)
That the President nominate a chairperson of Senate.
Alternative Recommendations re President:
(a)
That the President be a member of Senate.
(b)
That the President not be a member of Senate.
0
.
?
7.
Membership
Wording In the Working Paper could exclude from Senate, presumably
unwittingly,
certain academic deans who do not happen to be Deans of
Faculties, such as the SFU Dean of Graduate Studies. Appropriate rewording
is needed.
We support the Inclusion of the Director of Continuing Education
and of students. We note that membership as proposed In the Working
Paper would result In a closed system consisting of personnel within
the university, which is not desirable. Consequently, we support the
inclusion of convocation members.
If Senate Is to become Involved in budget formulation and related
non-academic matters it should Include representatives of relevant valid
components of the university community.
As
indicated earlier in this
report, this would tend to reduce the need for a Board and to support
the idea of a unicameral
governing
body.
Alternative Recommendations:
(a)
That, as proposed in the Working Paper, Senate consist of
•
?
specified academic administrators and members elected by and
from faculty and by students.
(b)
That membership should be as In (a) plus members elected by
and from Convocation.
(c)
That membership should be as in (a) plus representatives of other
valid components of the university community that may be
relevant to increased or otherwise
.
changed Senate functions.
(d)
That membership should be as in (b) plus (c).
V. President
The Working Paper contains proposals that, if implemented, could
limit the powers and responsibilities of the President to extents that
his position could become difficult and potentially untenable: he could
be responsibile to two masters, Board and Senate; he could be held
accountable for decisions with which he may disagree that are made by a
committee; he may have to become a de facto party leader in a partisan
system to avoid consequences of a vote against him in Senate; he would,
apparently, relinquish responsibility for determining procedures on academic
appointments and the like. Recommendations aimed at reducing or eliminat-
ing these problems are made elsewhere in thI Rcport.
8.
S
As the interests of all concerned ar safeguarded by the President
being fully accountable for his decisions and actions to the Board who
hires and can fire him, consideration should be given to strengthening
his powers instead of eroding them. For instance, administrative
efficiency could be improved if final responsibility for decisions
on expenditures approved in the budget would rest with the President
rather than with the Board.
The Working Paper does not discuss possible alternatives to the
present presidential system that might have special advantages, for
example, associate, co-, or no president. We advocate that such
possible alternatives be evaluated.
VI. Faculties
Recommendation:
That a committee of faculty and students be established to survey
faculty committees on which student representation is needed, and
to recommend accordingly.
.
VII. Procedures for Academic Appointments, etc.
Recommendation:
That committees of administrators, faculty and students be
established to suggest appropriate procedures and advise the
President accordingly.
VIII. Alternative Approaches to University Education
Recommendation:
That a standing committee of administrators, faculty, and students
of the three universities be established to consider this matter
and recommend accordingly.
IX. General Recommendation
Recommendation
S
That in view of the extent to which the content of the Working
Paper has been studied by Senates, the Committee on University
Government should include henceforth at least one Senator from
each of the three universities.
ovERviEw
viam
.
Working Paper
?
on University Governance
?
in British Columbia,
L
Prepared
&y the
Commimw on Undersiiy Cowrnannr
JOHP4 .iEWI.,
Ch.airnta ?
aorrtne t,ono
WILUASI
M.
Aa$al'a0740 ?
axaji
OxUDA
ILUK
H g
*atOo&
?
WALTIR
D. YOUNG
CONTENTS
2.
?
Introduction
?
..............................................................
7
S. Specific Preliminary Proposals:
The Board of Governors .......................................
9
4.
The
Senate ...............................................................to
S.
The Faculties ...........................................................13
t The
President ......... ........... ....................................... is
7.
Procedures for Academic Appointments ..............l4
& The Universities Council of British Columbia .......IS
9.
Alernsdve Structures .....................................IS
10.
Oganlxadonal Charts ...........................................20
The Committee on University Governance was appofrste.d
bythe
Minister
of Education t September u;j under the
chalrvnanshlp of John Bremer, The Committee
was
asked
to report to the Minister under the following terms of refer.
estee:
"To consider the Internal and external forms of university gov-
ernance, with particular reference to the relationship between
the utuvenitie, and
the
Provincial (iuverntnrnt, and to make
recoasmendassom to the Moister of Education for appropriate
changes in the Universities Act."
This Initial statement by the Committee is Intended to en-
courage
the
examination and discussionof the matters
raised, The Committee invites Interested groups and mdi.
viduals to submit written briefs and make presentations at
public bearings that will commence in mid-January upj.
The Act under which the public universities of British
Columbia operate won written
In
1963 and, In many re-
spects is still an effective document. The Committee sent no
need to change those sections of The Act which have worked
well over the past tea years and which continue to work
well. However, the nature of the times require that changes
be made which will ensure public accountability and pre-
serve the essential academic autonomy of the universities.
The Committee awonsa that any legislation respecting
the universities in British Columbia would require university
practices to be in accordance with the provisions of any
provincial human riglas legislation.
In general, the Committee it reluctant to propose changes
which penetrate too deeply into the internal structure and
responsibilities of the universities, and sees no reason why
the three universities should have uniform internal adminis.
trative structures and procedures.
Th
e
Committee considers a university Baud of Go,.
emefs to be the motes of public funds which oversees the
budgeting and expenditure of those funds It does not we
the Board as a management committee which initiates tass-
vaiity poSeint. nor does it believe that its members should
be elected to represent "constituencies" in the university
community.
The Committee recognizes the traditional responsibility
Of
Senate for the academic governance of the university,
but feels that the Senate's role in this respect should be given
greater clarity. It proposes, therefore, that Senate be
costs.
posed of students and faculty members only.
The trustee role of the Board and the academic responsi-
bility of the Senate at each university should be seen in the
larger context of the province and the nation. To preside
a framework in which there
it
adequate recognition of the
public intetests, the Committee proposes the formation vi a
Universities Council of Smith Columbia. the members Of
which would be drawn from the general public. This coun-
cil would replace the present Advisory Board and Academic
Board and act as an intermediary between the universities
and the Minister of Education. It would have power to
support and encourage coordination and planning of situ-
venity activities as well as provide a public review of tbme
activities.
The importance of the role of leadership in the university
it
recognized by the Committee. It believes that the Presi-
dent should maintain this role of leader and continue to be
the wsivcssszy's chief executive officer. However, the Com-
mittee proposes that the President participate in Senate
at
a member, rather than in the chair, and prepare the annual
budget in consultation with a standing committee of Senate.
This would expand both the scope and accountability of the
presidcy. It is further proposed that each president be
included
at
a non-voting member of the Council for the
Universities of Bndsls Columbia.
The Committee dont not believe that coordinating bodies
between
the
Board of Governors and Senate, or between the
university and the community, need to lie established by
kglslatioo. Such links can he created by the Board
and
Senate of each university. Moreover, the Committee does
not believe it would be wise to kgisliste the creation of inter,
university bodies to deaf with the proposed Council for the
LJnlvetaiva of Bntish,ColumIsia.
INTRODUCTION
t. Few public institutions have been subjected to
as
rig.
onot.st
and widespread an examination of (heir structure
and
function as have today's universitiin. And few public institu-
tions have had to contend with the rts,ttilicatiuns of the pace
of social change in so many tome as hare the universities,
It Is not, however, to elicit sympathy for these bodies that
we need to be reminded of these facts; it is to call to our
attention the present position of the university and to re-
mind ourselves of the burden society has placed on uni-
vanities - and of the burden universities can lie to society.
a. In the recent past in British Columbia there have been
many proposals for changing the structure of the univer-
shies. For the most part these have addressed themselves to
particular aspects of universi ty
govensanic. Its pursuing its
examination of the present structure of the province's public
universities, the Committee undertook to exaittisse the whole
structure and to concentrate particularly upon the rela-
tionship of the parts
one
to the other rather than upon
any
single
aspect.
3. The operational premise of the Committee is that the
Political relationships that exist between the elements of the
university community are, in the final analysis, a product
not of legislation but of the powerrelationahips that devel.p
between students, faculty members, deans, presidents and
boards of governors, and that these relationships are un-
likely to be modified in any major way Isy statutor
y
means,
This Is not a premise that ,simumes that the datal
quo
Is
always preferable. It is one that recoopites the existence of
strong traditions within the universities and the human pro.
pensity of those accustomed to these traditions to convert
P
new
roposi
fo rms to old. Lasting change can be
hat astured by
ng modest alterations that encourage new relation.
ship, to develop from within.
4 .
The object, then, of this working paper
IS
to propose,
WAYS
In which these relationships can he more clearly tie.
fined. The proposed changes would have the effect of en-
asuraglng reform In university governance without fnrelng
It Into a rigid mold of legislative provhos The political
assumption is that parliamentary pmrrswen which rely more
on precedent and the good judgement of those engaged in
the operations and lea on e
l
aborate and cumbersome s*nsc.
tuna, are preferable.
. The Committee has been particularly concerned with
the relationship between the universities and the govern-
aunt. Universities are public institutions, spending public
funds and performing public functions. The fart that gov-
ernments should want some means of ensuring that uni-
versities are spending public funds wisely and with some
recognition that the public
treasury
is not inexhaustible
should cause neither surprise nor wart-p. Equally, however,
universities should be concerned that governments do not
Interfere In any direct or indirect way with their operation.
The strength of any un
iv
ersity Is its Independence.
6.
To provide government with more than
an earnest as-.
stuance of responsibili t
y and to protect universities from
spollticai pressures, an agency to function as an Intermediary
is
needed. The
Worth
Report In Alberta, the Wright Re-
Pont in OntarIo, the Oliver task force in Manitoba and the
Carnegie Commission all proposed the creation of some
Mid of body to serve this purpose. This committee takes the
view that such an Intersnedlsn
1
. I necessary in British Co.
lumbia, It would provide for the reconciliation of account-
ability with autonomy and would ensure a greater sensitivity
at
social needs In the development of university education.
n
myitifration of the role of Boards would rmo'al the fallacy
Of
the anumption that faculty and student membership can
leant would open the way to more significant parlicipa.
tion in
.
unlvensity governance for these groups. The Commit-
tee does not accept this ;assumption.
ii.
It
proposes that the sire of the Board of Governors he
Increased to fifteen with five niembers elected by Cottvoca..
tion
and eight appointed by the Lieotenasnt.Governor.in
.
Council - the remaining two members being the President
and the Chancellor,
ax-officio,
The Committee would also
Propose that the Board he styled the Board of Trustees, and
that faculty members and students of the particular sans.
verity be Ineligible for election or appointment
ma. To those who would at this point protest that by
eS-
dudlog (acuity and students from the Board, the Commit-
tee Is deriving
the
Possibility of real democracy on the
ennprn it should be pointed out that the true nature 01
democracy lies not in who sits where but in the relationship
O f
the parts to each other and to the whole, it
is
pointless
to argue that democracy demands the election of a monath
If in fact
that
monarch is absolute; far better to keep the
aown
as
hereditary and invigorate the assembly, Trustee-
ship Is the principal responsibility
of t
he Board.
THE SENATE
13.
It
was the Duff
.Bencjahl
commission that In 1966
pointed out for those who had eyes to see that the real locus
of power on the campus was the Senate. It was itt this
body that the academic decisions were taken prior to their
almost perfunctory ratification by the Board. As they are
presently constituted. Senates tend to he too huge to be
effective
-
at least this would seem to be the case with the
University of British Columbia. At the tome tune, too small
a Senate lam the advantages that size lends to an assembly
In which debate
it
the basis for decision making. Mummer,
entaIl Senates suffer from either a limited committee
st,uc;
sure or overworked manhaers, or both.
14. Apart from size, the Committee considered the role
of
"lay" metniacri of Senatni and came to the conclusion
that the interests of the community could lie better served
In other ways. Experience In this and other provinces indi-
cates that the provision of s relatively small number of lay
members on academic senates is not
ii
satisfactory way to
usaurc community input. The desirability of maintaining a
modest sort of participating connection be members of Con-
vocation is met by the proposal that convocation elect five
members of the Board of 'rem. Community responsi-
bility In the broader and more significant contest is pro.
sided for in the proposals ,elating to the university-govern-
ment Intermediary body.
..
It
Is proposed that Senate have a purely academic
composition. This would consist of the Chancellor, Presi-
dent, Academic Vice-president or equivalent, Deans of
Faculties, Chief Librarian, Director of Continuing Educs-
don or equivalent, a representative of each affiliated college,
a number of student, equivalent to the total of the preced-
ing membership, and a number of faculty equal to twice
the
total of preceding membership excluding students. In
other word,, each senate would consist of e' sdmhnlatra-
tion, s% students and 5o7a faculty members. At present
this would produce a senate of 72
at U.B.C.,
44
at the Uni-
vcsslty of Victoria and 40 at Simon Eraser University.
16, The inclusion of the Director of
Continuing
E.ducs.,
don or the equivalent, is a matter of sonar Importance. The
extension of a university's academic services beyond its walls
Ives once
it
secondary operation designed as much to fulfill
a public relations role as to educate calm-mural students,
Today a major part of a university's teaching function must
Involve part-time students, cxtra-nturisl students and Mu.
detsta engaged not in degree work but iii continuing cduc&-
don of a variety of kinds. A university's out-reach Is now
SPECIFIC PRELIMINARY PROPOSALS:
?
THE BOARD OF GOVERNORS
.
7. Boards
of
Governors have then been the principal ob-
jects 01 criticism of the university. It i. claimed that they
represent neither the university community nor the
public,
that all too often they canine of captains of industry who
evinec little concern for matters academic; and that they
rule the campus in a thoroughly dictatorial
manner.
With-
out at this point disputing these assertions, it is worth not-
ing that apart from the university Chancellor, members of
these hoasth receive little public recognition for the time
and energy they devote to university matters and no ma-
terial rewards beyond occasional lunches and dinners at uni-
veritty expense. Moreover, their influence on university
affairs. however significant their contribution, is
often
cx-
aggerated.
& The function 01 Boards of Governors, strictly inter-
peered,
is
to act as public trustees on behalf of the crown -
the trustor, and to *rnv the university - the beneficiary of
the trust. This is a necessary function if universities axe to
have the benefit
of
public funds. The logic of the trustor-
intect relationship requires that trustees have no interest in
the trust
beyond serving both trustor and bencticiary. It
also follows that beneficiaries
cannot
be (nntees.
9. Propusals for reform have usually included provision
for (iculsy
,
and student membership on Boards of Govern-
ors. Apart train the violence this does to the logic of the
mnsttor-irssstee relationship, there seems to be link advantage
in greatly increasing the si
t
e of Bosnia or of making them
into university assemblies such that the real work of govern-
ing
is
canted
an
by one or more small committees - as has
happened in other jurisdictions where such remedies have
been attempted.
to. Because their proceedings are more or len secret,
Boards of Governors appear to he more active and influen-
tial in university affairs than they really are. A thorough dc-
vitally important and
clearly a matter that must engage
$
significant portion of Senates attention.
1
7: The Committee recognizes the fairly obriow fact that
matters of student discipline no (anger require the elaborate
structures that were a product of the era when the university
functioned in
lana parentis.
It is
therefore proposed that the
Fatuity Council be abolished. Disciplinary matters which
arc not within the normal sphere of the civil or criminal
law, should be handled by
bodies
to be established by the
universities in consultation with appropnsth student repre.
sentativa. Final appeal from these bodies should lie to a
standing committee of the Senate.
ill. To enable the presidents to participate more actively
in
the
debates of Senate, it is proposed that each Senate
eiott in own chairperson annually. To enable the Senate to
participate fully in the governance of the university it is
proposed that each Senate establish a standing committee to
meet with and assist the president in the preparation of the
university budget. In this connection there is no evidence to
support the necessity for secrecy in budgeting. Where open
budgeting has been instituted the results have been urn-
faintly positive.
ig. As envisaged by the Committee, the Senate is the
central agency in the academic governance of the university.
Composed solely of shore for whom the academic decision-
making process is of central and overriding concern, it.
would exercise a wide and significant authority within the
powers presently assigned under the existing Act. The Com-
mittee would propose no change in its powers beyond pro-
poring that it be charged more specifically with the
.ica-
drutic ovcrnancc -of the universit y
, and providing for the
active involvement of a Senate standing comntitagc in the
central budgeting process. So constituted it would have the
potential to bring shout whatever changes in the academic
style and pursuits of the university that it chose.
FACULTIES
to The one change in the structure of the Faculties that
the cotnnsiuce would recommend at this point would be
that Faculties make provision for student representation at
a level and in a matinee to be decided by than (scanty mclii.
hem and students of each Faculty. There is no doubt that
student involvement in the governing processes of the uni-
versity
it
highly desirable and worthwhile as a meats, of en-
staring that the university is aware of the needs and wishes
of its student body and of the wider community their view,
often reflect, and also as means of providing students them-
selves
with valuable insights into J.c bases of decisions that
have ramifications beyond the immediate concerns of a
particular course or discipline. For these reasons the Com.
mirtee proposes that there should be student representation
on the Senate and on the Faculties.
THE PRESIDENT
at. The Committee recognizes that attempts to minimize
power or distribute it widely on the campus
ate
seldom
successful. In what it proposes, the Commhtte seeks to en-
wise
that power is exercised openly and in a contest that
provides responsibility within the existing structures,
22.
The rearrangement of the operating parts of a uni.
vcsaity invariably produces situations in which the old order
meanau Itself in new forms that are not immediately rung-
nisabic but arc, nonetheless, as undesirable as belore -
assuming that the dame for change was based on valid
criticism Equally ineffective are attempts to distribute
power widely by new structures, m.traswe infusions ul elector-
al devices and a plague of elected committees. Such changes
succeed only his making it difficult for decision., to be reached
and even maix difficult to determine re"pomilaimaty osscc they
have been reached. And, almost inevitably, either the old
power structure or a new and more subtle one will emerge
'3
to
be
lotsrlth
t
he enential
behind
mechanksnts
s
t h i cket
of
of
democracy.
procedures
DemocracyL
that purport
i
hiss
as
a tangle of procedures and more a way of political Ire-
(asvfour that relies upott good faith and the notion of re-
sponsible and visible government.
23.
It
it the
Committee's
proposal, therefore, that the
Office of President remain essentially as it
is
in the present
Act, except that the Senate 'c involved
In
the budgetary
P roc e ss
and that the President no longer chair Senate. In
short, It is the view of the Committee that the President he
the chief executive officer of the univerilty, accountable to
the Senate in matters
01
academic governance, and resporlu
ible to the Board in its role as public trustee.
PROCEDURES FOR
?
ACADEMIC APPOINTMENTS.
?
PROMOTION AND RELATED MATTERS
54. Amongst the more vexatious questions that
have
faced
unIversIties have been those involving questions of appoint-
mean, tenure and renewal of contract. Universities have re-
sponded to these questions in their own ways.
23 It is
the view of the Committee that these are matters
which properly belong to the universities tttcsnsclvcs to deal
with where
they
do not touch upon areas served by the nail
and
cnntinsj jurisdictions, The commi
tt
ee
believes it to
be
of fundamental Importance, however, that universities estab-
lish and make public specific, and simple procedures I rue
dealing with matters under these headings. It pnsptsscs that
the procedures In (ormmtlaterj by appropriate university
bodies, in consultation with the Faculty Awoclat ion
on
an
equivalent agency. The Cvtmttaittee would also pmuprac that
when the president makes his receamnrna,4a(ons regarding
personnel matter, to the lk,,artl of Trur*cai, that he
be
ii--
quired to
report
the findings of the appropriate
comntsrl,t
at
the sar,sc
time,
14
S
aG.
While the Committee generally favours the view that
admloiezraton In the universities should hold office for
fixed terms and that faculty should play the major role in
any selection process, it dues not think that it would be wine
to provide for such terms and procedures in legislative form.
The particular circumstances of each university require
Local initiative in these questions within the general guide-
tines that the
Act
establishes.
a
7 .
It
seems obvious that universities should provide spe-
ci& dismissal procedures, for example, to mouse that the
tenure provisions serve the purpose for which they were de'
signed: the protection of the academic from interference in
the free and open pursuit of scholarship and not as a barn-
cadc to protect the incompetent from legitimate conlro.na'
don with their own inadequacy. It is the hope of the Corn-
outlet
that one result of the changes it is proposing would
be the encouragement of free and open discussion of every
aspect of a university's operation including procedures gov-
aning appointments, promotion and tenure, salaries, dis-
missal and discipline
THE UNIVERSITIES COUNCIL
?
OF BRITISH COLUMBIA
,& A matter of major concern to both universities and
the governments that support them has been the just appor.
tiosiment of spheres of independence and involvement. Gu
y
-anmasu quite properly require an accounting of the funds
they annually contribute to universities in the form of
capital and operating grants. They become justifiably con-
cerned when they hear rumours of wasteful expenditure,
yet arc denied budgetary control over
the
universities. For
their part the universities prefer licinf treated
1,04
as mmdi-
cants but as the rightful recipients of as large a portion of
the public purse as thy alone feel their purposes requite.
ag. Rising costs, changing attitudes toward post-second-
ary education in general, the need to avoid competition be-
twesito
universities for public funds and the need to avoid
wasteful duplication of resources requires the establishment
of an intermediary servttlg as the agency within
which
the
interom of government and university are rconciled. Such
an agency would minimise confrontation intl provick a
framework for mutual interaction and persuasion. It would
also,
serve to ensure the coordination of prusrwnmes and re-
sources amongst the universities and provide for sy'.tesnatic
public influence in the development of university education
in British Columbia.
o This Council, as the Committee envisages it, would
be composed of eleven lay persons appointed by the Lieu-
tenant-Governor-in-Council, with the presidents of the uni-
versities, a representative of the Department of Education
plus the chairman of any equivalent body established for
the province's colleges as non-voting members. It would
ns at least monthly during the academic year. It would
elect its own chairman and would appoint a full-time execu-
tive director and such staff as it would require to perform
Its functions. These would include receiving the operating
and capital budgets from each of the universities, evaluating
and
consolidating
these and transmitting a total request to
the Minister of Education. It would allocate the stun re-
ceived from the governmertt to the universities. The louncil
would also concern itself with the intermediate and long
tt
apge planning of university development and would have
the power to approve or disapprove proposals for new in-
stituuc, and new degree programmes at the undergraduate
and post-graduate levels. In addition it would wvrk with
the universities in promoting cooperative ventures and in
coordinating existing and future developments.
31. In the performance of its duties it would have the
power to require from the universities such documents and
Information as it felt it needed and would, as well, lie cnn-
powered to carry our or contract for studies or research pro-
jects related to its area of teipnnvil,ttity. While the Coin-
miltee can we no reason for making specific legislative pro.
vision, it would urge the government to
cumieldcr the ad-
visaltiilty of establishing longer and more flexible budgetary
32.
An important rr'pnnsllitlity of the Couns ii would be
the preparation and pulilimation of an annual report which
would include all the budgetary Information .uhitntttrd to it
by the universities and stilnnitted by it to the government,
as well as detail, of its ill-ation to the universities. In addi'
tion the report would include is general appraisal of the
state of university education in the province.
33.
While the Council would have specific powers with
respect to new degree programmes and would have the sole
responsibility for allocating the general government grant
for universities, its general responsibility would lie let the
areas of encouraging, advising and warning the universIties
without at the same time interfering with their necessary
ausd legitimate autonomy in Internal matters. It should not,
for example, be within the Council's powers to esenise line
Item budgetary cuni'rol. Within the grant of
funds
made
by
the Council, and having regard for the Council's advice.
the universities would be responsible for their own reflects.
dcx.. The Council could provide advice based on the work
011* staff or
outside
contract research in a wide variety of
arus and would actively encourage cooperation and co
.
-ordination between the universities.
34. It
Lv the belief of the Committee that the Council
would stand between the universities and the government,
serving
as
a wise counsellor to both and as a thtrd voice in
the deliberations affecting universities in British Columbia.
The presence on the Council of the chairman of any equiv-
alent body saving the College constituency would provide
much needed coordination between the two ranges of higher
education offered in the province.
33 .
Pmposab have hteers made for the ottabl'tnhmens of
formal Inter-university bodies to represent the province's
universities before the Council, The (:osnntlttee can see no
advantage in kgislasiitg the establishment of such a body
S
and, moreover, is concerned that such a development would
estate an adversary relationship between the universities and
the Council. The Couustl. .utd not sonic oilier lasts, iltoulil
be the torus and the forum for inter-wtisersity relatioitsftisi
as well as university-government relationship..
6. The Conuttittec would propose that the Council
establish a number of ad hoc or standing cosslinitters that
would serve in an advisor
y
capacity. 'these con,tnittres
would include individuals from other educational f,o,tic,
and front community groups whose interests and concerns
intersect with the aim, and development of universit
y
edu-
cation in the province.
ALTERNATIVE APPROACHES
TO UNIVERSITY EDUCATION
37.
The Committee on University Governance has not
directed its attention to any of the myriad proposals for at'
tentative torsos of curriculum, structure arid content a).
though
it is the Com,nitieea intention to pruvid, a cost-
pendium of such proposals with a working Iiitliogra
j ,hy in
its final report. Apart front the view already stated that
Little
of any positive value would be achieved by rtiannis c le-
structuring of the canting universities, there is a more coin-
pclling reason for riot dealing with this nol,iec(. That revon
it
simply that, in the Committee's opinion. there is
in the present or proposed structure of the province
'
s uni-
versities that would present the des'eloptneot and inntiiution
of mont of the proposals for educational reform now cur-
rent. Moreover it is obviously more consistent with the
democratic objective of university reform to encourage ibe
development
of
new forms from within rather than to legis-
late them From without,
38.
It is the Committee's firm belief that such rc,istancc
to
change
as may be found in the universities is a (unction
of attitudes within each campus and not a function of iic
structure within which these attitudes exist. The most that
any structural change can do is
provide a framework with.
In which ideas may develop freely with the Sasitrance that
there is a legitimate forutit itt which they may be debated
and which has the authority to itn1tle
. tttetit thu
g
whining the
support of the ittestiltens of the aradesuic community. It
is
the Committee's view that the changes proptv'd in ibis
working paper will enh.utce the potential for cliatige from
within the structures of ttitiver'iity governance. It should lie
noted that one of the functions the Cutititlittee e'iiistigci
for the Council is the application of its research capacita in
the areas of educational alternatives at the univcr
.
ty level.
-
S
PROPOSED 61,RUCTURE
I w*ter I
S
PSCNT S1.Ic1'Lm(
I Coma for
W. .1
Lhvsiihu
of
B.0
Tfla*S$
I ?
I
=PIN
Omm
,LTI
Oxm011or
H
SOWS
I
o .._
fr......qI
* ,.,
dw
._
c__
L
Bod _ of
I
0 øoo
F
la
S
?
- I-
•1
I
'—
a— '-
-
-
a{ ?
_[
cowowhm
1
0
S.74-ll - APPENDIX A
SiMON FRASER UNIVERSITY
'
To
?
MEMBERS OF SENATE
?
MEMORANDUM
From
?
SENATE COMMITTEE ON AGENDA
AND RTJT15
QUESTIONNAIRE - ON THE REPORT OF
?
JANUARY
Subject_TIlE_SFU_SENATE_COMMITTEE_ON_TIlE
?
Date_________________________________________
WORKING PAPER ON UNIVERSITY
GOVERNANCE IN BRITISH COLUMBIA
Reference is made to Paper S.74-11 which is on the agenda for
discussion at Senate at the meeting of January 14, 1974.
Following the discussion at Senate of the Report of the Senate
Committee on the Working Paper on University Governance in British
Columbia would you please complete the attached questionnaire. It will
be collected before the close of the Senate meeting on January 14. It is
recognized that during the discussion on the Report some additional recom-
mendations might be proposed and some of the recommendations proposed
might be deleted. Were either of these actions to arise then the necessary
adjustments would have to be made to the questionnaire at the meeting
before requesting its completion and before its collection.
The Senate Committee on Agenda and Rules has recommended that the
q
uestionnaire not be filled
in
by individual Senate members until the
debate on the particular points have been completed. The questionnaire is
being distributed now to give members an opportunity to consider their
responses. Additional copies will be available at the meeting of Senate
should they be required.
Instructions - Completion of Questionnaire
In the appropriate rectangle
?
to the left of each item,
please indicate by tiXti your vote in favor (yes) or opposed (no), as
applicable..
Where applicable in the sections which follow, please rank in
order
EJ,
place
the individual
the selected
items
number
ofthe
indicating
section. In
your
the
ranking
rectangle
of the
to
item.
the left
The
larger the selected number the higher the ranking. Within each section
use each number once only.
It
QUESTIONNAIRE
on
Report of Senate Committee on the
Working Paper on University Governance
in British Columbia.
Committee members:
?
B. P. Beirne
R. F. Kissner
W.A.S. Smith
Proposed Motion (to follow Senate discussion of this Report):
That Senate select one or more of its number to present its views
on the Working Paper to the Committee on University Government at
the hearing scheduled for 16 January 1974 at Simon Fraser
University.
December 27, 1973
.
-1-
That this report is critical of certain of the proposals in the
Working Paper should not be permitted to obscure the fact that the
Committee on University Governance has done a conscientious job for
which its members must be congratulated.
However, a general weakness of the Working Paper is that it does
not provide a philosophical framework as a basis for the proposals on
restructuring the university system in British Columbia in that it does
not state clearly what reasonable goals for the universities are perceived
to.be
. It therefore does not state how the proposals would facilitate
the achievement of such goals. Consequently we often had difficulty in
proposing alternatives to their proposals in the absence of a yardstick
against which to measure them.
The main weakness of the proposals are certain undesirable conse-
quences that could follow implementation. Some proposals could make
the position of the president intolerable and even untenable by making
him responsible to two bodies that conceivably could disagree and
accountable for decisions made by a committee and with which he may
disagree. Other proposals could tend to encourage the development of
partisan politics in Senate. Still others could reduce community par-
ticipation in university operation.
Purposes of recommendations in this report are to clarify obscure
but important points and to indicate alternatives to proposals made in
the Working Paper. Because of the complexity of the subject and of time
constraints, the report is concerned more with principles than with
details. For example, it is concerned with the identities of the constit-
uents of a body but not with their actual numbers or relative proportions.
When principles have been decided, details can then be considered.
.
ci:
-2-
I. The Universities Council of British Columbia
We support in principle the proposal to establish a Provincial
Universities Council, on the grounds that any agency that tends to
promote integration and cooperation and to eliminate unnecessary
duplication can be valuable. However, this Committee is unable 'to
comment constructively on the proposed Council, for two main reasons:-
First, the Council cannot coordinate the
'
activities of the
universities effectively and intelligently, or at least convince the
universities that it can do so, until it knows what the universities
are supposed to be doing, and the universities have not yet got
defined goals.
Second, what the Council will attempt and accomplish will depend
on presently unknown factors, namely the experience, opinions, attitudes,
and views of people yet to be named: the members of the Council, its
executive director, and three new university presidents.
General Recommendation:
?
I.
L J []
?
That the establishment of an independent Universities Council of
?
Yes No
?
British Columbia be approved in principle.
Council Membership: Alternative Recommendations:
Rank in order from 5 through 1.
?
f, TJ
?
(a) That the membership be as proposed in paragraph 30 of-the
Working Paper.
?
[ J
?
(b) That the membership be as in (a) plus members elected by and
from the senates of the universities.
?
[ j
?
(c) That the membership be as in (a) plus members elected by and
from convocations.
?
J ?
(d) That the membership be as in (a) plus members elected by and
from the student bodies of the universities.
?
{ J
?
(e) That the membership be as in (a) plus members elected by and
from the senates, convocations, and student bodies of the
universities.
The advantages and disadvantages of combining the universities
into a single Provincial university should be explored.
0
MM
II. Alternative Systems of Governance
The Working Paper does not propose alternatives to the present
system in which each university is governed essentially by two bodies,
a Board and a Senate. But the Senate would become involved in finances
and thus of necessity in related matters of general interest to the
university community. The distinction between the functions of the two
bodies would then become blurred. The chief distinction between them
apparently would be the ostensible one that the Board would consist
largely of members of the public and the Senate wholly of academics
from within the university.
A Unicameral system
A logical extension of the proposals would result in the Board and
Senate being combined so that the university would have a unicameral
system of government. This would recognize pragmatically the futility
of trying to divorce academic matters from financial ones. The single
body, which presumably would be termed Senate, could include representa-
tives from all valid components of the university community.
Recommendation:
1. [J [J
?
That the advantages and disadvantages of a unicameral system, as
Yes No
?
compared with those of the present Board plus Senate system, be
examined and evaluated seriously and in detail at all levels, and
perhaps tested at one of the universities.
The Cabinet system
Participation by the university community in internal decisions,
including budget formulation, could be accomplished by the president
having an advisory Cabinet or Executive Committee that would include at
least several members elected by and from Senate. This Cabinet desirably
should be small in total membership to operate efficiently.
Recommendation:
2. LIIJ [JJ ?
That the advantages of a Cabinet system be evaluated, it composition
?
Yes No ?
determined, and the system perhaps tested.
Participatory interest
Any committee-type governing body is liable to Include members
elected by and from particular components of the university community
(e.g. students, faculty, convocation, staff). We feel that if a component
wants representatives on a body it should demonstrate adequate interest in
electing them.
Recommendation:
I ?
. [
J
LIJ ?
That no election to the Board, Senate, or other governing committee
?
Yes No ?
be valid unless 20 percent or more of the available electorate votes.
-4-
III. The Board
Composition
We regard the arguments for excluding faculty and, particularly,
students from Board membership as unconvincing rationalizations. It
can be variously argued that the public, the students, and the faculty
are each beneficiaries or each trustees. We can see no critical reason
why students and faculty should be excluded from Board membership, and
note that (a;boards of other universities that include both appear to
work well and (b) the SFU Board worked well with student participation.
The presence of students, faculty, and/or convocation members on a
Board is a key to the demystification of its role.
Alternative Recommendations:
Rank in order from 4 through 1
III. ?
1 ?
1J
(a)
That, as proposed in the Working
Paper,
the Board
consist of
members elected by Convocation,
members
appointed
by the
Lieutenant-Governor-in-Council,
and the
President
and Chancellor.
[J
(b) That the Board be constituted as
in ?
(a) with the
addition of
members elected by and from the
student
body.
(c) That the Board be constituted as
in ?
(a)
with the
addition of
members elected by and from the
faculty.
[JJ
(d)
That the Board be constituted as
in ?
(a) with the
addition of
both members elected by and from
the student body
and by and
from the faculty.
Functions
The efficiency of university operation could be improved if decisions
on expenditures already approved in the budget would rest with the President
and not require approval at the Board level, though the President would
remain fully accountable to the Board for his decisions.
Recommendation:
III. 2.
[1J []
?
That this matter be studied in detail with a view to modifying
Yes ?
No
?
appropriately Section 46 (notably paragraphs (c) and (d)) of the
Universities Act.
0
-5-
IV. The Senate
.
Functions
A proposal in the Working Paper is that a standing committee of
Senate should assist the President in budget formulation. Presumably
this is an attempt to overcome the present situation in which Senate
makes decisions that, if implemented, will involve major costs without
itself considering those costs.
Statements in the Working Paper on this matter are in part somewhat
vague, so that this Committee must make certain assumptions:
That the proposed Senate committee would be involved only in budget
preparation and not in decisions on expenditures of funds in an approved
budget, as otherwise the position of the President would become untenable
in that he would be responsible to two bodies, Board and Senate, on
expenditures;
That the role of the proposed Senate committee would be purely
advisory, as otherwise the President could be in the untenable position
of being accountable for financial decisions made by a committee and with
which he may disagree; and
That the term open budgeting refers to the completed budget and that,
as is standard practice everywhere, discussions leading to its preparation
are not public.
Weaknesses of Senate involvment In budget preparation are:
That the Senate, if constituted as proposed in the Working Paper as a
purely academic body, would become involved in non-academic matters, namely
in budgeting related to staff, services, and facilities, in addition to
academic matters. In this event it would no longer be an academic body,
and it then logically should have non-academic members; and
That the existence of this Senate budget committee would tend to
make it and Senate political bodies in that people may try to get elected
to protect or promote financial interests of their segments of the
university.
Alternative Recommendations;
Rank in order from 3 through 1.
?
IV. 1.
fTT ?
(a) That a Senate committee be established to advise the President
on priorities for expenditures in academic programmes.
[IIJ
(b) That, as implied in the Working Paper, a Senate committee be
established to advise the President on all aspects of budget
formulation.
S
?
(c) That a non-Senate presidential committee be established to advise
the President on budget formulation, and that this committee
include representatives elected by and from Senate. (Note that
the Cabinet idea, suggested earlier in this report, would cover
this committee.)
Chairperson
We are opposed to the proposal that the President no longer chair
Senate for the reason that he would be able to participate more actively
than now in the debates, as we believe that this would tend to force the
President to develop a party structure and become a de facto party leader
in attempts to avoid votes against him that, conceivably, could force his
resignation. We are not opposed to the proposal that Senate elect its
own chairperson annually. This would tend to ensure that Senate has an
effective chairperson which a particular President might not be. However,
in this event the President desirably should not be a member of Senate
for the reason indicated above.
Alternative Recommendations re Chairperson:
Rank in order from 3 through 1
Iv. 2. :::
j ?
(a) That, as at present, the chairperson of Senate be the President.
(b)
That, as proposed in the Working Paper, Senate elect its own
chairperson annually.
(c)
That the President nominate a chairperson of Senate.
Alternative Recommendations re President:
Rank in order from 2 through 1
?
Iv. 3.
IJ ?
(a) That the President be a member of Senate.
?
LJ ?
(b) That the President not be a member of Senate.
Membership
Wording In the Working Paper could exclude from Senate, presumably
unwittingly, certain academic deans who do. not happen to be Deans of
Faculties, such as the SFU Dean of Graduate Studies. Appropriate reword-
ing is needed.
We support the inclusion of the Director of Continuing Education and
of students. We note that membership as proposed in the Working Paper
would result in a closed system consisting of personnel within the
university, which is not desirable. Consequently, we support the inclusion
of convocation members.
If Senate is to become involved in budget formulation and related
non-academic matters it should include representatives of relevant valid
components of the university community. As indicated earlier in this
report, this would tend to reduce the need for a Board and to support the
idea of a unicameral governing body.
O
-7-
Alternative Recommendations:
Rank in order from 4 through 1
IV. 4.
ED
(a)
That, as proposed in the Working Paper,
Senate consist of
specified academic administrators and members elected by and
from faculty and by students.
(b)
That membership should be as
in
(a) plus
members elected by
and from Convocation.
(c)
That membership should be as in (a) plus
representatives of
other valid components of the university
community that may
be relevant to increased or otherwise changed
Senate functions.
(d)
That membership should be as
in
(b) plus
(c).
V. President
The Working Paper contains proposals that, if implemented, could
limit the powers and responsibilities of the President to extents that
his position could become difficult and potentially untenable: he could
be responsible to two masters, Board and Senate; he could be held
accountable for decisions with which he may disagree that are made by a
committee; he may have to become a de facto party leader in a partisan
.
?
system to avoid consequences of a vote against him in Senate; he would,
apparently, relinquish responsibility for determining procedures on aca-
demic appointments and the like. Recommendations aimed at reducing or
eliminating these problems are made elsewhere in this Report.
As the interests of all concerned are safeguarded by the President
being fully accountable for his decisions and actions to the Board who
hires and can fire him, consideration should be given to strengthening
his powers instead of eroding them. For instance, administrative
efficiency could be improved if final responsibility for decisions on
expenditures approved in the budget would rest with the President rather
than with the Board.
The Working Paper does not discuss possible alternatives to the
present presidential system that might have special advantages, for
example, associate, co-, or no president. We advocate that such possible
alternatives be evaluated.
VI. Faculties
Recommendation:
VI.
[J ETJ
?
That a committee of faculty and students be established to survey
Yes No
?
faculty committees on which student representation is needed, and
to recommend accordingly.
-8-
VII. Procedures for Academic Appointments, etc.
?
VII.
EJ LTJ ?
That committees of administrators, faculty and students be
?
Yes No
?
established to suggest appropriate procedures and advise the
President accordingly.
VIII. Alternative Approaches to University Education
Recommendation:
VIII. J JJ ?
That a standing committee of administrators, faculty, and students
Yes No
?
of the three universities be established to consider this matter
and recommend accordingly.
IX. General Recommendation
IX.
EJ EJ
?
That in view of the extent to which the content of the Working
Yes No Paper has been studied by Senates, the Committee on University
Government should include henceforth at least one Senator from
each of the three universities.
C
O
