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

Working Paper ?

CONTENTS

on University Governance

1. Overview ..................................................

in British Columbia

Lt!fl

Prepared by The Commutes

University Cevn'nancc

JOHN

russet,

Cltai,,natt

BONNIC tOrsO

WILLIAM H. ARMSTRONG ?

aENJI OxUDA

ULESN HLEIIDOE ?

WALTII V. YOUNO

Introduction ?

..............................................................7

Specific Preliminary Proposals:

The Board of Governors ..................................

The Senate ..............................................................to

5. ?

The ?

Faculties ?

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

6. ?

The ?

President ?

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

Procedures for Academic Appointments .................

8. The Universities Council of British Columbia

........15

9. ?

Alternative Structures

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

tO. ?

Organizational ?

Charts ?

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

S 74-Z7

OVERVIEW

The Committee on University Governance was appointed

by the Minister of Education itt September 1973 snider the

chairmanship of John Bremer. The Committee was asked

to report to the Minister wider the following terms of refer'

estee:

"To consider the internal and external forms of universit

y gov-

ernance, with particular reference to site relationship betwern

the universities and the Provincial Coterrisitent, and to make

recominendatioji, to the Minister of Education for appropriate

changes in the Universities Act."

This initial statement by the Committee is intended to en-

courage the examination and discussion of the matters

raised. The Committee invites interested groups and indi-

viduals to subunit written briefs and make presentations at

public hearing, that will commence in mid-January 174.

The Act under which the public universities of British

Columbia operate was written in 1963 and, in many re-

spects, is still an effective document. The Committee sees no

need to change those sections of the Act which have worked

well over the past ten years and which continue to work

well. However, the nature of this times require that changes

be made which will ensure public accountabilit

and pre-

solve the essential academic autonom

of the universities.

The Committee assumes that any legislation respecting

the universities in British Columbia would require university

practices to be in accordance with the provisions of any

provincial human rights legislation.

In general, the Committee is 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.

The Committee considers a university Board of Co

-ernois to be the trustee of public funds which oversees the

budgeting and expenditure of those funds. It does not see

the Board as a management committee which initiates uni-

versity policies, nor does it believe that its nsemlters should

be elected to represent "constituencies" in the university

community.

The Committee recngniies the traditional rrsponsilrilit

of Senate for the academic governance of she ssniver'jsv,

but feels that the Senate's role in the respect should be given

greater clarity. It proposes, therefore, that Senate be corn-

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 lie seen in :he

larger contest of the province and the nation. To provide

a framework in which there is adequate recognition of the

public interests, the Committee proposes the formation sit a

Universities Council of Brit6h Columbia, the members of

which would be drawn from the general public. This cows-

cii 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 uni-

versity activities as well asprovide a public review of those

activities.

The importance of the role of leadership in the university

is recognized by the Committee. It believes that the Presi-

dent should maintain this role of leader and continue to be

the university's chief executive officer. However, the Com-

mittee proposes that the President participate in Senate

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

presidency. It is further proposed that each president be

included as a nonvoting member of the Council for the

Universities of British Columbia.

The Committee dots not believe that coordinating bodies

between the Board of Governors and Senate, or between the

university and the community, need to be established by

legislation. Such links can he created by the Board and

Senate of each university. Moreover, the Committee does

not believe it would be wise to legislate the creation of inter.

university bodies to deal with the proposed Council for the

Universities of British ,Colunibia,

INTRODUCTION

t. Few public institutions have been subjected to as rig.

circus and widespread all exatlsissatiull of their structure and

function as have today's universities. And few public itistitu.

tions have had to contend with the r.itlliticatiotLs of the pace

of social change in so tiiany facials as have 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-

versities - and of the burden universities can be 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 university governance. In pursuing its

examination of the present structure of the province's public

universities, the Committee undertook to examine the whole

structure and to concentrate particularly upon the rela-

tionship of the parts one to the other rather than upon

any single aspect.

. 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 powerrelationsltipa that dcveldp

between students, faculty members, deans, presidents and

boards of governors, and that these relationships are un-

likely to be modified in any major way by statutory means.

This is not a premise that assumes that the

slalus quo

always preferable. It is one that recognizes the existence of

strong traditions within the universities and the human pro-

pensity of those accustomed to these traditions to convert

new forms to old. Lasting change can he best assured by

Proposing modest alterations that encourage new relation-

ships to develop from within.

4 .

The object, then, of this working paper is to propose

ways in which these relationships can lie ninre cleans, dc.

fined. The proposed changes would have the effect of ett-

couraging reform in univenvitv governance without totting

it into a rigid mold of legislative provisos. The 1xlitical

assumption is that parliamentary prvar

sess which rely more

an precedent and the good judgement of those etigaged in

the operations and less on elaborate and cumlsersisnie struc-

tures, are preferable.

. The Committee has been particularly concerned with

the relationship between the universities and the govern-

ment. Universities are public institutions, spending public

funds and performing public functions. The fact that gov.

ennments should want some means of ensuring that uni-

versities tare spending public funds wisely and with some

recognition that the public treasury is not inexhaustible

should cause neither surprise nor worr

. Equally, however,

universities should be concerned that governments do not

interfere in any direct or indirect way with their operation.

The strength of any university is its independence.

6. To provide government with more than an earnest as-

surance of responsibility and to protect universities from

.political pressures, an agency to function as an intermediary

is needed. The Worth Report in Alberta, the Wright Re-

port in Ontario, the Oliver task force in Manitoba and the

Carnegie Commission all proposed the creation of some

kind of body to serve this purpose. This committee takes the

view that such an intermediary is necessary in British Co-

lumbia, It would provide for the reconciliation of account-

ability with autonomy and would ensure a greater sensitivity

to social needs in the development of university education.

SPECIFIC PRELIMINARY PROPOSALS:

THE BOARD OF GOVERNORS

Boards of Governors have often been the principal oti-

of criiicusm of the university. It

claatned that they

on neither the university community nor the putilk,

that all too often they consist of captains of industry who

evince little concern for niatreni academic; arid that they

rule the campus in a thoroughly dictatorial manner. With-

out at this point disputing these a.s-.crtions, it

worth not-

ing that apart from the university Chancellor. members of

these hoards receive little public recognition for the time

and energy they devote to university matters and no nra-

terial rewards beyond occasional lunches and dinners at uni-

versity expense. Moreover, their influence on university

affairs, however significant their contribution, is often ex-

aggerated.

B. The function of Boards of Governors, strictly inter-

preted, is to act as public trustees on behalf of the crown -

the trustor, and to serve the utiivcniity - the beneficiary of

the trust. This is a necessary function if universities are to

have the benefit of public funds. The logic of the trustur-

trustee relationship requires that trustees have no interest in

the trust beyond serving both tnistor and beneficiary. It

also follows that beneficiaries cannot be trustees.

9. Proposals for reform have usually included provision

for faculty and student membership on Boards of Govern-

on. Apart from the violence this does to the logic of the

Irustor4nsstee relationship, there semis to 1w little advantage

in greatly increasing the size of lk,ard.s or of making them

into university assemblies such that the real work of govern-

ing is carried on 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 less secret,

Boards of Governors appear to be more active and influen-

tial in university affair, than they really are. A thorough de-

important and clearly a matter that must engage a

ficant portion of Senate's attention.

. The Committee recognizes the fairly obvious fact that

matter, of student discipline no longer require the elaborate

structures that were a product of the era when the university

functioned in

10(0

pates:ii.

It is therefore proposed that the

Faculty Council be abolished. Disciplinary matters which

arc not within the nomial sphere ol the civil or criminal

law, should be handled by Iwdies to lie established by the

universities in consultation with appropriath student repre-

ntatives. Final appeal from these bodies should lie to a

standing committee of the Senate.

r8. To enable the presidents to participate more actively

in the debates of Senate, it is proposed that each Senate

elect its 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 uni-

formly positive.

ig. As envisaged by the Committee, the Senate is the

central agency in the academic governance of the university.

Composed solely of those 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-

posing that it be charged more specifically with the aca-

demic governance of the university, and providing for the

active involvement of a Senate standing commirtge in the

central budgeting process. So constituted it would hove the

potential to bring about whatever changes in the academic

style and pursuits of the university that it chose.

mystification of the role of Boards would reveal the fall.sy

of the assumption that faculty and student metnlership on

Boards would open the way to more significant partivip.c

tion in university governance for these groups. The Commit-

tee does not accept this a.v'umption.

rr. It proposes that the size of the Board of Governors he

increased to fifteen with five niemh,ers elected by Convoca-

tion and eight appointed tcv the Lieutenant-Governor.n-

Council

the remaining two members being the President

and the Chancellor,

ex-o//icio.

The Committee would also

propose that the Board be styled the Board of Trustees, and

that faculty members and students of the particular uni-

versity be ineligible for election or appointment.

12.

To those who would at this point protest that by ex-

cluding faculty and students from the Board, the Commit-

tee is denying the possibility of real democracy on the

campus, it should be pointed out that the true nature of

democracy lies not in who sits where but in the relationship

of the parts to each other and to the whole. It 6 pointless

to argue that democracy demands the election of a ntonarh

if in fact that monarch is absolute; far better to keep the

crown as hereditary and invigorate the assembly. Trustee-

ship is the principal responsibility of the Board.

THE SENATE

13.

It was the Duff-Berdahl 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 in 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 large to be

effective - at least this would seem to be the case with the

University of British Columbia. At the sante time, too small

a Senate loses the advantages that size lends to an assenitily

in which debate is the basis for decision making. Moreover,

FACULTIES

so. The one change in the structure of the Faculties that

the committee would recommend at this point would be

that Faculties make provision for student representation at

a level and in a manner to be

decided by the faculty niem-

hers and students of each Faculty. iltere is no doubt that

student involvement in the governing processes of the uni-

versity is highly desirable and worthwhile as a means of cii-

suring that the university is aware of the needs and wishes

of its student body and of the wider community their views

often reflect, and also as means of providing students them-

selves with valuable insights into ,l.e bases of decisions that

have ramifications beyond the immediate concerns of a

particular course or discipline. For these reasons the Com-

mittee proposes that there should be student representation

on the Senate and on the Faculties.

THE PRESIDENT

xi, The Committee recognizes that attempts to minimize

power or distribute it widely on the campus are seldom

successful. In what it proposes, the Committee seeks to en-

sure that power is exercised openly and in a context that

provides responsibility within the existing structures.

22.

The rearrangement of the operating parts of a uni-

versity invariably produces situations in which the old order

reasserts itself in new forms that are not immediately recog-

nizable but are, nonetheless, as undcsiral,le as before -

assuming that the desire for change was based on valid

criticism. Equally ineffective are attempts to distribute

power widely by new structures, massive infusions of elector-

al devices and a plague of elected committees. Such changes

succeed only in making it difficult for decisions to be reached

and even more difficult to determine responsibility once they

have been reached. And, almost inevitably, either the old

power structure or a new and more subtle one will emerge

small Senates suffer front either a limited committee struc-

ture or overworked members, or both.

14.

Apart from size, the Committee considered the role

of "lay" members of Senates and came to the conclusion

that the interests of the community could lie better served

in other ways. Experience in this and oilier provinces indi-

cates that the provision of a relatively small number of lay

members on academic senates is not it satisfactory way to

ensure community input. The desirability of maintaining a

modest sort of participating connection for nieml,ers of Con-

vocation is met by the propssal that convocation elect five

members of the Board of Trustees. Community responsi-

bility in the broader and more significant context is pro-

vided for in the proposals relating to the university-govern-

ment intermediary body.

r. It is proposed that Senate have a purely academic

composition. This would consist of the Chancellor, l'resi'

dent, Academic Vice-president or equivalent, Deans of

Faculties, Chief Librarian, Director of Continuing Educa-

tion or equivalent, a representative of machi affiliated college,

a number of students equivalent no the total of the preced-

ing membership, and a number of faculty equal to twice

the total of preceding membership excluding students. In

other words, each senate would consist of administra-

tion, 25% students and o% faculty members. At present

this would produce a senate of

at U.B.C..

at the Uni-

versity of Victoria and 40

at Simon Fraser University.

16. The inclusion of the Director of Continuing Educa-

tion or the equivalent, is a matter of sonic importance. The

extension of a university's academic services l,cvoiid its walls

vas once a secondary operation designed as much to fulfill

a public relations role as to educate extra-mural students.

Today a major part of a university's teaching function must

involve part-time students, extra-mural students and stu-

dents engaged not in degree work but in continuing educa-

tion of a variety of kinds. A university's out-reach is now

to flourish behind a thicket of procedures that purport to

be the essential mechanisms of democrac

. Democrac

is less

a tangle of procedures and more a way of political be-

haviour that relies upon good faith and the notion of re-

sponsible and visil,le government.

23.

It is the Committee's proposal, therefore, that the

office of President remain essentially as it is in the prevent

Act, except that the Senate lie involved in the ,uds-tarv

process and that the President no longer chair Senate. In

short, it is the view of the Committee that the President fe

the chief executive officer of the universit

, accountable no

the Senate in matters of academic governance, and respoas

ible to the Board in its role as public trustee.

PROCEDURES FOR

ACADEMIC APPOINTMENTS,

PROMOTION AND RELATED MATTERS

24.

Amongst the more vexatious questions that have faced

universities have been those involving questions of appoint-

ment, tenure and renewal of contract. Universities have re-

sponded to these questions in their own ways.

25.

It is the view of the Committee that these are mallets

which properly belong to the universities themselves to deal

with where they do not touch upon areas served by the civil

and criminal jurisdictions. The Committee believes it to be

of fundamental importance, however, that universities estab-

lish and make public specific and simple procedures for

dealing with matters under these headings. It proposes that

the procedures be formulated by appropriate university

bodies, in consultation with the Faculty Association or an

equivalent agency. The Committee would also pripiwe that

when the president makes his recommendations regarding

personnel matters to the Board of Trustees, that he be re-

quired to report the findings of the appropriate committees

the same

time,

32 ?

-- ?

26.

While the Committee generall

favours the view that

adminisir.atun in the universities should hold alIke for

fixed terms and that fatuity should play the major role in

any selection procew. it aloes not think that it would he wise

to provide for such terms anti procedures in legislative

(01 ,11.

'flit particular circumstances of each university require

xl initiative in these questions within the general guide-

W.-

that the Act cstalmlishes.

27.

It seem, obvious that universities should provide spe-

cific dismissal procedures, for example, to ensure that the

tenure provisions serve the purpose for which they were dc-

signed: the protection of the academic from interference in

the free and open pursuit of scholarship and not as a barri-

cade to protect the incompetent from legitimate confronta-

tion with their own inadequacy. It is the hope of the

Com-

mittee 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-

erning appointments, promotion and tenure, salaries, dis-

miwal and discipline.

THE UNIVERSITIES COUNCIL

OF BRITISH COLUMBIA

s8. A matter of major concern to both universities and

the governments that support them has been the Just appor-

tionment of spheres of independence and involvement. Gov-

ernments quite properly require an accounting of the funds

they annually contribute to universities in the form of

capital and operating grants. They become justifiably cain-

cemned when they hear rumours of wasteful espcnditure,

yet are denied budgetary control over the universities. For

their part the universities prefer hieing treated not a, mendi-

cants but as the rightful recipients of as large a portion of

the public purse as thy alone feel their purposes require.

29. Rising costs, changing attitudes toward post-second-

ary education in general, the need to avoid competition be-

tween universities for public funds and the need to avoid

wasteful duplicationoh resourm rs requires the rstaimlishmtnent

of an intermediary serving is the .mgetmmy within whit

whim hi the

interests of government anal imtmiver'mity ate reuticiled. Such

an agency would minimise confrontation and providc a

framework for mutual interaction anti persuasion. It would

also serve to ensure the coordination of programmes and re-

sources amongst the universities and provide for systematic

public influence in the development of university education

In British Columbia.

30.

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

province's colleges as non-voting members. It would

meet at least monthly during the academic year. It would

elect its own chairman and would appoint a full-time execu-

tive director and such stall 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 sum re-

ceived From the government to thc.univcrsities. The Council

would also concern itself with the intermediate and long

tange planning of university development and would have

the power to approve or disapprove proposals for new in-

stitutes, and new degree programmes at the undergraduate

and post-graduate levels. In addition it would work 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, he em-

powered to carry Out or contract for studies or research pro-

mittee can see no reason for making specific legislative pro.

visiott, it would urge time gmmventttment to m',atm,iiher time ad-

viaaliihity of atalmlishmittg longer arid

llesit Ic I mmtalget.ary

periods.

32.

An important rrs1mrtttsihmilit y

of Site Cmmmatm, it

wm,mmlml lie

the preparation and Imsalmhm atintt of all .itmttmm;ml rejximt which

would include all time hmudgetary infonn.mtiott stml,mimitmtd to it

by the universities and submitted by it to the gumscrmmnment,

as well as details of its Allocation to the mmtiiver,ities. lit addi-

tion the report would include a general appraisal of time

state of university edumatiomt in the province.

3. While the Council would have specific powers with

respect to new degree programmes and would have time mole

responsibility for allocating the general government grant

for universities, its general responsibility would lie itt the

arms of encouraging, advising and warning the universities

without at the same time interfering with their necessary

and legitimate autonomy in internal matters. It should not,

for example, be within the Council's powers to exercise line

kern budgetary con(rol. Within the grant of funds made by

the Council, and having regard for the Councils advice,

the universities would lie responsible for their own alloca-

tions The Council could provide advice based on the work

of its staff or outside contract research in a wide variety of

areas and would actively encourage cooperation and co-

ordination between the universities.

34. It is 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 third voice in

the deliberations affecting universities in British Columbia.

The presence on the Council of the chairman of any equiv-

alent body serving the College constituency would provide

much needed coordination between the two ranges of higher

education offered in the province

3. Proposals have been made for the establishment of

formal inter-university bodies to represent the province's

universities before the Council. The Committee can see no

advantage in legislating the establishment of such a body

and, moreover, is

consented that such a development would

create an adversary relationship lietweets the universities and

ALTERNATIVE APPROACHES

TO UNIVERSITY EDUCATION

37.

The Committee on University Governance has not

directed its attention to any of the myriad proposals for al-

ternative forms of curriculum, structure and content al-

though it is the Cotunmittees intention to provid a

com-

pendium of such proposals with a working bibliography in

its final report. Apart from the view already stated that

little of any positive value would be achieved by

massive re-

structuring of the existing universities, there is a more coin-

peUing reason for not dealing with this subject. That reason

is simply that, in the Committee's opinion, there is nothing

in the present or proposed structure of the provinces uni-

versities that would prevent the development and institution

of most of the proposals for educational reform now cur.

rent. Moreover it is obviously more consistent with the

democratic objective of university reform to encourage the

development of new forms from within rather than to legis-

late them irons without.

38.

It is the Committee's firm belief that such resistance

to change as may be found in the universities is a function

of attitudes within each campus and not a function of the

structure within which these attitudes exist. The most that

any structural change can do is provide a framework with-

in which ideas may develop freel

with the assurance that

there is a legitimate foruin

which

which they may toe debated

and which has the authority to intplrmmment those winning the

support of the ttme,tmlmers of time academic community. It is

the Committee's view that the changes proposed iii this

working paper will enhumce the potential for change from

within the structures of university governance. It should bc

noted that one of the functions time Commmmmmittee envisages

for the Council is the application of its research capacity in

the areas of educational alternatives at the university level.

•

the Council. The (oamimiil, atid not some other 1univ, should

be the focus and tIme forunt for inter-university rel;itiuttvhmips

as well as univcrsity-govcrtmmtment relationships.

36. The Committee would proxne that the Council

establish a nutolmer of ,d fume or standing committees that

would acme in an advisor y

capacity. ihmese cnmtmnmitterx

would include individuals from oilier educational Inmihict

and front community groups whose interests and concerns

intersect with the aims arid development of university edu-

cation in the province.

PRESENT STRUCTURE

IHHI

PROPOSED STRUCTURE

Minister

Could f

LWvs,iit.s of B.C.

---r_

-----------

ADMINISTRATION

ACADEMIC GOvtRNNCE

io4i'

Pnii

Osans ?

L__J ?

-..oc.ity

I ?

I ifud.nts'..

Cawmfian

Trultm

E,— O.....

a—..•

CCe

I... ?

S...

BPB:ct 

Enclosure 

Bryan P. Beirne, 

Director. 

cc: Dean Smith    

.

Senator Kissner. 

SiMON FRASER UNIVERSITY

MEMORANDUM

.......The Registrar 

?

From Dr. B.P. Beirne, Director, 

Pestology Centre, BioSciences Dept. 

Subject ,

Report to Senate 

?

.Date,.. 

Decenther 

.....       

......... 

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. 

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 

scheduledfl6-Ju-ary---l9-774 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 con- 

sequences 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 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.

.

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. 

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.withln 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. 

is

LIP

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 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: 

.

?

(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. 

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. 

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 Recommendation re President- 

(a)

That the President be a member of Senate. 

(b)

That the President not be a member of Senate. 

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 this Rejort. 

8.

.

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: 

That a committee of faculty and students be established to survey 

faculty committees on which student representation is needed, and 

to recommend accordingly. 

40 ?

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: 

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. 