SiMON FRASER UNIVERSITY
?
S
7/-/2 %-dog
MEMORANDUM
To ...............
.SENATE
Report of the Senate Committee o
'
n
Subject.
Rules and Procedures Pertaining to
Professional Conduct - For Informal
From ?
H. M. Evans
Secretary of Senate
and Registrar
Date. ?
October 26, 1971.
It is the desire of the Chairman of the Committee that
there be informal discussion of the report in order that
there can be identification of areas that may require
additional analysis. Members of the Committee will be
in attendance to hear the discussion and respond to
questions.
The Senate Agenda Committee recommends that there be an
informal discussion period of one hour, which may be
extended at the discretion of the Chairman of Senate.
HME:jb
C
S.
71-123
A REPORT
of the
SENATE COMMITTEE
ON
RULES AND PROCEDURES PERTAINING
TO PROFESSIONAL CONDUCT
(ad hoc)
OCTOBER, 1971
S
I
.
is
S
:1.
SENATE COMMITTEE ON RULES ANI) PROCEDURES
PERTAINING TO PROFESSIONAL CONDUCT
(ad
hoc)
IS
TERMS OF REFERENCE: ?
To bring before Senate recommendations
with regard to rules and procedures
for considering allegations of non-
professional
conduct of Faculty
members.
(Approved by
Senate
September '23, 1968)
MEMBERS OF COMMITTEE:
J.
S. Barlow
R.
J.
C. ?
harper
N. S.
O'Connell
L.
N.
Frock
C. R. Day ?
-
Chairman
0
CONTENTS
S
I ?
INTRODUCTION ?
...............................
1
II ?
PROFESSIONAL CONDUCT
?
.......................
3
III ?
VIOLATIONS OF PROFESSIONAL CONDUCT .........4
IV
?
PROCEDURES ?
.................................
6
DEFINITIONS ?
.............................
7
A. THE FACULTY REFEREE ?
..................
7
1.
?
RESPONSIBILITIES ?
..................
7
2.
?
SELECTION ?
.........................
8
3. ?
RATIONALE ?
.........................
8
B. THE UNIVERSITY COUNSEL ?
...............
9
1.
?
RESPONSIBILITIES ?
..................
9.
2.
?
SELECTION ?
.........................
9
C.
THE FACULTY TRIBUNAL
?
.................
1.
?
RESPONSIBILITIES ?
..................
9
9
2.
?
SELECTION ?
.........................
9
3.
?
RATIONALE ?
.........................
10
D. MECHANISMS ?
...........................
11
1. ?
LODGING A COMPLAINT ?
...............
11
2. INVESTIGATING A CASE AND
MEDIATION PROCEDURES ?
..............
13
3. ?
CHOOSING A HEARING METHOD
?
.........
14
4. PROCEDURES FOR HEARING BEFORE DEAN
15
5. PROCEDURES FOR HEARING BEFORE A
TRIBUNAL ?
..........................
16
E.
PRINCIPLES RELATED TO PROCEDURES
18
F. TIME
?
LIMITS ?
..........................
20
G.
APPLICABILITY OF PROCEDURES ?
...........
20
V
?
SANCTIONS ?
..................................
22
0
?
VI ?
RECOMMENDATIONS
............................
23
-
DEFINITION OF FACULTY STATUS AT SIMON
FRASER UNIVERSITY
On 6 October 1969 the Senate accepted the recommendations of
the Senate Ad Hoc Committee'on Faculty Status (S.271).
Faculty status is granted only to those engaged fuiltime at
Simon Fraser in teaching, writing, research and, other forms
of scholarship and who hold a term appointment of such
nature that if renewed and/or .promoted would make them
eligible for tenure. All instructors, assistant professors,
associate professors, full professors and (under these pro-
cedures) fuiltime professional librarians possess faculty
status. Teaching assistants, associates of the centres,
teaching-associates, part-time lecturers, research fellows
and visiting professors do not have faculty status.
University officials such as the President, the Academic
- Vice-President, Deans and Department Chairmen have faculty
status when actively engaged in teaching, writing, research
and other forms of scholarship. Any formal complaint against
a university official acting in an academic capacity (teach-
ing a course etc.) will be lodged under these procedures.
But insofar as he is pursuing his administrative duties,
he does not come under these procedures. Any formal corn-
plaint against an official of the university acting in his
administrative capacity must be lodged, in writing, with his
superior (e.g. a complaint against a Dean, with the Academic
Vice-President, etc.)
ii-
0
I INTRODUCTION
S.
?
?
A central problem facing North American universities
today is whether to attempt to define, the duties and respon-
sibilities, rights and privileges of faculty members. Al-
though it is clearly very difficult if not impossible to
codify every aspect of faculty behaviour and to define pre -
Cisely the nature of academic freedom and responsibility,
recent events in our own and other universities indicate the
need to protect learning, teaching, research and scholarship.
We endorse the following statement made in the Introduc-
tion to Queen's Univcrsity's "Interim Report of the Senate
Committee on Grievance, Discipline and Related Matters":
The central functions of the university community are
learning, teaching, research and scholarship. There-
fore, the relations among its members must be charac-
terized by free expression, freedom from political
interference, intellectual honesty and respect for the
opinions and dignity of others. The rights and respon-
sibilities of the members of the University derive
from these requirements. When individuals within the
(university) community violate the essential rights of
other members or abrogate their own responsibilities,
discipline must be readily available to those in author-
ity, but the application of discipline must be not only
fair, it must be seen to be fair, and therefore, sub-
ject to appeal and review. The same applies to griev-
ances which arise when there is an apparent breach of
right, a neglect of responsibility, or an inappropria-
te application of discipline. There must be effective
informal and formal procedures for seeking redress of
grievances and appealing against discipline if embit-
tered relations among members of the University com-
munity are to be avoided.
The basic guideline governing the operation of such rules and
procedures is the Canadian idea of "natural justice" which is,
generally stated, "what a reasonable man would regard as fair
procedure in all circumstances" (cf. University of Western
Ontario, Let Right Be Done,
pp
17-21).
To our knowledge, only two Canadian universities, Western
S ?
Ontario (1968) and Queen's (1970), have adopted standards of con-
duct and enforcement procedures governing the University community.
In the United States, Stanford University (1971) and the University of
2
California at Berkeley (1971) have adopted similar mechanisms for
their faculties, if not for the entire university community of
students, faculty, teaching assistants and administrators. Our
terms of reference from Senate limit us to consideration of
"allegations of non-professional conduct of faculty members".
We have therefore confined our attention to this question and to
the related issue of enforcement procedures.
Since Simon Fraser University has no law school and no
lawyers on the faculty, our committee drew upon the Western Ontario
and Queen's reports in our discussion in Section I on procedural
and substantive justice within the Canadian University. We also
consulted Mr. Peter Leask, the University lawyer, on this and a
variety of other legal questions, and we are grateful for his aid.
In our consideration of procedures and sanctions relating to faculty
conduct (Sections IV-V), we are indebted to the Stanford and
Berkeley reports concerning Codes. For statements of professional
conduct (Sections II & III), we referred to the above reports and
also to the Canadian Association of University Teachers' "Draft
Guidelines of Professional Ethics for Canadian Academics" of 1970,
and the American Association of University Professors' statement
on "Freedom and Responsibility" published in October, 1970. During
the past year several similar statements have been published by
American universities (See References). None of these go beyond
a general declaration of acceptable professional conduct, but
they do demonstrate considerable agreement among North American
university faculties regarding basic academic values.
We sent a questionnaire to all members of faculty and
administration at S.F.U. We received twenty replies to the
questionnaire, seventeen from faculty (including three depart-
ment chairmen) and three from members of the Administration
(see Appendix A). The recommendations and conclusions of this
report are our own and are a result of a series of meetings
from Spring through Fall 1971.
0
II PROFESSIONAL CONDUCT
0
?
A. Codes of Professional Conduct in North American Universities
Published codes of faculty conduct range from four para-
graphs in the S.F.U. Statement on Academic Freedom and Tenure
(S.I, 1.1 - 1.4 and a-d) to the five page "Faculty Code of
Professional Ethics" from Kent State University in Ohio. We
suggest that the American Association of University Professors'
"Statement on Professional Ethics" of 1966 (revised in 1970)
best summarizes the values commonly held within the academic
profession. It may be taken as a prudent guide which in no way
excludes reference to the broader body of literature on this
subject, notably the C.A.U.T. "Draft Guidelines on Profession-
al Ethics" of May, 1970 (see References).
B. The following rights and privileges have been accorded to
faculty members at Simon Fraser University:
S
i. to teach, to supervise, to pursue research and to con-
tribute to the administration and discipline of the university
in any capacity to which they are appointed and to do any other
work sanctioned by the university free from undue interference;
2. to have access to classrooms, laboratories, libraries
and other necessary facilities and services;
3.
to express opinions, criticisms and dissent within
the traditional context of academic freedom;
4.
to participate in the appointment and promotion of
faculty including academic administrators;
5.
to judge and to be judged by one's colleagues in accordance
with fair procedures, in matters of promotion, tenure and discipline,
on the basis of the faculty member's professional qualifications
and professional conduct, excluding any political or religious
test or mere membership in an organization.
3
0
III VIOLATIONS OF PROFESSIONAL CONDUCT
The Committee felt that a general statement on professional
conduct, while useful, would not be treated seriously without
guidelines for faculty self-discipline. A set of clearly articu-
lated statements accepted by the faculty of S.F.U. should enable
faculty members to understand what their institutional responsib-
ilities are. Generl and specific statements of violations of
professional conduct follow.
A.
NO FACULTY MEMBER SHALL KNOWINGLY VIOLATE, OR ATTEMPT
TO VIOLATE, ANY PROVISION OF THE UNIVERSITY'S REGULA-
TIONS THAT HAVE BEEN APPROVED BY THE UNIVERSITY SENATE
AND CONFIRMED BY THE BOARD OF GOVERNORS.
There are admittedly some problems in regard to this state-
ment. The Universities Act, Sections 54 (b.k.n.) and 55, does not
state clearly the powers of Senate and the Board concerning fac-
ulty conduct and the governance of the university. We believe
that such rules and regulations as the university may in future
provide can be binding on faculty under these procedures only if
approved by the University Senate, a representative body in
which the majority of members are faculty.
B.
NO FACULTY MEMBER SHALL NEGLECT OR INTENTIONALLY FAIL
TO PERFORM HIS RESPONSIBILITIES WITHIN THE UNIVERSITY.
THE GENERAL PRINCIPLE GOVERNING DISCIPLINE IS THAT IT
MAY BE IMPOSED UPON A FACULTY MEMBER FOR CONDUCT WHICH
SIGNIFICANTLY IMPAIRS THE INTELLECTUAL GOALS AND THE
ORDERLY FUNCTIONING OF THE UNIVERSITY.
This statement involves conduct not referred to in the first
statement. Although this may in practice lead to some commonsense
interpretation, particularly in regard to the precise meaning of
the "intellectual goals" of the University, the committee believes
that the distinguishing characteristic of professional conduct is
4
.
r
5
that of choice. The person who accepts a faculty position at a
•
?
university makes a commitment to further its intellectual goals,
and to abide by its rules. If he does not agree with them he
should seek to change through appropriate channels. Should he
subsequently fail to meet his commitments when the choice to do so
was clearly his, he may (after a duly constituted hearing) be found
guilty of professional misconduct and be subject to university
sanctions. If there is ever any doubt in his mind as to whether
a contemplated act is in violation of university goals or rules
of professional conduct, he is responsible for seeking qualified
advice. Failure to do so does not constitute a valid excuse.
The following is a statement of some specific violations
of professional conduct:
1.
ALL FORMS OF ACADEMIC DISHONESTY SUCH AS PLAGIARISM,
CHEATING, FORGERY, MISUSE OF UNIVERSITY DOCUMENTS.
2.
DISCRIMINATION, IN THE EXERCISE OF THE RESPONSIBIL-
ITIES OF A FACULTY MEMBER, ON POLITICAL GROUNDS, OR
. ?
FOR REASONS OF RACE, RELIGION, SEX OR ETHNIC ORIGIN.
3.
FAILURE TO MEET THE RESPONSIBILITIES OF INSTRUCTION,
INCLUDING PERSISTENT AND UNWARRANTED INTRUSION OF
MATERIAL WHICH HAS NO RELATION TO THE SUBJECT OF THE
COURSE; ARBITRARY DENIAL OF ACCESS TO INSTRUCTION; THE
USE OF DEMONSTRABLY BIASED CRITERIA IN EVALUATION OF
STUDENT WORK.
4.
PREVENTING OR ATTEMPTING TO PREVENT ANYONE FROM PER-
FORMING HIS DUTIES WITHIN THE UNIVERSITY.
Section IV of this document specifies channels through which
members of the university community may lodge complaints and seek
redress. For example, under B4 above, should one or several fac-
ulty members disrupt the class of a colleague, the aggrieved may
lodge a complaint through the channels provided in this document.
5.
THE CONVICTION OF ANY CRIME WHICH CLEARLY INDICATES THAT
THE INDIVIDUAL FACULTY MEMBER IS NOT SUITABLE TO TEACH
.
?
IN A UNIVERSITY; PARTICULARLY ANY CONVICTION WHICH AFFECTS
OR COULD AFFECT THE INTELLECTUAL GOALS AND ORDERLY
FUNCTIONING OF THE UNIVERSITY.
In this category we would include convictions of certain
kinds of crimes of violence and certain forms of fraud and crim-
inal libel. Although normally no person should be tried twice for
the same offense, a prior court conviction would not exclude the
possibility that a faculty member's case would be heard under
these procedures. This decision would be made in terms of the
nature and gravity of the offense and its relation to the intel-
lectual goals and orderly functioning of the university.
IV PROCEDURES
This section of the Report sets out in detail the proced-
ures recommended for considering allegations of non-professional
conduct of Faculty members at Simon Fraser University. Responsib-
ilities, selection procedures, principles related to procedures,
applicability of procedures and time limits are defined; and
powers of the University President are specified.
. ?
Procedures "must not only be fair, they must be seen to
be fair". To this end, we have sought to provide a number of means
by which the right of a defendant to a fair hearing is assured. We
have placed great emphasis upon informality, mediation and multiple
channels for handling complaints and discipline. We do not exclude
the possibility for example, of a complaint being settled through
administrative and department channels (IV D lb). Throughout
we have sought to protect the rights of the university community
to teach and be taught, to learn, to research and to write without
disruption or harassment. However, no set of procedures, no matter
how ingenious, will work unless faculty members assume responsib-
ility for them. We believe that facult y
must take a positive stand
to protect academic values and standards. We have provided time
limits to guarantee that all hearings will he held within a reason-
able period and at reasonable cost. We have provided alternate
channels and options in cases where serious delays or disruptions
might occur in normal channels. In this way we think that our docu-
ment possesses a flexibility lacking in others that we have studied,
in which justice "can be seen to be done" as well as be done.
0
7
DEFINITIONS:
.
?
1. COMPLAINANT: A PERSON WHO LODGES A WRITTEN COMPLAINT
AGAINST A FACULTY MEMBER. ANYONE, INCLUDING FACULTY
MEMBERS, ADMINISTRATORS, OR STUDENTS, MAY LODGE
COMPLAINTS.
2.
RESPONDENT: A FACULTY MEMBER AGAINST WHOM A WRITTEN
COMPLAINT HAS BEEN LODGED.
3.
FACULTY REFEREE: A FACULTY MEMBER WHO RECEIVES
WRITTEN COMPLAINTS AND WHO ACTS AS A FILTER AND
MEDIATOR IN REGARD TO COMPLAINTS RECEIVED.
4.
UNIVERSITY COUNSEL: A MEMBER OF THE ADMINISTRATION
OR FACULTY OF THE UNIVERSITY WHO IS NEITHER A DEAN
NOR THE ACADEMIC VICE-PRESIDENT. HIS DUTIES ARE
PRIMARILY INVESTIGATIVE.
5.
FACULTY TRIBUNAL: A CHAIRMAN AND THREE FACULTY
MEMBERS. THE FACULTY MEMBERS ARE CHOSEN FROM A
PANEL OF FIVE.
A. THE FACULTY REFEREE:
1. RESPONSIBILITIES:
a)
TO FILTER OR SCREEN ALL INFORMATION RECEIVED BETWEEN
THE TIME AT WHICH THE COMPLAINT IS LODGED AGAINST A FACULTY
MEMBER AND THE COMMENCEMENT OF A FORMAL INVESTIGATION, AND
THUS TO PROTECT FACULTY AGAINST PETTY CHARGES AND HARAS-
SMENT.
b)
TO DECIDE WHETHER THE INFORMATION RECEIVED IS
SUFFICIENTLY SERIOUS TO MERIT FURTHER INVESTIGATION.
(HE DOES NOT HIMSELF INITIATE CHARGES).
c)
TO DECIDE WHETHER THEN TO CALL IN THE UNIVERSITY
COUNSEL TO GATHER FURTHER EVIDENCE.
d)
TO ACT AS MEDIATOR, BOTH AT THE TIME THE.COMPLAINT
IS FIRST LODGED AND AFTER THE UNIVERSITY COUNSEL HAS CON-
DUCTED HIS INVESTIGATION. THE REFEREE SHOULD SEEK SOLUTIONS
ACCEPTABLE TO ALL PARTIES CONCERNED BEFORE FORMAL HEARINGS ARE
HELD. HE MUST NOT DIVULGE CONFIDENTIAL DISCLOSURES
S
DURING THE MEDIATION PROCESS.
e) TO BE ACCESSIBLE ON AN INFORMAL LEVEL TO FACULTY
AND STUDENTS, PARTICULARLY TO THOSE WHO ARE UNCERTAIN AS
TO THE SERIOUSNESS OF THEIR COMPLAINTS AND WHO NEED THE
ADVICE AND COUNSEL OF A RESPECTED MEMBER OF FACULTY.
2.
SELECTION OF THE FACULTY REFEREE:
THE PRESIDENT OF THE UNIVERSITY, IN HIS CAPACITY AS
CHAIRMAN OF SENATE, SHALL NOMINATE FROM THE FACULTY AT S.F.U.
A FACULTY REFEREE FOR A TERM OF ONE YEAR. HE SHALL ALSO NOMINATE
AN ALTERNATE REFEREE FOR THE SANE TERN WHO MAY REPLACE THE FACULTY
REFEREE IN HIS ABSENCE OR ASSIST HIM AS THE CASE LOAD DEMANDS.
BOTH NOMINATIONS WILL BE CONFIRMED BY A SIMPLE MAJORITY VOTE OF
SENATE. THE REFEREE, AND WHERE NECESSARY, THE ALTERNATE, SHALL
BE EXCUSED FROM ALL COMMITTEE AND TEACHING DUTIES AS CIRCUMSTANCES
DICTATE. THEY SHALL BE PROVIDED BY SENATE WITH ALL NECESSARY
SECRETARIAL ASSISTANCE.
NORMALLY THE ALTERNATE REFEREE WILL BE CHOSEN AS
THE REGULAR REFEREE FOR THE FOLLOWING YEAR. BOTH ARE RE-
ELIGIBLE BUT MAY NOT SERVE TWO CONSECUTIVE TERMS IN EITHER
POSITION.
3.
Rationale
The Committee decided to reject the Berkeley system
where a University Prosecutor, a university official named by
the Administration, collects evidence against faculty members
suspected of misconduct and initiates complaints. Although
this method may be appropriate for a very large faculty, we
do not believe that it is necessary at S.F.U.
?
The appointment
of a university official to collect evidence against faculty
members at the first stage of proceedings could lead to
unwarranted administrative surveillance (or to widespread fears
concerning the possibility of such), could threaten academic
freedom, could undermine faculty confidence in the procedures,
8
0
and could generate tension between faculty and administration.
• ?
We believe also that faculty scrutiny at the first stage makes
it easier for faculty and students to come forward with com-
plaints and thus more effectively protects the university com-
munity from professional misconduct and possible disruption.
We also rejected as unworkable the possibility of vesting
the Faculty Referee's functions in a committee. Whereas we con-
sidered a collective judgment essential at the hearing stage,
we preferred in the initial stages to have a single individual
devoting full time to these functions.
B.
THE UNIVERSITY COUNSEL: THE UNIVERSITY COUNSEL IS A MEMBER
OF THE ADMINISTRATION OR FACULTY OF THE UNIVERSITY AND IS
NEITHER A DEAN NOR THE ACADEMIC VICE-PRESIDENT.
1. RESPONSIBILITIES: THE DUTIES OF THE UNIVERSITY COUNSEL
ARE PRIMARILY INVESTIGATIVE, cf S. IV D.
2., SELECTION
THE PRESIDENT OF THE UNIVERSITY NOMINATES THE UNIVERSITY
COUNSEL.
C.
THE FACULTY TRIBUNAL: THE FACULTY TRIBUNAL IS COMPOSED OF
THREE FACULTY MEMBERS AND A CHAIRMAN. THE FACULTY MEMBERS
ARE SELECTED FROM A PANEL OF FIVE CHOSEN IN THE MANNER
DESCRIBED IN #2 BELOW.
1.
RESPONSIBILITIES:
a' TO HEAR THE EVIDENCE AND COME TO A DECISION CONCERNING
THE CHARGES.
b) TO MAKE A RECOMMENDATION TO THE PRESIDENT OF THE
UNIVERSITY ON THE BASIS OF THAT DECISION.
2.
SELECTION:
a) DURING THE FIRST WEEK OF EVERY FALL SEMESTER, THE
SECRETARY TO THE SENATE (THE REGISTRAR) WILL DRAW
. UP A LIST OF THOSE ELIGIBLE TO SIT UPON A TRIBUNAL
DURING THAT AND THE FOLLOWING TWO SEMESTERS. THIS
LIST WILL AUTOMATICALLY EXCLUDE ANY FACULTY MEMBER
9
10
S ?
CHARGED UNDER THESE PROCEDURES. DEPENDING ON
RESEARCH LEAVES AND OFF-CAMPUS ACADEMIC COMMITMENTS,
TERMS OF ELIGIBILITY WILL BE NO MORE THAN THREE AND
NO LESS THAN TWO CONSECUTIVE SEMESTERS.
b) THE FACULTY PANEL FROM WHICH THE TRIBUNAL IS SELECTED
SHALL CONSIST OF FIVE MEMBERS CHOSEN BY THE SECRETARY
OF SENATE THROUGH A DRAWING FROM THE LIST OF ELIGIBLE
FACULTY, SO AS TO INCLUDE:
1)
TWO MEMBERS OF THE SAME RANK AS THE RESPONDENT
2)
THREE MEMBERS DRAWN AT RANDOM FROM ALL ELIGIBLE
FACULTY AT S.F.U.
c) EVERY FACULTY MEMBER SELECTED FOR TRIBUNAL DUTY WILL
SERVE UNLESS HE CAN DEMONSTRATE IN WRITING TO THE
SATISFACTION OF THE PRESIDENT OF THE UNIVERSITY THAT
SUCH SERVICE WOULD BE DETRIMENTAL TO HIS HEALTH,
WOULD INTERFERE WITH MAJOR ACADEMIC COMMITMENTS, OR
WOULD BE SUCH THAT HE COULD NOT RENDER A FAIR AND
5 ?
IMPARTIAL JUDGMENT. IN THE LAST CASE HE WOULD NORMAL-
LY DISQUALIFY HIMSELF FROM THE TRIBUNAL IN QUESTION
BUT WOULD BE ELIGIBLE FOR SERVICE ON ANOTHER TRIBUNAL.
d) BY MEANS OF ONE COMPULSORY PEREMPTORY CHALLENGE EACH,
EXERCISED BY THE UNIVERSITY COUNSEL AND BY THE RES-
PONDENT (OR HIS REPRESENTATIVE), THE PANEL WILL BE
REDUCED TO THREE FACULTY MEMBERS.
e) THE PRESIDENT OF THE UNIVERSITY WILL SELECT A NON-
VOTING CHAIRMAN OF THE TRIBUNAL WHO MAY BE EITHER A
MEMBER OF THE LEGAL PROFESSION OR A PERSON FAMILIAR
WITH JUDICIAL PROCEDURES. HE SHOULD NOT BE AN
EMPLOYEE OF S.F.U. AND SHOULD BE PAID FOR HIS SERVICES.
HE, AND THE THREE AFOREMENTIONED FACULTY MEMBERS,
SHALL FORM A FACULTY TRIBUNAL. DEPENDING ON THE
NUMBER OF CASES BEING HEARD, SEVERAL TRIBUNALS MAY
BE IN EXISTENCE AT A GIVEN TIME.
0
3. Rationale for Faculty Tribunal
The Committee discussed at great length the best way to
recruit the Tribunal. It discussed three possibilities: 1) the
University Tenure Committee; 2) selection from among members of
Senate; 3) random selection from among the University faculty
(defined as instructor or above, tenured and non-tenured). It
decided that the U.T.C., composed in large part of Senior pro-
fessors, and having the important and time-consuming function of
making recommendations on tenure, promotions and contract renewal,
is not the appropriate body to deal with disciplinary cases. The
committee also considered selection from among faculty members of
Senate, but, as in the case of the U.T.C. , Senators are busy; and,
in any case, there are not enough faculty Senators to provide an
adequate pool from which to choose, particularly in instances in
which several panels might be sitting simultaneously. MoreoVer,
legislative or administrative experience does not necessarily
guarantee the qualities most essential to membership on a Tribunal:
common sense, sound legal judgment and a sense of fair play.
Finally, we felt that no faculty member should sit on more than
one panel per year. The main responsibilities of faculty are
teaching and research, and we think there is a limit to the number
of times they should be called upon to serve in administrative and
quasi-judicial capacities.
D. MECHANISMS
1. LODGING A COMPLAINT
a)
ANYONE INCLUDING A FACULTY MEMBER, AN ADMINISTRATOR
OR A STUDENT, MAY LODGE A COMPLAINT, IN WRITTEN FORM
ONLY, AGAINST A FACULTY MEMBER.
b)
ANY OFFICER OF THE UNIVERSITY WHO RECEIVES A WRITTEN
COMPLAINT AGAINST ANY FACULTY MEMBER MUST INFORM THE
FACULTY REFEREE OF THE COMPLAINT.
These procedures do not relieve Academic Administrators,
• ?
including Deans and Department Chairmen, of their res-
ponsibilities for Faculty discipline as defined in S.71-80
11
12
and
in
?
5.358 ?
(see S IV C 2
and
appendix).
They may receive
and investigate complaints,
and they may decide:
i to drop a complaint;
ii to mediate the complaint to the satisfaction of
all parties concerned;
iii to issue a written warning to the Respondent;
iv to ask the President to issue a written warning to
the Respondent;
v to refer the complaint to the Faculty Referee for
action under these procedures.
c)
THE FACULTY REFEREE MUST ACKNOWLEDGE TO THE COM-
PLAINANT RECEIPT OF THE COMPLAINT AND NOTIFY THE
RESPONDENT OF THE COMPLAINT BY REGISTERED MAIL
WITHIN SEVEN DAYS AFTER THE COMPLAINT HAS BEEN
LODGED.
d)
THE FACULTY REFEREE MAY, IF HE BELIEVES IT NECESSARY,
INFORM THE PRESIDENT OF THE UNIVERSITY OF A COMPLAINT.
e)
THE RESPONDENT HAS FOURTEEN DAYS (TWENTY EIGHT DAYS
IF HE IS NOT IN BRITISH COLUMBIA) TO ACKNOWLEDGE BY
REGISTERED MAIL THE FACULTY REFEREE'S LETTER AND TO
SET FORTH HIS INTERIM POSITION WITH RESPECT TO THE
ALLEGED CONDUCT.
f)
SHOULD THE RESPONDENT FAIL TO REPLY, AND THEREIN TO
STATE HIS INTERIM POSITION, HE FORFEITS HIS RIGHTS
UNDER THESE PROCEDURES. HIS CASE WILL THEN BE DEALT
WITH BY THE ACADEMIC VICE-PRESIDENT.
g)
SHOULD THE RESPONDENT BE ABSENT, THE FACULTY REFEREE
MAY DECIDE ON THE BASIS OF THE RESPONDENT'S INTERIM
POSITION AND ON THE AVAILABLE EVIDENCE WHETHER 1)
TO DISMISS THE CASE; 2) TO POSTPONE PROCEEDINGS
UNTIL THE RESPONDENT'S SCHEDULED RETURN; 3) TO RECALL
THE RESPONDENT, WHO MUST RETURN TO S.F.U. WITHIN FOUR
WEEKS AT WHICH TIME THE PROCEEDINGS COMMENCE.
h)
IF THE RESPONDENT DOES NOT RETURN WHEN SO RECALLED,
OR IF, ON HAVING RETURNED, HE REFUSES TO CO-OPERATE
WITH THESE PROCEDURES, THE REFEREE WILL TURN THE CASE
•
?
OVER TO THE ACADEMIC VICE-PRESIDENT. (SEE ALSO S. IV D 5;
AND IV F 4).
1) THE FACULTY REFEREE WILL KEEP ON FILE ALL COMPLAINTS,
RESPONDENTS' REPLIES, AND HIS OWN DECISIONS. THESE ARE
CONFIDENTIAL UNTIL SUCH TIME AS THEY BECOME PERTINENT TO
FURTHER PROCEEDINGS AGAINST THE RESPONDENT, AT WHICH TIME
THE REFEREE WILL MAKE THEM AVAILABLE TO THE UNIVERSITY
COUNSEL AND TO THE RESPONDENT.
The reason for maintaining these files is simply that,
although one infraction may be relatively unimportant, sub-
sequent additional infractions may occur; while one complaint
might be dismissed for lack of evidence, the continuation of
similar complaints from a variety of sources could indicate
a more serious breach of conduct.
j) SHOULD THE FACULTY REFEREE DECIDE THAT THE COMPLAINT IS
SUFFICIENTLY SERIOUS, HE WILL TURN IT OVER TO THE UNIVERSITY
COUNSEL FOR FURTHER INVESTIGATION. THE ENTIRE TIME PERIOD IN
WHICH THE REFEREE DEALS WITH A COMPLAINT SHOULD NOT EXCEED
SIX. WEEKS.
2. INVESTIGATING A CASE AND MEDIATION PROCEDURES
a)
ONCE THE FACULTY REFEREE DECIDES THAT THERE MAY BE A CASE
AGAINST THE RESPONDENT, OR THE PRESIDENT REQUESTS FURTHER
INVESTIGATION, THE REFEREE WILL TURN THE CASE OVER TO THE
UNIVERSITY COUNSEL FOR INVESTIGATION. THIS INVESTIGATION
WILL TAKE NO MORE THAN SIX WEEKS AT WHICH TIME THE COUNSEL
MUST DECIDE THAT A PRIMA FACIE CASE EXISTS AGAINST THE
RESPONDENT OR DROP THE CHARGES.
b)
SHOULD THE UNIVERSITY COUNSEL DECIDE THAT A PRIMA-FACIE
CASE EXISTS AGAINST THE RESPONDENT, HE WILL PROVIDE A
WRITTEN SUMMARY TO ALL INTERESTED PARTIES OF THE CHARGES
AGAINST THE RESPONDENT, TAKING INTO ACCOUNT THE RESPONDENT'S
INTERIM POSITION (S. IV D 1 e-f).
c)
THE COUNSEL WILL THEN CALL IN THE FACULTY REFEREE AND
.
?
WHEN NECESSARY OTHER INTERESTED PARTIES TO SEEK AN
UNDERSTANDING, PREFERABLY IN WRITING, CONCERNING THE
NATURE OF THE CHARGES. REGARDLESS OF WHETHER AN UNDER-
STANDING HAS BEEN ACHIEVED THE COUNSEL WILL THEN STATE
THE CHARGES AND MAXIMUM SANCTIONS IN WRITING. THE
COUNSEL WILL THEN CONSULT THE REFEREE AS TO THE POSSIB-
ILITY OF SUCCESSFUL MEDIATION.
d)
WHERE MEDIATION IS AGREED UPON THE REFEREE WILL ACT AS
MEDIATOR, CALLING IN ALL PARTIES CONCERNED. MEDIATION
TO BE SUCCESSFUL, MUST BE CONFIDENTIAL AND HAVE THE
AGREEMENT (SIGNED, IN THE FINAL INSTANCE) OF ALL PARTIES
CONCERNED. NORMALLY THIS WOULD INCLUDE THE COMPLAINANT,
THE FACULTY REFEREE, THE RESPONDENT AND THE UNIVERSITY
COUNSEL.
e)
SHOULD THE FACULTY REFEREE AND UNIVERSITY COUNSEL DECIDE
THAT THE MEDIATION IS NOT SUCCESSFUL THEY MAY TERMINATE
IT AT ANY TIME AND ARRANGE FOR A HEARING UNDER OPTIONS
I OR II DESCRIBED BELOW.
f)
THE DECISION OF THE UNIVERSITY COUNSEL TO DROP A CASE IS
FINAL; HE MUST THEN INFORM THE FACULTY REFEREE WHO SHALL
INFORM THE COMPLAINANT AND THE RESPONDENT IN WRITING
WITHIN SEVEN DAYS AFTER THE UNIVERSITY COUNSEL'S DECISION.
g)
ONCE THE CASE IS DROPPED, ALL RECORDS AND EVIDENCE GATHERED
BY THE UNIVERSITY COUNSEL WILL BE RETURNED TO THE FACULTY
REFEREE WHO WILL MAINTAIN THESE FILES ON A CONFIDENTIAL
BASIS. NEITHER THE UNIVERSITY COUNSEL NOR ANY OTHER MEMBER
OF THE ADMINISTRATION WILL HAVE ACCESS TO THESE FILES UNTIL
SUCH TIME AS THE FACULTY REFEREE MAY DEEM THEM PERTINENT TO
A SUBSEQUENT CASE, IN WHICH CASE THE PROCESS DESCRIBED
ABOVE RECOMMENCES (cf. IV A)
3. CHOOSING A HEARING METHOD
THE UNIVERSITY COUNSEL WILL CONSULT BOTH THE RESPONDENT AND
S ?
THE FACULTY REFEREE CONCERNING WHETHER THE CASE SHOULD BE HEARD
BEFORE:
14
15
1.
THE COGNIZANT DEAN, WITH APPEAL TO THE PRESIDENT
(OPTION I)
2.
A FACULTY TRIBUNAL (OPTION II)
A DECISION TO HEAR THE CASE BEFORE THE DEAN (OPTION I) MUST
HAVE THE WRITTEN CONCURRENCE OF THE FACULTY REFEREE; SHOULD
HE NOT AGREE, THE CASE WILL AUTOMATICALLY BE HEARD BEFORE
THE FACULTY TRIBUNAL. SHOULD HE SELECT OPTION II, THE
UNIVERSITY COUNSEL DOES NOT NEED THE FORMAL CONCURRENCE OF
THE FACULTY REFEREE.
REGARDLESS OF WHICH OPTION HE SELECTS THE UNIVERSITY COUNSEL
MUST SO INFORM ALL OF THE AFOREMENTIONED PARTIES AND THE PRES-
IDENT OF THE UNIVERSITY. SHOULD HE SELECT OPTION II, THE PRESIDENT
WILL ASK THE SECRETARY OF THE SENATE (THE REGISTRAR) TO FORM
THE TRIBUNAL PANEL. THIS WILL BE DONE AS EXPEDITIOUSLY AS
POSSIBLE (S.IV. C 2).
4. PROCEDURES FOR HEARING BEFORE DEAN
IF HE SELECTS OPTION I, THE COUNSEL WILL INFORM THE COGNIZ-
ANT DEAN WHO WILL MAKE ALL NECESSARY ARRANGEMENTS FOR A HEAR-
ING. THE DEAN WILL ORGANIZE AND DIRECT THE HEARINGS AS HE
SEES FIT, SUBJECT TO THE RIGHTS OF THE RESPONDENT AND THE PRO-
CEDURAL PRINCIPLES LISTED IN SECTION IV E, WHICH ARE THE SAME
UNDER EITHER OPTION. THESE INCLUDE THE RIGHT TO BE REPRESENTED
DURING THE HEARING BY A PERSON OF HIS CHOICE. IN ALL INSTANCES,
THE DEAN'S DECISION MAY BE APPEALED TO THE PRESIDENT WHO MUST
MAKE A WRITTEN DECISION WITHIN ONE MONTH AFTER RECEIVING THE
APPEAL.
Some administrative abuses which would normally be
handled by the cognizant Dean:
a)
Consistent
failure to honor class starting times, office
hours and other university commitments;
b)
Persistent and unwarranted refusal to sit upon depart-
ment, faculty and university committees or tribunals;
c)
Acceptance of outside
employment
without having duly
notified the proper authorities;
d)
Disruption of university facilities.
16
5. PROCEDURES FOR HEARING BEFORE A TRIBUNAL
a)
WHEN IT IS DECIDED THAT A CASE WILL BE HEARD BEFORE A
FACULTY TRIBUNAL, THE UNIVERSITY COUNSEL WILL INFORM THE
RESPONDENT AND THE PRESIDENT WITHIN 48 HOURS, STATING
AGAIN THE CHARGES AND THE MAXIMUM SANCTION WHICH MAY BE
ASSESSED AGAINST THE RESPONDENT (S. IV D 2 C).
b)
AFTER RECEIVING THE OFFICIAL WRITTEN NOTIFICATION FROM THE
UNIVERSITY COUNSEL THAT HIS CASE WILL BE HEARD (ABOVE) THE
RESPONDENT HAS FOUR WEEKS TO PREPARE HIS CASE.
c)
DURING THE SANE FOUR WEEK PERIOD THE SECRETARY OF THE
SENATE WILL SELECT A PANEL AND THE PRESIDENT A CHAIRMAN
IN THE MANNER DESCRIBED IN S. IV C 2. CASES INVOLVING DIS-
MISSAL, ESPECIALLY THOSE IN WHICH THE PRESIDENT HAS SUSPEN-
DED THE RESPONDENT FROM HIS FUNCTIONS (UNIVERSITIES ACT
S. 58.1) SHOULD RECEIVE PRIORITY IN SCHEDULING.
d)
THE HEARINGS WILL THEN COMMENCE WITH TWO COMPULSORY CHAL-
LENGES TO SELECT THE TRIBUNAL FROM THE PANEL (S. IV C 2 d).
ALL MEMBERS OF THE TRIBUNAL MUST BE PRESENT AT EACH SESSION.
e)
THE CHAIRMAN SHALL RULE ON ALL QUESTIONS OF PROCEDURE AND
ADMISSIBILITY. HIS DECISION IS FINAL. IF ANY MEMBER OF
THE TRIBUNAL FINDS HIMSELF IN CONSISTENT DISAGREEMENT WITH
THE CHAIRMAN OR WITH OTHER MEMBERS OF THE TRIBUNAL, HE WILL
RESIGN, STATING HIS REASONS IN WRITING TO THE PRESIDENT.
f)
IN THE INSTANCE WHERE ANY MEMBER OF THE TRIBUNAL HAS RESIGNED,
THE PRESIDENT RECONSTITUTES THE TRIBUNAL (S. IV C. 2). THE
HEARINGS RECOMMENCE.
We discussed at considerable length the question of whether
or not to allow the Tribunal, by a majority vote, to overrule
the Chairman's rulings on questions of procedure and admissibility.
We decided not to do so because: i) the Chairman is chosen because
of his competence in these regards and must be given effective
control over the hearings; we believe that otherwise men of high
calibre will be unwilling to serve as tribunal chairman; ii) the
Tribunal's main function is to concern itself with the innocence
or guilt of the Respondent; iii) if in their minds the Chairman's
rulings make this impossible, the members of the Tribunal should
•
??
resign rather than allow the effectiveness of the Tribunal to be?
undermined by protracted procedural wranglings. In this, as in
several other key instances in this document, we have sought to
provide a means of avoiding deadlocks in the procedures. Such
deadlocks would serve the legitimate interests of neither the
University nor the Respondent.
g)
THE TRIBUNAL SHALL NOT RECOMMEND ANY SANCTION TO THE PRESIDENT
WITHOUT THE CONCURRENCE OF AT LEAST TWO OF ITS THREE MEMBERS.
h)
IF A HEARING IS DISRUPTED, THE CHAIRMAN MAY DECLARE IT CLOSED.
ANYONE DISRUPTING THE HEARINGS, INCLUDING THE RESPONDENT, MAY
BE EXCLUDED, THE TRIBUNAL CONTINUING WITHOUT HIM. SHOULD ANY
MEMBER OF THE TRIBUNAL, IN THE OPINION OF THE CHAIRMAN AND THE
MAJORITY OF THE TRIBUNAL, BE CONTINUOUSLY DISRUPTIVE, THE TRI-
BUNAL WILL CANCEL ITS HEARINGS AND ASK THE PRESIDENT TO RECON-
STITUTE THE TRIBUNAL, AS IN SECTION IV.C.2. THE HEARING, AND
ALL TIME LIMITS THEN RECONENCE.
.
?
? 1) SHOULD THE RECONSTITUTED TRIBUNAL FAIL TO REACH A DECISION WITHIN?
THE STATED TIME LIMITS, OR BE CONTINUOUSLY DISRUPTED, THE PRESI-
DENT MAY TURN THE CASE OVER TO THE ACADEMIC VICE-PRESIDENT.
Some abuses of an academic nature which would normally be
heard before the Tribunal:
1.
Persistent and unwarranted intrusion of subject matter
which has no relation to the course being given;
2. Discrimination against students;
3.
Infringement upon the academic rights of faculty
colleagues;
4.
Plagiarism and other forms of intellectual dishonesty.
Since there is an obvious overlap between administrative and
academic abuses, we recommend that if any serious doubt exists
over jurisdiction the case be heard before the Tribunal.
While in some instances the Respondent may prefer a hearing
. ?
before the Dean, we assume he will usually prefer the Tribunal.
We give the option to the Faculty Referee rather than to the
Respondent in order to avoid the possibility of capricious
17
selection of the Tribunal. Just as the President in the
S ?
first stage may overrule the Referee's decision to drop a
case, so in the second stage the Referee may ensure that a
case be heard before a faculty Tribunal rather than through
administrative channels. Our purpose is to facilitate the
legitimate function of University officials to protect the
University from disruption while at the same time ensuring
the Respondent a fair hearing.
E. PRINCIPLES RELATED TO PROCEDURES
THE FOLLOWING PROCEDURAL PRINCIPLES SHALL APPLY WHETHER THE CASE
IS HEARD BEFORE THE COGNIZANT DEAN OR BEFORE THE TRIBUNAL (UNDER
OPTION I OR OPTION II):
1.
THE RESPONDENT SHALL BE PRESUMED TO BE INNOCENT.
2.
THE RESPONDENT SHALL BE ALLOWED FOUR WEEKS FROM THE TIME OF
THE COUNSEL'S WRITTEN NOTIFICATION TO PREPARE HIS DEFENSE.
3.
IN ORDER TO FIND A VIOLATION, THE TRIBUNAL OR DEAN MUST BE
S ?
SATISFIED THAT THE RESPONDENT HAS COMMITTED A VIOLATION OF
PROFESSIONAL CONDUCT,, AS STATED IN SECTION III IN THE
RESPECT OR RESPECTS CHARGED.
4.
THE RESPONDENT SHALL BE ENTITLED TO BE REPRESENTED BY ANYONE
OF HIS CHOICE. THE UNIVERSITY MAY INTRODUCE LEGAL COUNSEL
IN THE HEARINGS ONLY IF THE RESPONDENT DOES SO FIRST.
We recommend that the introduction of legal counsel
normally be limited to cases involving suspension or dis-
missal.
5.
THE RESPONDENT HAS THE RIGHT TO HEAR AND CROSS-EXAMINE
WITNESSES GIVING EVIDENCE AGAINST HIM.
6.
THE RESPONDENT HAS THE RIGHT TO AN EXPEDITIOUS AND TIMELY
DISPOSAL OF THE CHARGE(S).
7.
TECHNICAL LEGAL RULES OF EVIDENCE NEED NOT BE FOLLOWED.
8.
THE PROCEEDINGS WILL BE TAPED: ALL TAPES WILL BE MADE
AVAILABLE TO BOTH PARTIES.
18
19
9. NO FACULTY MEMBER SHALL REFUSE TO APPEAR WHEN SUMMONED IN
CONNECTION WITH ANY PROCEEDING UNDER THIS STATEMENT. ONE
WHO APPEARS MAY, IN ANSWER TO ANY QUESTION, REFUSE
a)
TO ANSWER ANY QUESTIONS WHICH MIGHT RENDER FIlM LIABLE
TO PROSECUTION UNDER CIVIL OR CRIMINAL LAW OR UNDER
THESE PROCEDURES;
b)
TO DIVULGE A CONFIDENTIAL COMMUNICATION FROM A STUDENT
OR A COLLEAGUE MADE WITH THE UNDERSTANDING THAT IT WOULD
BE KEPT CONFIDENTIAL;
c) TO TESTIFY AGAINST HIS SPOUSE.
10. HEARINGS SHALL BE CLOSED TO THE PUBLIC, BUT THE RESPONDENT
AND THE COMPLAINANT MAY EACH NAME NO MORE THAN FIVE FACULTY
MEMBERS AS OBSERVERS BEFORE THE TRIBUNAL AND NO MORE THAN
TWO EACH BEFORE THE DEAN.
11. DECISIONS OF THE TRIBUNAL TO IMPOSE SANCTIONS OF SUSPENSION
AND DISMISSAL SHALL TAKE THE FORM OF A RECOMMENDATION TO
THE PRESIDENT. IF THE PRESIDENT CONCURS HE WILL TAKE ALL
APPROPRIATE STEPS TO ENSURE THAT THE DECISION IS CARRIED OUT.
IN DECISIONS INVOLVING DISMISSAL THE BOARD OF GOVERNORS MUST
ACCEPT THE PRESIDENT'S RECOMMENDATIONS BEFORE ACTION CAN BE
TAKEN.
Under the Universities Act the President has "the power
to recommend (to the Board of Governors) ... removal of
members of the teaching ... staffs . .." (Article 57a); and
the power to suspend any member of the teaching ... staff ...
though he must state his reasons to the Board of Governors,
and the suspended individual may appeal to the Board.
Although we do not contest the President's power under
the Universities Act, we assume that as a matter of course
he will respect the recommendations of the Tribunal except
insofar as he might wish to reduce them or drop the charges.
In some cases, especially where he decides that the presence
• ?
of a professor in the classroom is a threat to the orderly
functioning of the University, the President may deem it
necessary to suspend him before the proceedings begin. We
recommend that the suspended professor receive his regular
salary during the time his case is being considered under
these procedures.
F. TIME LIMITS
1.
UNDER OPTION I, NO CASE MAY TAKE MORE THAN FIVE MONTHS
(20-22 WEEKS) FROM THE DATE THE FACULTY REFEREE TURNS THE
CASE OVER TO
THE
hNIVERSITY COUNSEL FOR INVESTIGATION
TO THE PRESIDENTS DECISION ON AN APPEAL, IF ANY.
2.
UNDER OPTION II, NO CASE MAY TAKE MORE THAN SIX MONTHS
(24-26 WEEKS) FROM THE DATE THE FACULTY REFEREE TURNS
THE CASE OVER TO THE UNIVERSITY COUNSEL FOR INVESTIGA-
TION TO THE FINAL DISPOSAL OF THE CASE BY THE PRESIDENT
OF THE UNIVERSITY.
3.
UNDER OPTION II, SHOULD IT APPEAR CERTAIN THAT THESE TIME
LIMITS CANNOT BE NET, THE CHAIRMAN OF THE TRIBUNAL MAY,
ON HIS OWN AUTHORITY, DECLARE ANY SUCH EXTENSION
EXTENSION AS IS
NECESSARY TO ENSURE THAT THE TRIBUNAL REACHES A DECISION.
4.
THE CHAIRMAN, SUPPORTED BY TWO OF THREE MEMBERS OF THE
COMMITTEE, MAY ALSO:
a)
DROP THE CHARGES AGAINST THE RESPONDENT BEFORE THE
TIME LIMIT ELAPSES;
b)
CANCEL THE HEARINGS AND TURN OVER THE CASE TO THE
ACADEMIC VICE-PRESIDENT WHERE IN THEIR JUDGMENT THE
RESPONDENT IS INTENTIONALLY DELAYING OR DISRUPTING
THE PROCEEDINGS.
The need for time limits in disciplinary procedures
should be obvious by now at S.F.U. We believe that long
delays serve the legitimate interests of neither the
University community nor of the defendant.
G. APPLICABILITY OF PROCEDURES
1. THESE PROCEDURES WILL GOVERN THE DISCIPLINE OF MEMBERS OF
THE FACULTY AT SIMON FRASER UNIVERSITY.
20
21
.
2.
THESE PROCEDURES DO NOT INCLUDE DISCIPLINARY MEASURES
WITHIN THE ADMINISTRATION OF THIS UNIVERSITY. For
example, the President of the University may warn or
reprimand a department chairman without going through
these procedures. Moreover, any academic officer of the
University, the President, Academic Vice-President,
cognizant Dean or department chairman may warn a faculty
member in writing that conduct of a given nature could
lead to an administrative complaint being lodged against
him under these procedures.
The Committee does not feel that a written or oral
warning constitutes a sanction, as in most of the other
documents studied. We feel, moreover, that the Faculty
Referee, in deciding to drop charges against the
Respondent, may decide to warn him, in written form, that
• persistence of such complaints, or other complaints of
• similar nature, could lead to future prosecution under
these procedures.
3.
ACTIONS WHICH DO NOT CONSTITUTE DISCIPLINE, E.G. FAILURE
TO GRANT TENURE OR TO REAPPOINT AFTER THE EXPIRATION OF
A TERM APPOINTMENT, ARE NOT APPROPRIATE UNDER THESE
PROCEDURES.
0
V SANCTIONS
0
?
WE RECOMMEND THAT SANCTIONS BE GRADUATED AND CLASSIFIED IN THE
FOLLOWING WAY:
1.
A FORMAL WRITTEN REPRIMAND FROM THE PRESIDENT OF THE
UNIVERSITY;
2.
A CENSURE FROM THE PRESIDENT ACCOMPANYING A MONETARY FINE
OF NOT MORE THAN $1,000 DEDUCTED FROM THE RESPONDENT'S PAY
DURING NOT LESS THAN ONE YEAR AND NOT MORE THAN TWO YEARS.
3.
SUSPENSION FROM DUTY WITHOUT PAY FOR A SPECIFIED PERIOD
OF TIME;
4.
REDUCTION IN PAY AND/OR DEMOTION IN RANK;
5.
DISMISSAL FROM THE UNIVERSITY (IN FLAGRANT AND EXTREME CASES
OF VIOLATION OF PROFESSIONAL CONDUCT).
We recommend that any funds derived under
1/2
and
1/4
be
used to defray the costs of these procedures or to help
pay the costs of Respondents who have been acquitted and
is
who are, in the judgment of the President and the University,
particularly in need of financial help after their hearings
are terminated. A code of conduct and set of procedures
such as these must include sanctions. As noted in the
Western Ontario report: "The rationale of the sanction
should be to educate the offender as to the error of his
conduct and to protect the University in the pursuit of
its academic goals." Obviously it will sometimes be
difficult to assess the relative magnitude of an offense
and to find the appropriate sanction, but we feel that
graduated sanctions provide an element of versatility and
fairness lacking in most system of university discipline.
Because it must hear evidence, set procedures and recom-
mend sanctions, the Tribunal must be allowed some
discretionary powers and a reasonable flexibility. The
system will ultimately rely on the common sense, the
fairness, and the collective wisdom of the, faculty
who accept it.
22
VI RECOMMENDATIONS
A. THAT THE REPORT OF THIS COMMITTEE BE ACCEPTED BY SENATE AND
PRESENTED TO THE PRESIDENT OF THE UNIVERSITY AND TO THE
BOARD OF GOVERNORS FOR APPROVAL AS THE RULES AND PROCEDURES
PERTAINING TO PROFESSIONAL CONDUCT FOR SIMON FRASER
UNIVERSITY FACULTY.
THIS REPORT INCLUDES:
1.
STATEMENTS ON PROFESSIONAL CONDUCT AND VIOLATIONS
THEREOF (SECTION II & III);
2.
A SET OF PROCEDURES GOVERNING PROFESSIONAL CONDUCT
AT SIMON FRASER UNIVERSITY;
3.
A SET OF GRADUATED SANCTIONS.
B. THAT SENATE ESTABLISH A COMMITTEE TO STUDY THE QUESTION OF
ACCEPTABLE CONDUCT AND DISCIPLINE WITHIN THE ENTIRE UNIVER-
SITY COMMUNITY AT SIMON FRASER UNIVERSITY. SUCH A STUDY
SHOULD PAY PARTICULAR ATTENTION TO THE QUESTION OF STUDENT
DISCIPLINE AND TO THE STATUS OF ACADEMIC ADMINISTRATORS,
LECTURERS, ASSOCIATES AND TEACHING ASSISTANTS.
C. THAT SENATE MAKE PROVISION FOR REVIEW OF THIS DOCUMENT WITHIN
TWO YEARS OF ITS ACCEPTANCE BY SENATE.
23
REFERENCES
American Association of University Professors, "Statement on Pro-
fessional Ethics," 1966.
"Freedom
and Responsibility," October, 1970
Canadian Association of University Teachers, "Draft Code of Pro-
fessional Ethics for Canadian Academics," 1969.
"Draft
Guidelines on Professional Ethics," May, 1970.
Carnegie Commission on Higher Education. "A Model Bill of Rights
and Responsibilities." March, 1971
Illinois State University, "Final Report of the Standards and
Ethics Committee to the Academic Senate," December, 1970.
Kent State University, "Faculty Code of Professional Ethics,"
September, 1970.
Queen's University, "Interim Report of the Senate Committee on
Grievance, Discipline and Related Matters," Queen's Gazette, III,
Supplement, 1970.
Simon Fraser University, Faculty Association. "Statement on
Academic Tenure and Freedom," (DATE)
University Affairs Committee,
"Composition of Committee and Annual Report." September, 1970.
Faculty Association. "A Report
by the Academic Freedom and Tenure Review Committee of the
Faculty Association to the Simon Fraser University Faculty
Association Executive." October, 1970.
Stanford University, "Report on Faculty Self-Discipline."
Commission Appointed by Stanford Chapter of the American Associa-
tion of University Professors." January, 1971.
Strand, K. "Thoughts on University Dismissal Procedures,"
September, 1971. (SFU)
-2-
Sullivan, D. "A Short Note on Professional Ethics." March, 1971.
is
?
(SFU)
Trent University. "On Rape and Pillage." February, 1970.
Universities Act. Revised Statutes of British Columbia, 1963.
University of California, Berkeley. "Professional Conduct and
Faculty Discipline," (Part A); "Disciplinary Procedures for the
Berkeley Campus," (Part B), February, 1971.
University of Western Ontario. "Let Right Be Done." Report of
the President's Committee of Inquiry Into Social Behaviour.
March, 1968.
Wilson, B. "Guidelines to Faculty," February, 1971. (SFU)
.
0
.
Ar1yOfl ?
1nCiUo1r:
tueriti
?
-
i(C)ity
Ct:: :Pr!
\C ?
\\ ?
,
:
on
; .•,J.P.
U 0 C ?
t
•i;_
Co.:p1aj
Q1S:;.is ?
- ? (u.c.)
coinplc-te
(6 ':oe;:s)
.
?
V
'
.
U ?
C'.
n
stJLO
- .x ?
?
CL
S[tiCfl
?
;
)nfor': ?
1
be
thL
hei
?
(7
?
uny3)
(4
?
,ek:;)
(4
?
..'t€ks)
I1iLI,
-csrt:pt. ion
PiEII;L;1' ?
-------------.
?
cc- ei:ion
I'..V. ?
P.
(1 ?
:onu.) ?
J
uCCi.: ion
AT)nt'lsmTv D
. ?
QUESTIONNAIRE ON PROFESSIONAL CONDUCT
SIMON FRASER UNIVERSITY
ANALYSES AND INTERPRETATIONS
In March, 1971, the Chairman of the Senate Committee on Rules
and Procedures Pertaining to Professional Conduct circulated
a questionnaire to all members of the faculty at Simon Fraser
University.
The following questions comprised the questionnaire:
1.
Do you consider it feasible and/or desirable to
have at S.F.U. stated guidelines on professional
conduct?
2.
How detailed or general should such guidelines be?
3.
What do you think of present S.F.U. arrangements
(and in the academic profession generally) for
faculty self-discipline?
. ?
4. Do you think that we should establish rules and
procedures for faculty self-discipline at S.F.U.
apart from, or in addition to, existing pro-
cedures?
5.
Do you have any suggestions concerning 1/1 and
1/4?
6.
Can you provide us with information as to how
these matters are dealt with in other universit-
ies and professions?
QUESTIONNAIRE RETURN
Responses were received from seventeen (17) members of the
Simon Fraser University faculty and three academic adminis-
trators.
The analyses of responses and the interpretation of consensus
should be viewed with caution. The sample of respondents (i.e.,
seventeen from the total faculty population of Simon Fraser
University), is exceedingly small. We have not, therefore,
S
presented a detailed breakdown of the results. But rather
-2-
some general indications:
1.
It is feasible and desirable to have stated guidelines
on professional conduct at Simon Fraser University.
2.
Guidelines should be general, rather than detailed.
3.
Existing arrangements at Simon Fraser University
are not considered adequate.
4.
Elaboration of existing procedures at Simon Fraser
University is appropriate.
is
0
APPENDIX C
0
?
Powers of Deans as exerpted from S.358 passed by Senate, May 11, 1970.
I. A. (Regarding the role and status of Deans)
1. that Deans should regard their role as a dual one insofar
as they should be responsible not only for the implementation of
university-wide policies (as determined by Senate, the President,
or the Board) but, even more importantly, for ensuring that the
interests of departments, faculty and students are adequately
represented;
3.
that Deans should be appointed with faculty rank.
II. B. Responsibilities of Deans at the faculty level
1.
The Dean should have the confidence of his faculty,
and act as their spokesman. He shall be responsible for the
administration of the faculty in accordance with the policies
and procedures of the University.
2.
Within matters which are properly under Faculty
jurisdiction, the basic policies of the Faculty will be
approved collectively, although certain areas of administra-
tive discretion must be left to the Dean
6. The Dean shall supervise the counselling of students
within his Faculty and the arbitration of student grievances.
Powers of Department Chairmen as exerpted from S.71-80
(Appointment, Authority and Responsibility of Department Chairmen),
passed by Senate August 2, 1971.
Preamble, paragraph II:
!AS
a basic starting point two propositions seem important.
First, all members of a Department should participate in reach-
ing policy decisions on matters concerned with teaching (using
the term "teaching" in its widest sense). Second, when a
faculty member is derelict in his duties, steps must be taken
to assure that he fulfills his obligations. Responsibility/
and authority must therefore be provided for the Chairman so
that he will be able to take such actions as may be necessary,
-2-
•
? in accordance with University regulations, especially on matters
which affect the University's obligations to its students."
Section 6 (Authority, Duties and Responsibilities)
"The Chairman has an overall responsibility to his Department and
Dean for ensuring that Departmental policies are formulated and
executed, that University, Faculty and Departmental regulations
are followed and that individual members of the Department fulfil
their assigned duties. ?
The assignment of duties will normally
be on the recommendation of the Chairman..
"
...He
(the Chairman) has also the right and duty to report
failure on the part of members of the Department to fulfil
University, Faculty or Department duties, especially obliga-
tions to students and to suggest ways of preventing their
occurrence. The Chairman also has the right and duty to main-
tain privacy in matters of a confidential, personal nature."
.
0
/ ?
SiMON FRASER UNIVERSITY
MEMORANDUM
is
To
?
ALL MEMBERS OF SENATE AND PERSONS
?
From
?
H. M. EVANS
NORMALLY RECEIVING SENATE MINUTES
AND PAPERS ?
REGISTRAR AND SECRETARY OF SENATE
Subject
..............
.SENATE PAPER
.
?
. ?
Date. ?
OCTOBER 29, 1971
The undernoted Senate paper is distributed for your
records and information:
S.71-112 Membership of Graduate Studies Committees - as
amended and approved by Senate, October 4, 1971.
:ii:
