S.236
SIMON FRASER UNIVERSITY
Dr. K. Strand
?
From ?
K. E. Rieckhoff, Chairman
A±hg .. .idht
.... àiid .
.Sñ°äLtè....Comm
Chairman of Senate
?
and Procedures
Subject ?
Interim Recommendations., ... on
?
Date ?
.'....
Procedures
In accordance with the wishes of Senate the Senate Committee
on Rules and Procedures has reconsidered its submission "Interim
Recommendations on Procedures", dated April
18, 1969,
S223.
Taking into account the debate of Senate on May 12,
1969
and
submissions received since then, the Senate Committee on Rules
and Procedures hereby submits to Senate a revised set of proposed
Rules and Procedures. At the same time we also serve notice of
motion for these Rules and Procedures.
In addition to the recommendations we are submitting explana-
tions and justifications for the individual recommendations, since
the Senate debate of May 12 indicated that these recommendations
were not sufficiently explained. The preamble to the recommenda-
tions given on page 1 of paper S223 is still relevant and need
• ?
riot be repeated here. We should like, however, to add the follow-
ing general remarks:
The majority of business items and recommendations appearing
before Senate are generated within the Faculties, within Senates
Committees, and within the Office of the Academic Vice-President.
If these bodies have done their work properly and adequately,
Senate's task should be mainly that of discussing the merits of
the proposals brought forward and of disposing of them by acceptance
or rejection with at most minor modifications. If major modifica-
tions are required, then this is an indication that the work of
the originating body may have been inadequate. In such a situation
two courses of action are open to Senate. The one which has been
most frequently followed by Senate in the past is that Senate
has had to perform much of the work of the originating body through
extensive debate and major amendments to the recommendations and
proposals. While this is in principle possible, it has not only
been an inefficient way of doing the job, but more importantly,
as stated in paper
S223,
this process has led to contradictory
or ambiguous recommendations. Worst of all, the amendments
presented to individual items have oftenbeen debated out of
context in a piecemeal fashion. This too has seriously interfered
with the intelligent disposition of such recommendations by
Senate.
2
4.
?
9
-2-
to
The other course of action is the one in which a report
will first be considered in toto, thus giving Senate an
opportunity to dispose of such items it finds acceptable and
reject at this stage such items which Senate finds unacceptable
in their original form before making amendments and suggestions.
Once a report or set of recommendations has been dealt with in
such fashion, Senate can then put forth alternative motions to
items it finds unacceptable. If such alternative motions as
are passed by Senate require restructuring of the total set of
recommendations, then Senate can refer the alternative motions
along with the original report back to the originating body with
instructions that will enable the originating body to prepare
for Senate a revised report that is clearly worded, consistent
(noncontradictory in its parts), and unambiguous. The procedures
that we propose in this paper are intended to insure that the
latter course of action will be followed by Senate. This appears
to be far more sensible than much of our past practice.
It has been argued that traditional sets of rules such as
Roberts Rules of Order should be followed in all cases. This
argument is specious, as there are many different kinds of
deliberative bodies. Senate is neither parliament nor a private
club, but has its own special roles and functions. It is by no
?
•
?
means uncommon that deliberative bodies not only have the right
but also make use of the right to set their own rules to facilitate
the execution of their own special functions. In fact, the
Universities Act stipulates that Senate has the power to make its
owh rules. More specifically, the proposed rules are in the
spirit of Roberts Rules of Order which are designed to safeguard
the deliberative process. The rules proposed by Senate Committee
are designed to ensure both adequate and orderly debate of business
before Senate, taking into account the particular nature of
Simon Fraser University.
It has been said that no rules that Senate can make will cure
the ills that arise out of the particular membership and chairman-
ship of the Simon Fraser Senate. This is true. However, procedural
structuring can indeed help to minimize the effect of any ills
and, while no one set of rules will be a cure-all, nonetheless
there are a number of improvements that can result in the increased
effectiveness of a body however imperfect it may be otherwise.
It is the specific responsibility of the Senate Committee on
Rules and Procedures to concern itself with such matters and bring
forward appropriate recommendations.
In the light of the foregoing comments, the Senate Committee
on Rules and Procedures recommends that Senate adopt the following
procedures:
?
1W
?
., . .
3
/
- 3 - ?
J
1. When a Senate Committee, a Faculty, or the Academic
Vice-President submits a report to Senate, it shall
be placed on the agenda. As soon as the appropriate
agenda item is reached, the Chairman shall recognize
first the Chairman of the Committee or his designate,
the Dean of the Faculty or his designate, the Academic
Vice-President or his designate, as applicable.
Comments to 1). No reference is made to recommendations
originating with individual members of Senate with the exception
of the Academic Vice-President. The reason for this is that,
in fact, recommendations and motions originating from individual
Senators have not had any formal previous discussion and formula-
tion in the University. Such recommendations, unless they have
an immediate appeal to Senate, will often require the referral
to Senate Committees or to the Faculties for consideration, and
hence the arguments made for the proposed procedures do not apply.
Moreover, there is in such cases a definite need for greater
latitude with regard to disposition. This is not to claim that
the proposed procedures might not be found workable also for such
recommendations and motions. It would be up to Senate to make
such a decision if it wishes to do so.
2.
Where a report as identified under 1) contains a
recommendation or recommendations to Senate, the
speaker identified under 1) shall introduce and move
at that time the recommendation or the set of recommenda-
tions contained in the report.
Comments to 2). This would appear to be normal procedure.
However, occasionally in the past it has not been followed rigorously
and, in fact, there are cases on record where before a recommenda-
tion could be introduced and moved and hence debated other speakers
have been recognized and motions of referral or major amendments
have been introduced without allowing a formal presentation of
the recommendation.
3.
As soon as a recommendation or set of recommendations
as under 2) has been moved and seconded, the Chairman
of Senate shall rule to which extent the recommendation
or set of recommendations shall be dealt with ad seriatim,
such ruling being subject to challenge. As a result of
such ruling the original motion will then consist of
one or several parts which are subsequently referred to
as items.
Comments to
3).
There are, of course, alternate ways by
which an appropriate division could be made. It appears to the
Committee that by leaving this decision to the Chairman of Senate
S
1 ?
1/
)f
more consistent and adequate decisions will result than by other
methods. One has to keep in mind that the Chairman has the
prerogative of obtaining advice from the assembly before making
his decision if he feels so inclined and, moreover, if his decision
appears to be contrary to the wishes of the majority of Senate
it can be overturned by a challenge.
4.
After an appropriate division has been made as under
3),
the Chair shall recognize the mover to speak on
the first (or only) item of the recommendations.
General debate on this item follows with the provision
that
1) ?
No amendment shall bein order that is not acceptable
to the mover of the item. That is, if in the course
of the debate a member of Senate moves an amendment
to the item he shall, upon the request of the
Chairman, yield the floor to the mover of the item.
The mover has at this stage three options:
a)
If, in his view, the amendment is of an
essentially editorial character or otherwise
agreeable to the mover he may choose to
incorporate it directly into the item with the'
approval of the seconder. If he so opts, the
item as modified will be the subject of sub-
sequent discussion and vote.
b)
He may find that while he does not consider
the amendment editorial in nature it nonethe-
less does not come in conflict with the spirit
and intent of either the item under discussion
or any other item of the recommendation and
he may decide that in this sense it is acceptable
to him. In this case the amendment, after
having been seconded, will be debated subject
to the other provisions of
4)
with the additional
proviso that no amendment to the amendment will
be in order. If the vote on the amendment is
affirmative, discussion will proceed on the
item as amended. If the vote on the amendment
is negative, discussion will revert to the
item as originally presented.
C)
If, in his view, the amendment proposed violates?
the spirit or intent of the recommendations
or will require reconsideration of the recommenda-
tions by the originating body he may reject the
...5
LI
)
-5--
?
3
?
/
S
amendment. In this case the mover of the
amendment shall have the floor and may at
this stage give notice of intent to move an
alternative version of the item. He would
presumably speak against the item as it
stands.
Comments on 4(i). The analogous section in the original
recommendations of the committee appeared to be one of the more
contentious ones. It obviously needed clarification both as to
intent and operational mechanism. It should be pointed out that
it does not interfere with Senate's prerogative to reject and
change items as presented. Such members of Senate as are unable
to agree with the item as it stands should at this stage speak
against it and if necessary give notice of intent to move an
alternative. They should vote against the motion when it comes
to a vote. Such procedures have been found acceptable and satis-
factory in the past and avoid Senate doing the work of the
committees or other originating bodies while allowing Senate to
implement its own wishes.
ii)
Privileged motions shall be in order but shall
in all cases be non-debatable, even where Roberts
Rules of Order specify otherwise. That is, an
immediate vote without debate must be taken on
all prvileged motions.
Comments on 4(u). Under Roberts Rules of Order most
privileged motions are in fact already non-debatable. The exten-
sion of this provision to all privileged motions serves to insure
that the debate cannot be deliberatly side tracked by the intro-
duction of such motions.
iii)
No member of Senate shall be allowed to speak
more than twice on the item and no more than twice
on any amendment to the item. If the mover has
not already spoken twice on the item during debate
it shall be his prerogative upon conclusion of
debate to speak again if he so desires. He shall
retain this right to be the last speaker even
if a motion to put the previous question has been
voted upon in the affirmative. In this case the
Chairman shall recognize him before putting the
question to the assembly.
?
-
Comments on
4(iii).
To the extent to which this section is
not in accord with Roberts Rules of Order, it allows the mover
of the item the final rebuttal and this appears to the committee
a matter of common sense and common courtesy.
... ?
6
-6- ?
/
(
iv) ?
Debate shall be relevant to the substance of
the item or amendments and the Chair shall rule
on such relevance, subject to challenge.
Comments on
4(iv).
This explicitly reaffirms traditional
practice.
5.
Following the conclusion of debate, conducted according
to
4)
above, the Chair shall put the question on the
item. If the item carries, it is subject to no further
discussion. If the item fails, alternative versions
may be moved, but only after all items of the recommenda-
tions have been dealt with as outlined in the following
sections.
Comments on
5)
.
This recommendation appears self evident
in the light of earlier comments.
6.
If there is more than one item in the recommendations,
following the vote on one item the Chair shall recognize
again the speaker identified
in
1) to speak on the next
5).
item for which the procedures shall be as under
4)
and
.
?
?
Comments on
6).
As mentioned earlier this assures that all
items will be discussed in substance in the agreed upon order.
7.
After all items of the recommendations have been dealt
with under the procedures given in
4), 5),
and
6),
motions that are alternatives for such items that failed
to carry will be in order. Also in order will be motions
giving directions to the originating body on any, e.g.
referrals etc. The Chair shall ask for such motions
on items that failed to carry, item by item in the original
order in which these items appeared. For each motion
thus introduced, the Chair shall rule whether it is
relevant to the particular item or not. If it is
relevant, it shall be dealt with under the same procedures
as outlined under
3),
4),
5),
and
6).
Such rulings on
relevance are subject to challenge.
Comments on
7) .
Seven provides Senate with the opportunity
to either substitute alternative versions for those items it
found unacceptable in their original form or to give directions
to the originating body pertaining to such items. Under this
section Senators retain all rights to offer modifications to
recommendations.
to ?
.
4.
8.
When an alternative version for an item that originally
failed carries, the Chair shall give the floor to the
speaker identified under 1) who will decide whether the
alternative version requires a rewording of or integra-
tion into the original report. In this case he may
request that the item be referred to the originating
body for incorporation and subsequent resubmission to
Senate. If he so requests
,the alternative motion shall
be considered referred to the originating body for
such incorporation. More than one such referral of an
alternative motion to a failed item back to the originat-
ing body shall require the approval of Senate, and the
Chair shall make the ruling as to when this situation
pertains, subject to challenge.
Comments on
8).
This section is designed to assure that
the originating body has a chance to reword its overall recommenda-
tion in the light of Senate's deliberations. However, it also
provides that the originating body cannot abuse this right
if it fails repeatedly to come up with acceptable recommendations
to Senate on any given matter. It leaves to Senate the decision
as to whether it wishes to allow the originating body more than
two opportunities to deal effectively with any item of a report
or recommendation.
The Senate Committee on Rules and Procedures feels that
adoption of the procedures outlined above will insure that
i)
Reports from the originating bodies indicated
will received orderly and adequate consideration
in Senate.
ii)
Senate will not have to do the work of the
originating bodies.
iii)
Senate has the opportunity to exercise its power
and prerogatives fully and effectively.
The Committee therefore requests speedy adoption of its
recommendations.
ac
K. E. RieckJ-ioff
Chairman
to
