Page 1
Page 2
Page 3
Page 4
Page 5

• Secretary 

. qf 

.

itc

?

ti.tlg...wd'.o.uestion::

of non-professional. conduct. 

Subcct. 

The Senate Sub-Committee organized to consider the question of allegations 

of non-professional conduct respectfully submits its report. 

or

H ?

t

Chairman 

CRD:dd 

.

S ?

The Ad-Hoc Committee called by Senate September 

23,

1968, to study rules 

and procedures for considering allegations of non-professional conduct of Faculty 

. members considered these questions: 

1.

Precedents in Canada for committees dealing with allegations 

• ? 

of non-professional conduct. 

2.

The S.F.U. institutions or bodies in which such a committee 

might be incorporated. 

3.

The possibility or desirability of establishing such a 

quasi-judicial body at Simon Fraser University. 

The reporting committee ruled out the possibility of establishing itself 

as the committee which would deal with allegations of non-professional conduct. 

Nor did it attempt to codify the rules and procedures governing faculty conduct. 

Rather, it studied the feasibility of establishing a standing committee within 

theUniversity to do this. 

There are few precedents for such a committee in Canada. A number of 

Universities, including U.B.C., have Faculty Association Committees which are 

essentially grievance or arbitration committees of higher appeal, dealing with 

department problems of salaries, promotions and non-renewals. The appeals are 

usually made through the Heads and Deans, the Faculty Association committee acting 

as ombudsman. 

The Committee then considered how a committee, tentatively entitled Committee 

• on Professional Conduct, might be incorporated into S.F.U.. There are three 

possibilities. 

1.

Joint Faculty 

2.

Faculty Association 

3. Senate 

Joint Faculty was ruled out because it has neither terms of reference nor 

administrative apparatus. The Faculty Association was also ruled out because: 

a)

it does not as yet represent the entire faculty, 

b)

it possesses no administrative machinery by which its 

decisions or recommendations could be carried out, 

c)

its role should be primarily that of ombudsman without 

judicial functions. 

However, one or more members of the Faculty Association Executive (or individual 

members of the Faculty Association) might be elected to ex-officio seats on the 

proposed Committee. 

-2-- 

The Faculty 

.

Association Executive might also play some role as ombudsman 

in cases of allegations of non-professional conduct; its exact functions would 

. be decided in discussion with the Committee on Professional Conduct. 

The reporting committee therefore agreed unanimously that a Committee on 

Professional Conduct should be a standing committee of Senate. It then turned 

its attention to the manner in which such a committee would function and. the 

problems-that it might encounter. The following problems were foreseen and 

discussed. 

1.

The difficulty of defining rules and procedures for such a committee, 

and especially the absence of clear-cut 

s

generally accepted rules 

and regulations governing faculty conduct and professional ethics 

'at S.F.U. 

2.

The difficulty of codifying traditionally, unwritten standards of 

professional decorum, standards which have only recently been 

challenged in any systematic way within the University community. 

3.

The question whether written rules would stand a better chance of 

being respected than the unwritten standards now being ignored or 

attacked by a minority within the academic community. 

Finally, that such a committee must clearly be established for the 

mutual protection and benefit of the entire academic community at 

Simon Fraser University. It must not become an instrument for the 

imposition of the standards of the majority upon the minority 

except in cases where the minority has shown no disposition to 

respect the rules. 

The reporting committee considered these problems seriously before deciding 

that a Senate Committee of Professional Conduct must be established and that a 

genuine effort must be made -to define at least minimal standards of faculty decorum. 

It did so for the following reasons: 

1.

That the Committee could define rules and procedures governing faculty 

conduct on the basis of the Preamble of the Academic Freedom and 

Tenure brief and in view of the growing volume of case law developing 

at other Canadian Universities, notably the Gray case at McGill and 

the Strax case at ihe University of New Brunswick. 

2.

Although there is no-perfect answer to objections #2, #3 and 

'#4

listed 

above, it is equally obvious that the University community, with its 

traditional standards and ethics, is under serious attack from 

certain individuals and groups. It seems obvious that the University 

has the right to defend itself and its values of intellectual, enquiry, 

freedom of expression and the accumulation of knowledge. The alter- 

native is either anarchy or outside public intervention, with the 

resultant loss of the autonomy and freedom won by the University 

during the past century. 

The reporting committee therefore recommends: 

.

?

1. That a six-man standing committee of Senate entitled Senate Committee 

on Professional Conduct be elected by Senate from among full-time 

faculty at S.F.U. to receive charges of non-professional conduct. 

-3-

2. That it define its own rules and procedures subject to ratification 

40 ?

by Senate and Faculty Association. 

3. That it draw up a minimum charter of academic rights and duties based 

on the Preamble of the Academic Freedom and Tenure brief, subject to 

the ratification of Senate and Faculty Association. 

. That in cases going beyond the Preamble of the Academic Freedom and 

Tenure brief that it rely on case law drawn from Canadian and American 

universities. 

5. That the committee operate as follows: 

a.

as akind of Grand Jury receiving charges of non-professional 

conduct and deciding which cases are worth 

y

of adjudication. 

b.

that once it has decided to adjudicate, it will organize a special 

committee consisting of the chairman of the Senate Committee on 

Professional Conduct and two full-time faculty members mutually 

acceptable to the parties concerned, one of whom will be chosen 

from outside the university. 

c.

If the parties concerned cannot agree upon the two members, the 

Senate Committee on Professional Conduct will select them. Should 

the accused refuse to cooperate with the committee thus selected, 

or if he becomes recalcitrant and uncooperative at any time during 

. ?

the adjudicative process, he forfeits the right to benefit from 

procedures designed for mutual protection. The Senate Committee 

on Professional Conduct then has the option to turn over the 

dossier on the case with its comments and recommendations to the 

President of the University for final decision. 

d.

The decision of the special adjudicative committee will be delivered 

to the Senate Committee on Professional Conduct which if necessary 

will deliver it to the proper bodies for implementation. 

e.

In no case will the penalities and sanctions taken be more severe 

than those recommended by the special adjudicative committee and 

the Senate Committee on Professional Conduct. Under the Universities 

Act, the accused may appeal to the President to reduce or otherwise 

mitigate the decision of the committee. 

In conclusion, the reporting committee urges Senate to create a standing 

Senate Committee on Professional Conduct and to empower it to draw up a formal 

plan of rules, procedures and professional standards governing faculty conduct 

at Simon Fraser University. 

-I.

To: ALL MEMBERS OF SENATE 

Subject: Allegations of Non- 

Professional Conduct 

252a 

From: H. N. Evans 

Secretary of Senate and 

Registrar 

Date: July 22, 1969 

I have been instructed by the Senate Agenda Committee to attach an 

explanatory note for Paper S.252. 

Senate, at its meeting on September 23, 1968, passed the following 

motion:- 

"that Senate appoint an Ad Hoc Committee consisting of 6 

members (with the Nominating Committee to present names 

of nominees) and charge it with bringing before Senate 

recommendations with regard to rules and procedures for 

considering allegations of non-professional conduct of 

Faculty members." 

(Page 6 - September 23, 1968) 

HME : j b 