a
?
''
?
•
SiMON FRASER
MEMORANDUM
UNIVERSITY
SoL
0 ?
Senate
Subject .... ....................EPARTMENTAL REVIEW
L.M. Srivastava,
From ..... ......
... ....Acting Vice-President
.
. ... Academic
....
19 November,. 1969.
Date.....................................................................................................................
The enclosed papers outline the procedures for Departmental
review in S.224, and they are presented to the Senate for approval.
Senators should note the peculiar circumstances of the Faculties and
the differing emphases for review procedures outlined by the three Deans.
L.M. Srivastava
md
S
Ii
SiMON FRASER UNIVERSITY
MEMORANDUM
From ?
D.H. ?
Sullivan. ....... D,e,a.n. ........... ........ ............
...
Academic Vice-President ?
Faculty of Arts
Subject ?
Re.
?
S'nate
..
Piper ?
S
?
224 ?
.....Date... ?
Augus.t ..... 1 ...... l.9.69 .... ..........................
....... ..........
....
The Dean and a majority of Chairmen, thrcugh consultation
with their departinnts, reached agreement of interpretation of the
re'iew and the orlt'r in which the Departments will be reviewed. We
ask that te inte
r
pretation and list be approved as mutual conditions.
The following interpretation is based on construing 'soundness' as
soundness of administrative, advisory, and internal ase6sment functions
of a given department, as ascertained from the following:
1.
The constitution of the department and/or similar documents relating
to the ordinary administrative procedures (to include all committee
structures, student advisory functions, student grievance committees,
operation of undergraduate and graduate programs, responsibilities
of chairman, etc.)
2.
Documents relating to internal assessment procedures for programs
(i.e. revisions or reassessments of curriculum, expansion into new
0
?
programs, new graduate studies programs, etc.)
3.
Written submissions from faculty or students relative to the
administrative structure of the department and/or the academic
programs.
In addition to the above, each department would either choose
three to five department faculty members (preferably the present chairman
and two to four others) or all department members as a committee of the
whole to consult with the Review Committee and to represent the interests
of the department, its administration, and its programs, to the Committee.
In addition three faculty members of the department concerned should be
invited to be present at Senate when the review committee report on their
department is discussed.
The majority of departments have accepted this interpretation as meaningful
on the understanding that if thási4terpretatiOfl is not acceptable to
Senate, the departments of the Faculty of Arts wish the question of
departmental review reconsidered by Senate.
The ?
order ?
is:
1.
Psychology
S.
Modern Languages
2.
Economics ?
and Commerce
6.
English
3.
History
7.
PSA
4.
Geography
8.
Philosophy
It
?
is ?
understood that
review of
several ?
departments might be
undertaken
concurrently.
DHS: els
SiMON FRASER UNIVERSITY
1OAIDUM
Dr. L. M. Srivastava
?
. From ?
A. R, MacKino
A/Academi. Vice President
?
Dean of Education
Subject . ?
Senate Paper 24
?
Date ?
November....5,th .1.9.6.9
A review of Departments /Centres in the Faculty of Education would
entail the following:
1.
?
Documentation of internal and external procedures used to
evaluate structure and function of the Faculty 1964-1969
(to include external examinations; committee reports on
organization and programs, etc.)
a.
?
Reports from Centres of the Faculty on their administrative
structure:
a)
responsibilities of Chairmen
b)
operation of undergraduate, graduate, professional
and general university programs
C)
?
committee structure
d)
appeal procedures
e)
student advisory function.
3. ?
Documentation of external assessment of work of the Centres:
a)
publications of faculty members (to include bibliographies,
list of films, works of art, etc.
b)
reports from Professional Organizations (Joint Board
of Teacher Education, etc)
c)
report on graduate placements.
4.
?
Written submissions from faculty or students relative to the
administrative structure of the Centres and/or programs.
5. ?
Consultation between a Senate Review Committee and the
Coordinating Council of the Faculty. It is proposed that Senate
approve the following persons as the Senate Review Committee:
Dean of Education (Chairman)
A/Academic Vice-President
. ?
Dean of Science
Dean of Arts
Cont...
..
?
Dr. L.
L. M. Srivastava
?
November 5th, 1969
The 1.. view Committee will receive all materials specified in
1. - 4. above. The Coordinating Council of the Faculty should
be present when the review of Faculty occurs in Senate.
6.
Reports of the review should occur in conjunction with the
presentation of proposals for reorganization of the Faculty.
All cniponents of the Faculty (and other structural modifications)
should be considered concurrently during a single meeting of
Senat.
7.
A further report on the operation of the Faculty will be
prescnted to Senate one year following approval of reorganization.
.
?
ARM/ft
1
I
I
•
?
. ?
SiMON FRASER UNIVERSITY
MOADUM
Dr. L.'M. Srivastava
?
ToO
. ... ... .......... . . .
?
Dr. B.L. Funt
,.
?
.............
From..
?
.
A/Vice-Pres., Academic
?
Dean of Science
• ?
Senate Paper S224
?
November 17, 1969
Subect
......................................
................
..........
Date
......................................................................
A review of the Departments in the Faculty of Science should entail the following:
A. Academic Planning
he Department utder review will be asked to submit to the Review Committee
on academic plan which -
(1) Outlines the programs presently in progress in the department.
(2) Relates such programs to -
(a)
an overall policy of the department,
(b)
the needs and wishes of the students,
(c)
the functioning of the department within
its faculty,
(d)
the needs of the community.
(3) Clearly states priorities for growth of the department.
(4) Brings forward such other matters as the department considers
appropriate to its own development and to the inter-relationships
. ?
within the Faculty.
The individual departmental plans will be incorporated into a plan for the Faculty
of Science.
B. Administration
The Review Committees should receive an outline of the administrative structure
of a department including:
(1)
A statement of the powers and responsibilities of the head or chairman.
(2)
A list of the committees of the department including the terms of
reference and general composition of the committees.
(3)
A compilation of Departmental Procedures in the nature of a handbook.
(4)
An estimate of thq time required per faculty member in adminstratiOfl.
The Review Committee should be in a .pcsition to make an assessment of the administrative..
efficienc
y
of the department from this information.
C.
Morale
The Review Committee should:
(1)
Interview all members of the department who are on campus during
the period of the review.
(2)
Receive depositions and deputations from faculty and students of
the department.
It should be noted that it is proposed that all Faculty should be interviewed in
or er to protect Faculty who wish to comment from becoming obvious as a result of their request
to be interviewed.
2
For the purpose
of
this report, students will be defined as those with at least
9 ?
redit hours who are registered as major or honors students in the department and
graduate students with at least
?
semesters residence.
Competence of Facu lty
One of the chief factors in establishing academic soundness within a department
is, undoubtedly, the competence of the faculty members of the department. However, this
matter is presently under annual review by the Departmental and University Tenure Committees.
It should therefore be deleted from the Terms of Reference of the "Review Committees".
Summary
The rationale for the above criteria and procedures stem from the following: the
"academic soundness" and "functioning" of a department depend upon its utilization of its
resources. Efficient utilization of resources requires first a plan for their use, ie:
an academic plan; second an efficient administration of the plan; and third,maintenance
of good morale in the department.
?
These, therefore, are the matters to which the Review
?
Committees must direct their attention.
/ma
*Dr. J.S. Barlow
