5. M.
S . /4t6
i-i/a/t9
S.i4.

1, •

ool

Paper S-113

REPORT OF SENATE COMNI.TTEE

TO STUDY THE QUESTION OF OPENING SENATE MEETINGS

The Senate Committee to study the Question of Opening.

Senate Meetings was established at the Senate meeting of February 5, 1968.

This Committee was asked to report back to the Senate meeting of

March 4, 1968.

That the question of opening Senate meetings is to be

discussed at the March 1968 meeting follows a previous discussion

of Senate upon this question (February 6, 1967) when it was agreed

"that Senate not be opened for a minimum period of one year at which

time Senate reconsider the matter of openness of Senate".

A report from a Senate Committee established at the Senate

meeting of November 7, 1966 "to study Student Representation and

Openness of Senate Meetings" was received at the Senate meeting of

February 6, 1967. From this time the need for the opening of Senate

meetings has been discussed at many levels both inside and outside

the University community. Some of this forms an Appendix to this Report.

It is with due regard to the previous deliberations of Senate, the

Senate Committee Report of January 1967, the Reports of various bodies

upon University Government, and to the tenor of feeling of the whole

University community of Simon Fraser that this Committee reports its

recommendations upon looking into the question of opening Senate meetings.

As these recommendations are only in part agreement with the Report

of January, 1967, we include in this Report some of the deliberations

upon which this Committee has made its recommendations.

Respectfully submitted,

J.L. Dampier

M.A. Lebowitz

A. R. MacKinnon

John Walkley - Convenor

Stan Wong.

February, 1968

5.M.

q/:Lp/U

-I

-2-

Recommendations

That Senate proceed no later than the next meeting of Senate

to implement the openness of Senate meetings, subject to the following:

(a)

that there is no condition placed upon the word 'open'

other than is required by the rules governing visitors

or might be imposed by purely physical limitations;

(b)

that a set of conditions covering the general behaviour

of these visitors to Senate meetings be drawn up;

(c)

that in the event of a disruption Senate may revoke the

privilege of attending Senate meetings as an observer

of any or all individuals at any time;

(d)

that Senate when it considers it so necessary, or by prior

agreement, can consider items of Agenda in "private session";

(e)

that Senate consult the University Solicitors so as to be

advised upon the rights of its members speaking at open

session and the applicability of Parliamentary immunity.

ell

-3-

Deliberations of the Committee - an attempt at definition and

interpretation.

Act. Under Section 54(a) of the Universities Act,

"to regulate the conduct of its meetings and

No other Section of the Act appears to infringe

willingness for Senate to declare itself 'open'

for Senate itself to decide.

The Universities

Senate has power

proceedings....".

this right so the

is a matter only

Senate Responsibility. The question Of "openness" relates directly

to the question of the responsibility of Senate. Though the main

substance of the deliberations of Senate place its responsibility

mainly to the whole University community, we are nonetheless a

public institution and have a total public responsibility as well.

For Senate to conduct its affairs in public session must lead to a

better understanding between Senate and the community. It is

obviously important that persons outside Senate should be able to

hear how a particular decision made by Senate came to be made.

Senate. Whether a Senator regards himself as an individual

representing one segment of the University, or as part of an entity

called 'Senate' but having knowledge particular to those electing

him, he should be publicly accountable. The opening of Senate

would allow those electing a Senator to observe him representing

their point of view (when requested) and to see that he does, in

fact, help Senate to perform its duties and obligations to the

community.

Openness. That Senate should, if it so wishes, be truly 'open'

and that apart from the limitations of its physical location,

Senate meetings should be open to all responsible persons. The

openness is thus extended to all persons of the University, of

the surrounding community and to all others who may wish to attend.

It is necessary, however, that certain business of Senate must be

carried out in private (closed) sessions.

Openness as an "experiment". The move to carry out the duties and

obligations of Senate in open session has wide significance. The

success of the earlier move by this Senate to have Student Representative

Senators is without question. The subsequent adoption of Student

Senate Representation by other Senates right across Canada placed

Simon Fraser University once again as a prime innovator in the

University community. Whilst the

desire "to be first" must be of little

real motivation for the adoption of "open Senate" we must acknowledge

the eventual recognition by all University Senates that their

obligation to the community at large requires such openness. Whilst

Senate must retain the right to revoke its possible decision to

open its meetings, the actual decision to.do this must not be taken

in the nature of trying an "experiment". If it wishes to become

'open', Senate must do so with total commitment to this idealaad do

so boldly and with complete strength in its decision.

I....

LIC

/3J&

(7(

•

wt.

-4-

Executive (Private or Closed) Sessions.

It is obvious that certain

things to be discussed by Senate,

particularly those relating to a

private individual, must be discussed in closed session.

Such items

could be placed in closed session by a successful motion to have

them so placed,

the motion requiring only a simple majority.

Such

a motion discussed in public session could be needlessly time-

consuming and it is suggested that the motion should he spoken to

only by the mover.

Consideration of the powers and duties of Senate

in the Universities Act suggests that only 54(e) "to provide

for and to grant degrees...." and 54(m) "to exercise disciplinary

jurisdiction with respect to students...." would normally be items

discussed in private session.

Often a motion defining the

justification to have these placed in closed session might be

equally damaging to the reputation of the individual concerned as

would the discussion of the item itself.

Senate might consider it

sensible that all items coming under Section 54(e) and 54(m) should

automatically first be discussed in closed session unless these are

of a general nature in which case they can be immediately considered the

business of an open session. A successful motion could have an item

placed back into public session at any point in its discussion.

•

any case the final decision on all items discussed in private session

later be declared in open session.

should

The Presence of Observers.

It is doubtful if the presence of

non-participating observers will interfere with the conduct of a

responsible Senator.

That other people can become aware of the

"doings" of Senate may,

in fact, enable a Senator to become aware

of factors pertinent to a particular issue.

It is also possible

that "open Senate" may make Senate a more cohesive body.

Regulations Concerning Vistors.

It is necessary that such regulations

must be made.

We presume that at an open meeting of Senate we

might expect the Press and its attendant technological devices

necessary for recording Senate "in action" (tape-recording,

video-

recording).

It would be necessary that the use of such devices

should not impede the duties and conduct of the Senate meeting.

It is possible that such recording devices could be allowed into

Senate meetings only with the prior permission of the Chairman of

Senate.

The granting of such pernission should be communicated to

all Senators prior to a Senate meeting.

The presence of photographers

at open meetings should be strictly forbidden.

General regulations concerning visitors must also be made:

"they must remain quiet at all times. . ..", "they must be requested

to leave if interfering with the business of Senate....", etc.

We might require visitors to be in the "public gallery"

some time (5 minutes) prior to the beginring of the open session.

I..

-5-

(continued). Should they be required to stay throughout the entire

"open session"? Should the Chairman of Senate, with cognizance

of the Agenda, be allowed to "request Senate that visitors might

leave" or "request Senate that visitors may enter" at any time during

the open session? Should all Senators have this right (perhaps as

a motion carried on a simple majority)? Are the general legislative

rules for persons observing from the public galleries applicable

to Senate?

Legal Implication. Opening Senate meetings will undoubtedly

create certain forms of personality clash which though quite

harmless in closed session could easily be misinterpreted by

non-involved visitors. The general misinterpretation and verbal

or written misreporting of things spoken by Senators must be

accepted as part of doing a public duty - is it necessary that

we should all be aware of the legal implications of such

•

misrepresentation? Are we to be protected by "parliamentary

immunity" and if so, do we assume this or do we have to invoke this

•

ourselves? A legal interpretation of the implications of "openness"

should be sought. It is possibly necessary that all of each

•

meeting of Senate should be adequately tape-recorded. Such a

recording could be kept for a minimum period (6 months? 2 years?).

It could be a valuable safeguard particularly as a complete transcript

of each meeting is an impossibility and the present "minutes" are

quite adequate for the conduct of our meetings.

10.

Practicality

of "open" meetings. It is felt that the Board Room

is quite inadequate for open meetings of Senate. The Faculty

Formal Dining Room is probably large enough, enabling the seating

for visitors to be placed at one end of the room. For meetings at

which Agenda items are likely to draw a large number of visitors,

a small lecture theatre could be used for the location of the meeting.

For the convenience of our visitors it is sensible that

the agenda for a meeting be divided into items "for open meeting"

and items "for closed meeting

', and that the business of 'Senate should

start with the discussion of the former.

The adequate running of open Senate will require the Agenda

for each meeting to be publicly displayed some time before each meeting.

S. M.

;_ , '•/'

•

Appendix - Previous Discussions and Reports on the "Openness of Senate"

NOVEMBER 29. 1965 - Senate Minutes

Dr. Ellis advised that there were several members of

faculty waiting outside wanting to know if the Senate would permit

spectators. A brief discussion followed in which the members generally

expressed their reluctance to permit the admission of spectators at

this time.

It was moved by Mr. Frederickson and seconded by Dr.Rieckhoff:

That visitors be excluded from Senate at this time

and that the matter be reconsidered after Senate

has been in existence for some time.

Dr. Maud had been asked by his colleagues to support their

visiting the meeting and was therefore opposed to the motion.

Mr. Bawtree then requested that a specific date be set for re-opening

the issue. Dr. Shrum recommended that the matter should be postponed

until Senate is more fully constituted.

An amendment was moved by Dr. Bursill-Hall and seconded by

Mr. Bawtree:

That the matter be reviewed wheti Senate is

more fully constituted. •

CARRIED

The amended motion then carried.

AUGUST 29, 1966 - Senate Minutes

3D. Observers at Senate Meetings:

Moved by D.H. Sullivan, seconded by T.H. Brose

"that meetings of Senate be open to any member of the

University community who provides sufficient reason:

the President to decide upon which such requests should be

granted"

•

MOTION LOST

-2-

AUGUST 29, 1966 - Senate Minutes (continued)

3D. Observers at Senate Meetings (continued)

Moved by R.J. Baker, seconded by W.M. Hamilton

"that the Information Officer be invited to attend Senate

meetings at the discretion of the Chairman"

CARRIED

During the discussion it was pointed out that copies of

Senate minutes were available for perusal by faculty in the

Library and in the office of the Registrar.

Moved by T.H. Brose, seconded by R.J. Baker

"that copies of Senate minutes be made available in

faculty department offices"

CARRIED

OCTOBER 3, 1966 - Senate Minutes

3A 2.

Distribution of Senate minutes to Student Society.

Senate considered the request from the President of the

Student Society for Senate minutes for each of the Fall meetings.

After considerable discussion the Chairman recommended that

the Registrar write a report on each meeting of Senate and send

the summary report to the President of the Student Society, the

Peak, and any other party who was interested. This report could be

written so that supporting papers would not be necessary.

It was pointed out that it could be assumed that the Student

Representative, who will receive all documentation for Senate,

will communicate matters of importance to the students.

A.R. MacKinnon recommended that there should be a place

where the minutes with the papers are available.

J. Mills amended his motion to state

"that the request of the Student Society to have Senate

minutes provided be met by making the Library copy of thc

minutes available to students'.'

The Chairman then called for a vote in two parts for the

motion by J. Mills, seconded by A.R. MacKinnon

"that the Registrar be requested to prepare a summary

to be distributed freely in the community"

CARRIED

I. . .

S .

/4t6

ZLi

lJJ

-3-

OCTOBER 3, 1966 - Senate Minutes (continued)

Distribution of Senate Minutes to Student Society (continued

"that the agenda, supporting papers and minutes be kept

in the Library and made available upon request to any

member of the University community: the papers for this

copy to be subject to the discretion of the Registrar"

T.B. Bottomore stated that he felt this was getting away from

the idea of minutes: that they were for the information of those

who discuss the business of the meetings and the business of the

meetings would be deteriorated by such action. He

refers that the

minutes of a meeting of any body be confined to the membership of

that body: to go beyond this is to restrict open discussion.

He stated he was opposed to circulating the minutes.

T.H. Brose stated that he &d not believe candour would restrict

the body: that since Senate did not have Proceedings, as did the

House of Commons, minutes and papers were the record of Senate and

he believed people on campus should have that record available.

The Chairman then called for a vote on the second part of the

motion.

CARRIED

NOVEMBER 7, 1966 - Senate Minutes

Letter from Student Society rejecting proposal of Repres'entati

of Students on Senate

•

The Registrar reported that because he felt that the letter from

the Student Society, which had been distributed to all members,

reqt±ed some clarification, he consulted with Dean Bottomore, acting

President at the time, about the advisability of meeting with the

students before the letter was discussed in Senate. With the concurrence

of Dean Bottoniore a meeting was held on Friday November 4th. Present

were the Registrar, Professors Baker, Brose, Ellis, Rieckhoff and

students John Mynott, Dave York, Mike Campbell and Greg Stacey. As a

result of this meeting Mr.Mynott was asked if he and some of his colleagues

wished to present the Student Society's case in person at a Senate meeting.

He agreed this would be desirable. At the meeting the student newspaper

editor, Mr. Mike Campbell, was asked to consider that he was not present

at the meeting as a reporter and he agreed, but has since asked to

accompany the student delegation to Senate as a reporter.

Moved by A.E. Branca, seconded by K.E. Rieckhoff

"that the student delegation be admitted"

CARRIED

I....

-S. M.

441-

NOVEMBER 7, 1966 - Senate Minutes (continued)

Moved by A.M. Un

rau, seconded by J.L. Dampier

"that the request of the reporter to attend the

meeting for the interview be dned"

AL).

CARRIED

John Mynott, the President of the Student Council, was then

introduced to the meeting.

In his presentation, Mr. Mynott stated that the question of open

and public meetings as stated in item 1 of the letter distributed

to Senate, was the most important facet of the whole question. He

was asked to what extent this was a Student Council decision and to

what extent it was publicly discussed issue. He stated that the

decision was a decision of the Executive Council in consultation with

a number of students on campus and some of the executive and other

members of the Canadian Union of Students.

Mr. Mynott left the meeting at 3.10 p.m.

•

Moved by A.E. Branca, seconded by J. Mills

"that a Senate committee be established to meet with

a committee of students to discuss, the question of

student participation in Senate"

The Chairman stated that from the discussion he would take

the terms of reference for the ,

committee to be to investigate the

whole question of student participation in Senate and the

openness of Senate meetings.

The Chairman then called for a vote on the motion by A.E. Branca

seconded by J. Mills.

CARRIED

It was further agreed that the committee be composed of four members,

the membership of the committee to be left to the discretion of

the President, with the recommendation that one member be a non-

faculty member of Senate and that one member be the Registrar.

RECOMMENDATIONS FROM THE SENATE COMMITTEE REPORT OF JANUARY 1967 ON THE

MATTER OF THE"OPENNESS OF SENATE"

"That Senate open its meetings to observers subject to the

following conditions:

a) that observers be limited to Simon Fraser University

students, faculty and staff only

I..

Recommendations of the Senate Committee Report (continued)

that the number of observers be controlled

that observers be made aware of the necessity for

proper demeanour

that one student reporter for the Peak be named by the

Editor as the official Senate reporter

that motions to conduct any Senate meeting or part of

a meeting "in camera" be carried on a simple majority vote

that the University community b

e made aware that

Senate may revoke the privilege of attending Senate

meetings as an observer to any or all individuals."

Arguments

Openess

For

Community

- remove the feeling of secrecy,

even stealth, and thereby bring

closer the various elements of the

academic community.

b) Communication -

allow those who are interested in

such things freedom to observe and

thereby gain firsthand knowledge

rather than rumours.

c) Ideas

- allow all elements of the University

to participate to some extent and

thereby widen the net to catch ideas

and opinions before decisions are made.

Against

Tradition

- Senate meetings at

Canadian

Universities

have always been closed.

Inhibition

- the presence of a gallery would inhibit

the present frankness in debate due

to the fear of misinterpretation of words

and attitude by the casual observer.

Exhibition

- there might be a tendency to 'play to

the gallery' and espouse short-term

popular causes at the expense of long-

term benefits to the University.

-6-

Recommendations of the Senate Committee Report (continued)

ci)

Confidentiality - items such as some discipline cases

should not be decided in public

fr4r !

4it4

(

Y,6

R? ORT

SENATE CO>2ITEE

to study

STUDENT

REPRESENTATION

and

OPENESS OF SENATE

MEETINGS.

JANUARY

1967

SIMON

FRASER UNIVERSITY

(

I 2/

'-'--

S., M.

CONTENTS

PACE

Introduction

.11

Recommendations

III

Summary of Arguments

mlinutes of Committee>lcctings

History of Senate Discussion

Introduction

The Senate Committee to Study Student Represettition.

and the Openess of Senate Meetings was established at the Senate

Meeting of November 7, 1966. The members were named by the

President a few days later.

At the request of the Secretary of Senate the President of the

Student Society named three students to meet with the Committee.

The Committee met on a number of occasions, always with the students

present, and wishes to go on record expressing deep gratitude to

the students: John Mynott, Rob Watts, and Bill Egleson, for their

candor, charm, and goodwill throughout the discussions.

The Committee decided to present, as well as its recommendations

and arguments, the minutes of its meetings. In spite of two different

recordin

g secretaries, cursory editing, and the resultant disjointedness

of these minutes, the Committee feels they do give the flavour of

the discussion which might be missed if only the bare bones were

presented.

Respectfully submitted

A.E. Branca

T.H. Brose

K. Reickhoff

D.P. Robertson - Chairman

.M.

RECOMMENDATIONS

Openess

"that

Senate open its mectings to observers subject

the following conditions:

that observers be limited to Simon Fraser University

students, faculty and

staff only

that the number of observers be controlled

that observers be made aware of the necessity

for proper demeanor

that one student reporter for The Peak be named by

•

the Editor as the official

Sente'reporter

that motions toconduct any Senate meeting or part

•

of a meeting "in camera" be carried on a simple

majority vote

that the University community be made aware that

Senate may revoke the privilege of attending Senate'

meetings as an observer to any or all individuals."

Student Representation

"that

Senate establish seats for members elected by and

from

the student body as follows:

one member to be elected immediately*

One additional member to be elected one year from

now

One further member to be elected a year after the

second

subject

to the following

conditions: -

to-be eligible for nomination a student must be

•

19 years of age or more

to be eligible for nomination and to retain his seat

•

the member must be a student in good standing as

•

' defined by the Senate.

• (*No: the Committee draws Senate's attention to the fact that the

three students who met with it were unanimously opposed to

the staggered

introduction

of the three student representatives,

preferring to elect three immediately. )

h'/

1t98

ARGUMENTS

OPENESS

FOR

• a)

Community

remove the feeling of secrecy,

even stealth, and thereby bring

closer the various elements of the

academic community.

b) Communication

allow those who are interested in

such things freedom to observe and

thereby gain firsthand knowledge

rather than rumours.

•

Ideas

allow all elements of the University

to participate to some extent and

thereby widen,

the net to catch ideas

and opinions before decisions are

made.

•

AGAINST .

•

. Tradition

Senate meetings at Canadian

Universities have always been closed.

Inhibition

the presence of a gallery would

inhibit the present frankness in

debate due to the fear of misinter-

pretation of words

and attitude by

the casual observer.

Exhibition

- there might b& a tendency to 'play

•

to the gallery' and espouse short-

term popular causes at the experse

of long-term benefits to the

University.-

d) Confidentiality

- items such as some discipline cases

should not be decided in public.

DIRECT STUDENT

REPRESENTATION (CO

T-T ARED TO A NON-STUDENT REPRESENTATIVE)

•

FOR

•

Effectiveness

more likely to 'result in a

representative

wLo knows

and under-

stands today's University

students.

•

A student representative would

usually be on campus and more

accessible to other students.

wA /(0 9

b) Respect

- remove the suspicion that student

"voic&' is merely a device to keep

the mob quiet rather than a way of

enriching Senate by respecting

legitimate student concern.

AGAINST

a) Ineericnce

- a chance students may elect

green youth who would be completely

ineffective

b) Time

- Senate activities take up a lot of

Lime -

a student should not be

expected to devote this much time to

non-studies.

Confidentiality - Students should not be present

when

other students' affairs are

discussed.

aNUTES O

SENATE CO:ITTEE TO STUDY S

T UD ENT

REPI.ESENTATION

ON SENATE A.OL\LsS O SENAi.ErINCS

FRIDAY DECEflER 9 1966

PRESENT:

•

Senate CommiUee

D.P. Robertson - Chairman

A.E. Branca

•

T.H. i;rose

•

K.E. Ricckhoff

Student Coiittee

• .J. ?ynott

•

R. Watt

W. Engleson

Minutes of previous meeting and history of this topic in Senate Mectings•

to date were distributed to the members.

was

suggested that the Committee discuss the form of student

representation which is where it left off last week. Just before the

- last meeting ended it was decided to state that anybody is eligible to

be elected by the students. Is it wished to put more details in the

recommendations, or leave it at that? Does the Coatnittee think there

• should be any limitations?

It is exected that Senate will want certain guarantees or considerations;

• . . • It is doubted very much if the Senate would accept a sixteenyear-o1d kid

just out of school- for three months as a fit member. Just what form the

restrictions could take and still leave it-free is a difficult question.

1n a short discussion after our last mectin with other members of this

committee the possibilitywas discussed ofsaying that the candidates should.

voting age, assuming that if they are considered old enough for voting

they ill be responsible representatives.

What is the voting age? Nineteen years old.

This would exclude most of the first and second year students.

Some doubt was expressed about setting a definite age. Some preference was

expressed for experience gained at Simon Fraser say, in attendance for two

years. If an age was set, Senate could get someone who was here for the

first time and still be a good Senate member.

Would this not come out in the election?

Another point is, some of the Senate members and F culty members have not

been here

that long and yet seem to have made responsible Senate niemrs.

'.ou could have

si:tocn-)

Car-olds elected.

Collective wisdom is not a good

•

guarantee.

To trust to the electorate is not always best.

There are

democratic restrictions about people

;ho cart and cannot be elected.

The person who has boon c::pod has had a better opportunity

i develop

a mature judguent.

if the students want toeiecc a non-student this is Line.

•

they want a student this is fine.

The lowest possible age is the

voting ago.

Scnite should have a person that is an adult.

•

The standard of dchatc and thinking in the Senate is a high one.

A student

who

not nineteen would unlikely qualify in that respect.

Even the

•

students would want a limitation o

this nature so

that

they may have the

views of the student body presented to the Senate.

This would not come from

•

a student who has been, here for the first semester, from high school.

•

Although not in disagreement with nineteen years of age the view was

•

expressed that

this person should be in attendance for a certain amount

•

oftime.

You have to gain a certain

nowledge of the university to get

•

involved in the Senate.

A two semester limit is quite reasonable.

•

At least one of the Faculty members elected in the fall-has only been here

•

for

one

semester.

•

There is

quite a difference.

Although a Faculty member may only have been

here for one semester, at least he has been around universities for

a consider-

able time and has the e::

erienee, even though he is a new member of. Faculty..

•

He has six or seven years under his belt.

It was suggested that for the candidate's nomination to be valid he should

•

have been here. for at least one semester.

Is it decided that the representative must be a student.

Opposition was expressed to a non-member of the University comnunity.

If he is a student he should have been in attendance for one semester. If

: he is a Faculty member no restrictions could be placed. Surely the majority

..would not want to see anyone from outside the University representing the

students.

If the students wanted to elect someone from outside the University, why

•

should anyone step in their way.. It seems that there are Ipeople already

who have been here for more than two semesters who do not know what is

going on. People who take interest can learn very quickly and learn as they

go along.. . Jhat guarantee is it giving anybody by placing a residence

restriction on the candidate?

•

.•

There are two points of view here. If you do want to insist on some sort

• • of residence requirement you run into a lot of additional troubles. Is a

resident 10, 12 or 15 semester hours?

ust he have passed all his courses?

Is an age limit required? Some second year students do not know what is

going on at the University. What is going to happen when these people

start voting for candidates?

0•.

•

By talking about restrictions there is an underlying assumption of an

irresponsible elccorate. If you are going to take a chance on an

irresponsible electorate you must make realistic limitations. The age

limit: is a realistic limitation.

There could be an irresponsible electorate and therefore restrictions

are required. Residence could possibly be interpreted to mean 30

semester hours accumulated Simon Fraser credit, The person who has been

in attendance at a university for one year.

A lot of graduate students who come here may have a tremendous amount of

experience in university affairs and an active interest: in university

business. A graduate student only needs five or ten semester hours.

Perhaps the stipulation we require is that they have been in attendance

at some university.

It was suggested that stipulation should be made for nineteen years of

age and over. Agreed.

Now what about: the question of university., experience.

If students want to elect someone without university experience they should

be allowed to do so. Senate should not stipulate this. Senate should

have, only one concern - that he is a student: when elected and continues

•.

to follow his studies. This is assuming that he is a student and would

continue to be a student for the three year term. If this committee

-decides to stipulate that it is a student.

•

•1l-y has 'Rector' been rejected?

On the basis that it might be a person who was not aware of the problems

of students today and might not have been in contact: with university

life for a good number of years,

Would there be violent objections if representation was.limited to

students at Simon Fraser University completely? This would be the most

• • acceptable representation for students to have on Senate. You have to

have someone from inside the community.

General discussion followed on the effect of student representation in

• . respect to the increase in numbers on the Senate. Section 1 of the Act

was cited (for each studet representative on the Senate, Faculty would

have a representative. Three student: representatives would mean three

Faculty representatives, increase to Senate would be six).

The Committee should talk about the numbers of representatives? A very

useful suggestion. It will be very difficult to get Senate to go beyond

one representative at this time. However, pending its experience for one

. •

•. year, Senate might add another member and possibly after another year,

•

another one, andthe one representative could grow to three.

•

Will threestudents cause more trouble than one? If you try for one you

might got it, for three you might have three times the difficulty in

getting it.

•

IC -

It would be nicer to have more than one student member. If a.-student

is elected to Senate could he stand up for himself and the students without

support? Faculty do not need other Faculty members to prop them up. Why

three to hold the argument -up? The discussion started with a reprcscncative,

enough.

one, and now all of a sudden it has to be

three

because one cannot be loud

Three would hardly be a voting block, because Senate will elect an equal

number of Faculty. It isrcalitjc to have one person confidently voice the

•

opinions of the whole student body.

1\o or three students can give you a more unbiassed voice of student

representation on Senate.

•

Why not wait one year for the second and two years for the third?

The students may, at certain times, present a voting block but never

a power block. It is a sensible experiment to have three people but just

one is asking a lot of newly elected student.

What benefit would it be to Senate to have one, two or three? Would it

be beneficial to have more than one?

• Could it not be put this way? The students are strongly, universally of

•

the opinion that the student representation should be three.

Should it be left up to Senate to decide? Certainly. Senate will decide

ultimately anyway.

One student representative for the time being would be sufficient, it is

renovation of the constitution of Senate and if put on that basis it would

-probably be more likely to succeed. Three would give the students more

• security, because of having three there, but some members have the

suspicion that Senate would not go for three students immediately.

• . .

Is the. disagreement based on what it is thought Senate will go along with

or what would be more beneficial to Senate.

It is experimental for the time being so it cannot be said with certainty

•

.'. :.

that three would be better than one.

There is nothing lost with letting a thing like this evolve gradually.

In Senate the student representative will not be there primarily as a

•

spokesman for students but as a member of Senate.

Senate should be urged to try it with one, then co, then three.

..H .•• ,.

If the students get two or three, Faculty will get the same and Senate will

end up with 30 to 35 members

Senate meetings run quite long enough now.

•

. ....

The first recommendation regarding openess should not be forgotten If the

Committee recommends a gallery and threestudents, some members may think

-things are getting too cluttered.

. .

• It is not known if one, two or three

will work be

r. Why should we start

with three? We do not have to rush. Senate has run along closed for many years

and now we are saying that Senate will need to be open and have three students

•

be effective!

. •

• .-

Could it not be agreed to only having one student representative? The only,

•. -. -.

•

..,one

point

and

is that

the argument

some feel

aguinuc

that three

three

students

is a dizlikc

would

orincrcajng

be more effe

the

ctiva

size

than

• .

•

• the Senate.

•

Maybe at this stage the S&nate would be wise

admit

.students to committees

• - who were not Senators.

V 6/

•

What about the in-between ground? What does the committee think of two?

The Committee will accept the suggestion that it leave the number to

Senate, but recommend that one would be better than none.

Leave the number up to Senate, and go to what kind of student it should be.

Would it be a student in good standing who to maintain his place on the

Senate must remain a student in good standing.

Yes, a student of the age of 19

good standing at the time of election.

. Is a student in good standing any student registered at the University?

•

Scudonz may elect a student who is not

the campus at that time. He may

•

be a student on a semester off.

Does that moan with the one person, if he took a semester off would the

students be without representation?

If a Faculty member takes research time off he notifies Senate and they

appoint a substitute.

If a student was working in the area he could maintain his representation to

• .

Senate.

•

The Committee has done the task it has been charged with. The next

meeting of Senate is January 9 and the Senate then goes through the

Graduate and Undergraduate Calendars. This item will be on the agenda

but it is doubtful if Senate will have time to get to it, because the

• .

calendars must get out. This item deserves a special mating with nothing

else being discussed. Senate will probably call a special meeting to discuss

these recommendations sometime later in January.

. . : •::.' Could the students be present at the meeting when the recommendations are

discussed?

• ...'

. It could be arranged.

The Chairman will attempt to write the history, the arguments pro and con,

re-write the minutes and recommendations and send the whole report to Senate.

•

-As soon as the Chairman has rewritten this he should get the Committee

together again.

S..

•

Next meeting to be notified. •

. .

•.

. S

........

Mr.

Don Murray

S • .•

Recording

Secretary .

APPROVED

—

D.P. Robertson Chairman

DATE

•

HISTORY OF DISCUSSION

IN SENATE -

REGA RDING

•

OPENESS AND STUDENT REPRESENTATION

prepared by The Registrar

•

: .

NOVEMBER 29, 1965 - Senate Minutes

•

Dr. Ellis advised that there were several members of

faculty waiting outside wanting to know if the Senate would

•

permit spectators. A brief discussion followed in which

•

the members generally expressed their reluctance to permit

the

admission of spectators at this time.

It was moved by

Mr.

Frederickson and seconded by Dr.

• .... .

Rieckhoff:

That visitors be excluded from Senate at this

•

time and that the matter be reconsidered after

Senate has been in existence for some time.

Dr.Maud had been asked by his colleagues to support their

• . . .

visiting the meeting and was therefore opposed to the motion.

Mr. Bawtree then requested that a specific date be set for re-

opening the issue. Dr. Shrum recommended that the matter should

•

postponed until Senate is more fully constituted.

• •.

An amendment was moved by Dr. Bursill-Hall and seconded

Mr.

Bawtree:

That the matter be reviewed when Senate is

-- •.• ,- ,. •

more fully constituted.

••

CARRIED

• .

The amended motion then carried.

•

S • • • • ••

AUGUST 29, 1966 - Senate Minutes

3D.

Observers at Senate Meetings:

•

Moved by D.H. Sullivan, seconded by T.H. Brose

"that meeting of Senate be open to any member of the

•

University community who provides sufficient reason:

the President to decide upon

which

such requests should

•

• be

granted"

•

• .

MOTION LOST

AUGUST 29, 1966 -

Senate Minutes (corit'd)

Observers at Senate Meetings (cont'd)

Moved by R. J. Baker, seconded by W. N. Hamilton

"that the Information Officer be invited to attend Senate

meetings at the descretion of the Chairman"

•

CARRIED

During the discussion it was pointed out that copies of Senate

minutes were available for perusal by faculty in the Library and in

the office of the Registrar.

Moved by T. H. Brose, seconded byR. J. Baker

"that copies of Senate minutes be made available in

faculty department offices."

CARRIED

AUGUST 29, 1966

- Senate Minutes

Papers presented by R. Baker and T. Brose (attached)

AUGUST 29, 1966 -

Senate Minutes

3B.

Student Representation on Senate

R. J. Baker commented on his paper, stating that ultimately he

would agree with the suggestion presented in the paper submitted by

T. H. Brose, but felt, this should evolve slowly: and that student

representation should commence by having 'the-students elect a non-

student.

C. Bursill-Hall stated that he was in favor of th proposal

outlined in the paper by R. J. Baker, but would not at this time

support any motion that resulted in a student becoming a member of

Senate.

Moved by R. J. Baker, seconded by C. D. Nelson

"that the proposal by R. J. Baker on Student Representation

on Senate be adopted as the first step towards student

representation"

.T. H. Brose stated that he felt the idea of a student representative

was good, but did not share the hesitancy of other members to allow the

students to participate in their university. He then proposed an amend-

• ment to the motion made by R. J. Baker,

AUGUST 29, 1966 - Semite Minutos (cont'd)

Student Representation on Senate (cont 'd)..

"that Senate authorize the seat and deignate it as the

seat of the representative of the students and permit

the students toelcct someone in October as their

reprçsentative on Senate"

The Chairman ruled that this, would

be an

alternative to

the

first

motion, since the motion included not only the position of a Rector now,

but moved to broaden the concept later.

R. J. Baker then amended his motion to state

"that Senate add a member elected by the students"

This would leave the title for the decision of the students. He

stated he would not agree to a student representative.

T. H. Bottomore stated that the proposal that Senate should elect

•

nonstudent

seemed difficult. He pointed out that the appointment

•

would be for threeyears and that this was a long time to delay student

•

representation by the students. He recommended that the matter be de-

ferred until there was a more complete student body and the representa-

tion could be open.

C. Bursill-Hall requested clarification on the motioi: whether it

was on the position of a Rector who was anon-student or a Rector who

might be a student representative.

The Chairman stated that the motion was in three parts:

The proposal as set out in the paper presented by R.J. Baker,

amended to read instead of "Rector", "the representative

member of Senate elected by the students", and

in due course when a full spectrum of students is in

attendance at the University, the whole question of

limitations will

be examined.

D. H. Sullivan stated that by the terms of the Act the term of

appointment was three years. This would mean that a freshman or sophomore

would be the only student eligible. Therefore he was against the motion.

He also objected to the fact that members of faculty were excluded, stating

that what the students would want would probably be a representative

from the faculty.

E. S. Lett asked why it was urgent to consider this question at

this time and asked if there would be any loss in deferring the dis-

cussion until there was a full complement of students.

AUGUST 29 1966 - Senate Minutes (cont'd)

Student Representation on Sonate (cont'd)

R. J. Baker stated that he considered this would be a desirable

step now as there is a great deal of concern about various groups being

represented.

/ C. D. Nelson stated that he did not consider three years too long

to deny representation by students on Senate. He reported that one of

the members of the student government intends to take only a small number

of courses, so that he can devote himself to student government. He

stated that this was a criticism on the number of things that have to

be done and considered it would take three years to sort them out and

come to some sort of pattern for the trimester system. He considered

that a representative elected by students to Senate was a good way to

start and that such representation would give the students a great deal

of help.

T. H. Brose stated that there appeared to be some feeling that

a non-student should be the representative the students choose and stated

that they should be trusted to elect a non-student.

Moved by D. H. Sullivan, seconded by T. H. Brose

"to delete the words "or a member of faculty" from the

motion proposed by R. J. Baker"

AMENDMENT LOST

The Chairman then asked for a vote on the motion by R. J. Baker,

"that Senate add a member elected by the students, and that

such a member be called a Student Representative. This. Student

•

Representative would not be a student or a member of faculty.

• He would be elected by bona fide students registered, in courses

at the time of the election, and for a term of three years; he

should be a resident of British Columbia"

- CARRIED

C. L. Bursill-Hall abstained from voting and requested that this

be recorded in the minutes.

•

The questions of which students would be eligible to vote and

the best time for-holding the election of the student representative

• to Senate were discussed and it was agreed that students registered for

•

twelve semester hours or more were eligible to vote and that the election

•

• be held in the spring semester (1967): The elected representative to

take his seat at the February Senate meeting.

D r

4ø/?/

OCTOBER 3, 1966 - Senate Minutes

Letter from J. Mynott, President, Student Society (attached)

Student Representative on Senate

Eligibility to vote

The members considered the request of the President of the

Student Society that Senate reconsider its decision that students

with 12 semester hours or more would be the only eligible voters

on the election of a Student Representative on Senate

Moved by K. E. Rieckhoff, seconded by C. J. Frederickson

"that the decision of Senate to require a student to be

enroled twelve semester hours or more to be eligible to

vote be reaffirmed"

CARRIED

Distribution of 'Senate minutes to Student Society

Senate considered the request from the President of the

Student Society for Senate minutes for each of the Fall meetings.

After considerable discussion the Chairman recommended that

• the Registrar write a report on each meeting of Senate and tend

the summary report to the President of the Student Society, the

Peak, and any other party who was interested. This report could

be written so that supporting papers would not be necessary.

It was pointed out that it could be assumed that the Student

Representative, who will receive all documentation for.Senate,

will communicate matters of importance to the students.

A. R.

MacKinnon recommended that there should be a place

where the minutes with the papers are available.

J. Mills amended his motion to state

"that the request of the Student Society to have Senate minutes

provided be met by making the Library copy of the minutes

available to students"

The Chairman then called for a vote in two parts for the motion

Mills, seconded by A. R. MacKinnon

"that the Registrar be requested to prepare a summary

to be distributed freely in the community"

CARRIED

"that the agenda, supporting papers and minutes be kept

in the Library and made available upon request to any

member of the University community; the papers for' this

copy to be

subject to the discretion of the Registrar"

OCTOBER 3, 1966 - Senate Minutes (cont'd)

Student Representative on Senate (cont'd)

Distribution of Senate minutes to Student Society (cont'd)

T. B. Bottomore stated that he felt this was getting away from

the idea of minutes: that they were for the information of those

who discuss the business of the meetings and the business of the

meetings would be deteriorated by such action. He prefers that

the minutes of a meeting of any body be confined to the membership

of that body: to go beyond this is to restrict open discussion.

He stated he was opposed to circulating the minutes.

T. H. Brose stated that he did not believe candor would restrict

the body: that since Senate did not have Proceedings, as did the

House of Commons, minutes and papers were the record of Senate

and he believed people on campus should have that record available.

The Chairman then called for a vote on the second part of the

motion.

CARRIED

Procedures for Election of Student Representative

The Registrar requested a ruling on his suggestion that nomination

forms for nomination of a student representative required twenty

signatures.

Moved by R. J. Baker, seconded by J. F. Ellis

"chat nomination forms for the student representative should

require twenty signatures"

CARRIED

NOVEMBER,7, 1966 - Senate Minutes

Letter from J. Mynott, President, Student Society (attached)

Letter from Student Society Rejecting Proposal of Representative

of Students on Senate

The Registrar reported that because he felt that the letter from

the Student Society, which had been distributed to all members,

required some clarification, he consulted with Dean Bottomore,

• acting President at the time, about the advisability of meeting

• with the students before the letter was discussed in Senate. With

the concurrence of Dean Bottomore a meeting was held on Friday,

November 4th. Present were the Registrar, Professors Baker, Brose,

NOVEMBER 7, 1966 - Senate Minutes (ccmt'd)

• 4A

Letter from Student Society Rejecting Proposal of Representative

of Students on Senate (cont'd)

Ellis, Rieckhoff and students John Nynott, Dave York, Mike Campbell

and Greg Stacey. As a result of this meeting Mr. Mynott was asked

if he and some of his colleagues wished to present the Student

Society's case in person at a Senate meeting. He agreed this would

be aesirable. At the meeting the student newspaper editor,

Mr.

Mike Campbell, was asked to consider that he was not present at the

meeting as a reporter and he agreed, but has since asked to accom-

pany. the student delegation to Senate as a reporter.

Moved by A. E. Branca, seconded by K. E. Rickhoff

"that the student delegation be admitted"

CARRIED

.Moved by A. M. IJnrau, seconded by J. L. Dampier

• "that the request of the reporter to attend the meeting

for the interview be denied"

CARRIED

John Mynott, the President of the Student Council, was then

introduced to the meeting.

In his presentation, Mr. Nynott stated that the question of open

and public meetings, as stated in item 1. of the letter distributed

to Senate, was the most important facet of the whole question. He

was asked to what extent this was a Student Council decision and to

what extent it was a publically discussed issue. He stated that the

decision was '

a decision of the Executive Council in consultation

with a number of students on campus and some of the executive and

other members of the Canadian Union of Students.

Mr. Mynott left the meeting at 3:10 PM.

Moved by A. E. Branca, seconded by J. Mills

"that a Senate committee be established to meet with

a committee of students to discuss the question of

student participation in Senate"

The Chairman stated that from the discussion he would take the

terms of reference for the committee to be to investigate the whole

question of student participation in Senate and the openess of Senate

meetings.

NOVEMBER 7, 1966 - Sen:itc Minutes (cont'd)

Letter from Student Society Rejecting Proposzl of Representative

of Students on Senate (con t 'd)

The Chairman then called for a vote on the motion by A. E.

Branca, seconded by J. Iiills.

CARRIED

It was further agreed that the committee be composed of four

members, the membership of the committee to be left to the discretion

the Proidont, with the roomniudutLon

tthct one

iveinbcr

be a non-

faculty member of Senate and that one member be the Registrar.

Sti

-32-

To: President

From: R. J. Baker,

Head, Departmeit of English

Subject: Rector

July 12, 1966

Student Representation on Senate

I would like to put on the agenda for the next Senate

meeting the motion that I gave notice of at the last meeting.

I propose that Senate add a member elected by the students, and

that such a 'ucmber be called a Rector.

The Rector would not be a student or a member of faculty.

He would be elected by bona fide students for a period of three

years; he should be a resident of British Columbia.

The Rector would not be directly responsible to the student

body but he would address them once a year. His particular

responsibility in Senate would be the welfare of students.

The position is well established in Scottish Universities,

and our name, and links with Lord Lovat, would make it appropriate

for us to use the same term. I attach the statement made by

President Mackenzie on his retirement; it will be noted that he

recommended that the Rector be a member of the Board of Governors.

It is not, however, within the power of Senate to make such a proposal.

R. J. Baker.

..33...

If the Faculty are to be represented, I suggest that the

student body should also be represented. I would arrange this

through the creation of a new office - that of Rector - one which

is traditional in many universities in the United Kingdom and at

Queen's in Canada. The Rector would be elected by the current student

population for a period of five or six years. He would be a

distinguished citizen resident in British Columbia. His office and

title would be largely honorary and his duties would include the

giving of a Rectorial address at least once each year and voting

membership on the Board of Governors. He would not be responsible

•

to or report back to the student body save in the most general way,'

but he would in a sense be the friend and advocate of the students

the affairs of the University.

The President's Report (1961-62)

The University of British Columbia.

-34-

To: Members of the Senate

From: Thomas H. Brose

Date: August 1st 1966

STUDENT REPRESENTATION ON SENATE

That the Act establishing Simon Fraser University government

did not include representation for students is one of the serious

omissions in the document.

I think students should be represented on Senate, and I thus

support this aspect of Professor Baker's fine suggestion that Senate

proceed to create a seat for the students.

However, I think the person chosen should be the students'.choice

- with no prior restrictions imposed by us. Only the students can best

judge who can best represent them. Further, since Simon Fraser University

has proclaimed itself in favour of educational innovation, we should

encourage this innovation. Rather than reaching across the seas or the border

for a precedent, we have the opportunity to join those very few universities

who have recognized this generation's students' desire to be-involved

in their university. The students do not want the paternalism of which

much of past university-student relationships consisted. Ther& is no

master-servant relationship in a healthy democratic community. Those who

wish to continue such a system were born in the wrong age. The university.

in my opinion, should be a workshop, a microcosm. of the kind of society

Canada is stxLving for - not a haven for tradition at the expense of the

realities of the time in which we live.

Therefore I wish to offer the following amendment to the proposal

of Professor Baker:

That the Senate authorize a seat under its power in

Section 23(i), and that it designate that seat as the seat of the student

representative.

Further, that we request the students to nominate a person

residing in British Columbia and to elect their representative sometime

in .

October so as to have a representative at the new session of Senate.

Finally, the title of the representative - if

we need a title -

should be the choice of the students.

Let us create our own traditions.

-35-.

4rc.

Simon Fraser University Student Society

Burnaby 2, British Columbia

September 14 1966

The Senate.

Mr. D. P. Robertson

Pegis trar

Simon Fraser University.

Burnaby 2 B.C.

Dear hr. Robertson.

I was gratified to receive the formal notice of the Senate's

decision to include a student representative on the Senate. At this

time I would like to 'request that the Senate give consideration to

providing a set of Senate minutes for each of the Fall meetings for the

Student Society's information so that we may be more fully prepared to

choose our Senate representative.

With regards to the election procedure and those eligible

I would request that the Senate reconsider its decision that students

with 12 semester hours or more are the only eligible voters. The basis

for my request lies in the fact that all students taking four or more

semester hours pay Student Society fees and are thus considered members

of the University community. I.would also like to point out that in many

cases students taking less than 12 hours are those who like myself are

involved in considerable non-academic activities and in order to do justice

to both course load and co-curricular activities have decided to reduce

their load to less than 12 hours. 1 would appreciate the Senate's careful

consideration of this point.

Yours sincerely.

.John A. Mynott

President

I..

-36-

Simon Fraser Student Society

Simon Fraser University

Burnaby 2, B.C.

Office of the President

October 31, 1966.

The Senate

Mr. D. P. Robertson

Secretary to the Senate

Simon Fraser University

Burnaby 2, B.C.

Dear Mr. Robertson,

I have been instructed by the Executive Council to inform you

that after considerable discussion and careful consideration the Executive

Council must regretfully decline acceptance of the Senate offer to place

a student elected Rector on the Senate. The Council's decision is

contained in a three point resolution as follows:

•

Whereas, the Senate resolution as communicated to the Executive

Council of the Simon Fraser Student. Society in a letter dated

September 14, 1966, involves students in the responsibility for

decision making without allowing sufficient student votes,

it resolved that:

The Executive Councilcf the Simon Fraser Student Society

rejects any and all forms of student representation on

Senate that are not accompanied by a proposal to carry on

the business of Senate in open and public meetings.

The Executive Council of the Simon Fraser Student Society

rejects the specific Senate proposal for a student elected

Rector on Senate as being guilt by association without

sufficient representation.

The Executive Council of the Simon Fraser Student Society

proposes as an initial step towards adequate student

representation on the Senate that at least two student

representatives be elected by the student body to the Senate.

/ . . .

-37-

The Senate

October

31,

1966

Page

In reaching its decision the Executive Council took into consideration

the possible problem arising from a student serving a three year term as

a member of Senate. The consensus reached was that since the main

purpose of student representation on the Senate is to present the

students' point of view and to present problems encountered by students

from time to time, direct student representation is the most efficient

means of reaching these goals. Election of an upper class man for a

three year Senate tennwould accomplish two things. First, the student

elected would have at least two years experience as a student at the

University. Second, even if this student representative were to graduate

before the end of his term of office, he would be temporarily close

enough to his student experience to give adequate representation to the

student body. Such a plan would lend itself to some multiple of three

as the number of representatives for the student body. Thus, one-third

of the representatives could be elected each year.

The above plan is only one of several possibilities for incorporating

direct student representation in the academic Senate of the University.

The Executive Council would welcome and appreciate the opportunity to

review or discuss other possibilities. We appreciate the Senate's sincere

efforts to increase the democratization of university government.

Yours sincerely,

John A. Mynott

-37-

The Senate

October 31, 1966

Page

In reaching its decision the Executive Council took into consideration

the possible problem arising from a studenterving a three year term as