ct*q

Paper

5-132

JOINT SENATE- P.\RD WORKING RELATIONS COMMITTEE

REPORT

The Joint ScnateBoard Working Relations Committee met twice:

on Monday, March 11th and again on Monday, April 15th. Mr. Eyre was

unable

attend either meeting, and Mr. Lester attended the first but

not thn reond. All other members were in attendance at the two meetings.

The Preir1ent also attended, convening both meetings and providing a

mmary oC the first for the benefit of Committee members.

The Committee elected no Chairman or Secretary. Follo;iing

the second meeting Mr. Eawtrce was named the Committee's rapporteur

for the Senate, and Mr. Ilean for the Board.

DISCUSSION SUMMARY

The Committee confined most of its discussion to the

difficulties that had arisen over the introduction of new academic

•

programs. One member felt that the Committee had been set up originally

to deal with a far W

der range of matters. It was pointed out that

other committees were dealing with such things as general University

governance, appointment and promotion procedures, etc.

The Committee recognized the need for an intensive scrutiny

of the academic worth and financial implications of all proposed new

academic programs, and of all substantial changes or expansion in

existing programs. The Committee felt too that the University needed to

•

establish general priorities in both immediate and long-range academic

planning. The Committee was concerned that the Senate and the Board

work closer together in this area, where financial and academic considerations

•

most evidently overlap.

RECOMMENDATIONS

Accordingly, the Committee recommends as follows:

That the present Long Range Academic Planning Committee

be dissolved;

That a Joint Senate-Board Academic Planning Committee be

established, under the Chairmanship of the Academic

Vice-President (still to be appointed), with membership

that includes the Academic Planner (still to be appointed)

and representatives from Senate and Board;

I...

RECOMMATIUNS (continued)

That the Serate-Board Academic Planning Committee take

on the resprsibilities of the present Long Range

Academic Planning Committee, and extend t:hcm to cover

short as wcll as long range planning;

That the C'rnittec he responsible to both Senate. and

Board fo7 te evaluation and costing F proposed new

academ!' p:agrams (or substantial. changes to existing

pgrams "

:ght he lore Sonnt:e For c'ns dora tion

That 'Ehe Committee examine and evaluate only those

new l T

niversit'i programs (or changes to existing programs)

which deprr Th character and content frcm existing

clepamenal programs; and/or whicb are estimated to

cost

1, 103,Q00 or more over an initial. five-year period;

That the Committee also be charged with evJuating and

reporting on the implications of

any

program proposals

originating from the communit

and sent to

the

Senate

for ccnsideration.

Bawtree - Rapporteur

R.E. Lester

A.F.C.

1-lean

A. M.

Eyre

R. J. Baker

B, L. Funt

April 22, 1968.

M I ua

( I

Sub-Committee Hearing #1.

Board Room - Administrative Wing - Library.

April 20th, 1968.

Transcript by Mr. Doug. Cyseman - Audio Visual Department.

Senate Committee:

R.J. Baker.

E.M. Gibson.

S .K.Lower.

S. Foulds.

R.J.C. Harper - Chairman.

University Committee on Dr. A.G. Frank.

Dean A.R. MacKinnon.

D. Tuck

Absent.

A. MacPherson.

Absent.

J. Matthews.

Absent.

P. Copes

Absent.

R.G. Jones.

D. Bettison.

P.S.A. Department.

G.B. Rush.

G. Sperling.

N.S. Popkin.

K.G. Aberle.

P. Wheeldon.

Legal Advisor:

Sholto Hebenton.

Legal Advisor:

J.Giles.

Legal Advisor:

S.B. Simons.

Also Present:

R.P. Srivastava.

R.L. Carlson.

A.H. Somjee.

J.M. Whitworth.

Dft1U

The Chairman:

This is the first hearing of Senate Ad Hoc Committee

that was set up to investigate allegations contained in recent

documents which will be circulated to you, at your request,

concerning non-professional conduct by University Committees in

considering Faculty appointments. Just by way of introduction -

the members of the Senate Committee are Professor Gibson - in the

sports jacket, Professor Baker, Mr.Simon Foulds, Dr. Steve Lower

and this Committee has the legal advice of Mr.Sholto Hebenton -

who is sitting on my immediate right.

Before we proceed I would

like to make some statements to remind you of the conditions under

which this hearing will be held. It is closed - that is to say -

no member of the university faculty or the community in general

may be present without direct invitation from this Committee.

The proceedings are confidential in the sense that we expect

all of the participants not to discuss in public the nature of

these hearings.

This of course does not preclude communications

with particular people who might support or deny or whatever, state-

ments that you wish to make or which have been made and which you

wish to question.

The question has been raised immediately

concerning transcripts of these hearings other than those which

have been authorized by Senate..

Dr. Rush..... You have a tape-

recorder here and objection has been raised to the presence of

this tape-recorder by Dr. Somjee.

This places

in a somewhat

• tricky position - to the best of my knowledge the verbal trans-

cripts of these proceedings are the property of Senate and I would

think that the presence of this tape-recorder under the circum-

stances would be a violation of this procedure.

May I ask you

therefore to switch off your tape-recorder.

Simons:

Mr. Chairman - my name is Sidney Simons - I represent Dr. Rush

•

and some of the other members of the faculty here and we have

discussed this issue prior to coming into the meeting, obviously,

and I wonder if you would allow this Mr. Chairman - that the tape-

recorder continue this morning up till such time as Counsel present

have stated their positions and the hearing itself either begins or

• something else occurs and if your ruling then is also that the

proceedings shall not be recorded, we will undertake to erase or

////)C'

return the

the recording - or demonstrate that this has been done.

Giles:

Mr. Chairman' -

I am Mr. Giles - I am representing Professor

Bettisori of the University Committee.

I am concerned about

Mr. Simons' submission to this extent, that if part of the

proceedings are to be recorded, that all of it should be

recorded.

Personally I feel that the proceedings should be

recorded - now I am not too concerned about the method but I

definitely feel some record should be kept of submissions that

are made on behalf of those who are represented and that the

evidence that is given by any witnesses that are called should

also be recorded.

Hebenton: Excuse me Mr. Cues - I think you have perhaps not under-

stood Professor Harper's point - there is an official transcript

being made behind you

the issue is - in the terms of reference

Senate would like a copy of the transcript to be kept by the

Committee - the issue is what about an independent transcript -

it's the independent one that we are talking about.

Giles:

The whole point may be academic Mr.Chairman if you can assure

us that a transcript of the proceedings will be made available

to us.

The Chairman: Oh yes, this is a clear understanding that any member of

any party to these proceedings may have access to the official

transcript at any time.

Simons:

May we concede that. 'as meaning that we can have a full and

complete transcription of the proceedings?

The Chairman: Yes with the understanding of course that this trans-

cript is still the property of Senate and that would mean that

while you have access to it you would respect the confidence

of the transcript itself.

In other words what we are really

trying to get away from is the idea or the possibility of the

proceedings in these hearings being released to the public

because this would indeed be a violation of the strictures

of Senate with respect to this matter.

At some subsequent time,

at the pleasure of Senate, the transcripts may be released for

public distribution. We want to avoid a situation in which members

of the general public, as it were, would have direct access to these

hearings through the transcripts without the permission of Senate..

-3-

Now of course we cannot - this is a question of trust largely -

it's obvious that one cannot protect oneself,a hundred percent

in situations of this kind but I would ask that this particular

term of reference be observed.

Cues:

Mr. Chairman - As Mr. Hebenton pointed out I am in complete

agreement that there should be no record kept other than the

official transcript.

The Chairman: Correct.

Do you have a further submission Mr.Simons?

No - then Dr. Rush ....Thank you Dr. Rush.

Hebenton:

Mr.Simons - your submission - you withdraw it then in view

of the fact that there is an independent record?

Simons: Yes subject to something I will have to say later of course.

The Chairman: Yes. In order to place some perspective on these

hearings I am going to suggest that we deal with the two

documents which were circulated recently around the Faculty

•

and which I understand also somehow found their way into the

hands of the Press.

Does everyone present have a copy of

these two documents or would like copies for your consultation

here?

These documents are now being circulated.

Incidentally,

may I ask while these are being circulated that when you are

speaking would you try to be as distinct as you can because we

do want to get an accurate record of these hearings and if you

mumble it is going to be very difficult.

I would like to preface the discussion on these papers with a

statement which has just been given to me by Mr.Simon Foulds

who was elected to this Committee - this I shall now read:

To the Chairman of the Ad Hoc Committee of Senate,

"Dear Sir,

I respect the confidence which Senate has expressed in me in

electing me to serve on the Ad Hoc-Committee to investigate

allegations, contained in recent documents, of non-professional

conduct by University Committees in considering Faculty appoint-

ments.

However, I request that I be allowed to withdraw from the

deliberations of this committee specifically on the' principle

that a man has the right to be heard by his peers.

ct*q

-4-

"If the members of the committee wish to discuss this matter I

will absent myself from the chamber whilst they do so.

If not,

I shall withdraw from this meeting."

This letter is dated

April 20th, 1968, and has the signature of .Mr.Simon Foulds.

The Chairman: Simon you are requesting that we discuss this?

Foulds: No not at all....

The Chairman: The Committee has agreed that there is no necessity for

discussing this matter - I would like to say Mr.Foulds before

you go, the Committee recognizes the conflict you were placed

in in this respect and we would like to thank you

for

taking the

decision that you did and congratulate you.

Foulds:

Thanks Bob. (Mr.Foulds left the hearing at this point).

The Chairman:

These are the procedural aspects of this which we are

going to put to you because then I think you will want to say

something about this.

What we are proposing to do really was

to try to get, if it were agreeable. to the parties concerned,

a statement from the legal counsel to the University Committee

concerning the stand with respect to these three questions and

then to address the subject of the questions to the other people

involved.

We have not, as you know, determined whether or not

allegations have been made.

We have to. be satisfied that

allegations indeed have been made and its from there we have to

determine who made them or what - but as you can see from the

documents that have been circulated that the names of a number

of people who are present appear and that there are signatures

too - so we have reason for calling you or requesting your

presence here obviously.

Mr.Simons...

Simons:

Mr. Chairman - I wonder with Mr.Foulds having withdrawn from

the meeting as a member of the Hearing Committee whether the

committee is now properly constituted.

The Senate as I under-

stand it from the notice thatwas circulated inviting people

whom I represent at this meeting, appointed five members of the

committee, I understand from a report I have orally of the pro-

ceedings at Senate - that there were no alternate members elected

-5--

and there was no authorization for the committee to sit as a

four man committee rather than as a five man committee.

The Chairman:

I think the statement by Mr.Foulds will make this clear

Mr..Simons.

He has not resigned from the Committee, he has just

asked to be allowed to withdraw from the proceedings.

Simons:

Does that not mean the same thing Mr.Chairman?

Giles:

I have not seen the terms of reference in that respect but

it seems to me that the stand Mr.Simons is taking he is taking

late and I say that this position is not open to him now after

Mr.Foulds has left - he had a full and ample opportunity to do

so before Mr.Fouids left.

Simons: I do not comprehend this observation.

Hebenton: I think Mr.Foul'ds felt that he was accommodating people,

whom you represent, in leaving.

There had been complaints

made that a student should not be sitting in judgement of his

superiors and professors and the objection as I understood it

•

came from yours'ide - I' wonder if you would like to take

consultation on that.

It certainly is what Mr.Foulds is under

the impression of.

Simons:

Well I hadn't yet registered any objection that might exist

to Mr. Foulds' sitting on the committee but having withdrawn

I don't appreciate the observation that I now cannot raise his

withdrawal.

Hebenton: Why didn't you do it .before he left the room?

Cues: Mr. Simons excuse me for taking this position now - Mr.Foulds

himself indicated that if there was any discussion he was not

in the least against leaving' the room.

If there was a discussion

Mr.Foulds could have remained.

Simons:

I might have taken the position that Mr.Foulds should not sit -

but the question now is can the committee function as a four man

committee?

Clearly with Mr.Foulds being absent he can't either

assess anything that goes on here or give, an adjudication if an

•

adjudication is to be given.

I would like to say that I could

not anticipate Mr.Foulds' withdrawal as I had no notice of it

prior to the statement being read by the Chairman.

The Chairman:

I have just received the letter this morning.

Just when

he came in.

Simons:

Mr.Chairman my instructions are to file w

i th you a letter from

to you Mr.Chairman.

The Chairman: I would like to read into the tape of these proceedings

this letter which is dated April 20th, 1968, and it is addressed

to the members of the Ad Hoc Committee:

"Dear Sirs,

We have received notice of a hearing to be held by an Ad Hoc

Committee formed to investigate allegations of non-professional

conduct by university committee in considering faculty appointments,

and have been invited to attend this hearing on April 20th, 1968.

For a number of reasons we find it inappropriate and inadvisable

that we should take part in these hearings.

These reasons are as follows: (a) we are unable to accept this

committee as an appropriate hearing body to decide whether or not

non-professional conduct has been present among university authorit-

ies concerned with faculty appointments.

Our reasons are: (1) Members of the University who are involved in

the faculty appointments procedures about which we have complained

voted to elect members of this committee.

We had neither vote nor

say in its membership.

(2) Two members of the committee Professor

Harper and Mr.Foulds have associated themselves with the second item

on the Senate agenda of April 1st. "To examine the quality of the

academic environment in certain courses in the PSA department."

We wrote at the time that we could only regard this as an attempt

at retaliation.

Now that we have seen the charges brought forward

in the discussion of this item and have received a demand from

President McTaggart-Cowan that they be investigated we are still

more appalled.

These charges seem to us not simply retaliation

but an attempt to smear our whole department.

Because two

members of this committee were connected with these charges

we cannot accept this committee as an appropriate hearing body."

This letter is signed K.G. Aberle, J. Aldritt per KGA., M.Briemberg

per KGA., F.B. Collinge per KGA., J.Katz per KGA., G.B.Sperling,

M. Nicolaus per

KGA., N.S.

Popkin, D.C. Potter per

XGA.,

M. Robin per

KGA., G.B.

Rush and P. Wheeldon.

The Chairman: Mr.Giles what is your position with respect...

Mr.Gil.es: Frankly I am surprised at the language and the position taken

in this letter having regard to what I understand to be the terms

of reference of this committee - now these were read to me on the

telephone and I might not have them strictly accurate but I

understand them to be firstly - were allegations of non-profession-

al conduct actually made?

Now I think it might be convenient in

commenting on this letter to state what position I am instructed

to take with respect to the issues that arise under these terms

of reference.

In respect to the first term - which is the issue

of whether the allegations as to non-professional conduct were

actually made - our position is that they were and in support

of that we rely alone upon the two documents which were cir-

culated and which we say speak for themselves.

The second

issue is - if so, by whom and against whom were they made.

Our position in that respect is that they were made by those

whose names appear on these documents in the absence of any

specific repudiation by any of those individuals.

As to who

these allegations were made against - our position is again that

the documents speak for themselves.

It is clear from a reading

of them that the allegations of non-professional conduct are

against Professor Bettison and the University Committee.

Now

the third term of reference,in my judgement, is the most import-

ant and it raises the question - If the allegations were made

- were they true or false?

Now what is at issue here is not the

conduct of those, it seems to me, who made the allegations but the

conduct of those against whom the allegations were made.

And my

position, of course, with respect to the third term of reference

is that it is false and groundless.

Moreover, I was going to be

taking the position that Professor Bettison and the University

Committee are clearly to be presumed innocent of these allegations

until they are proved.

So the substance of these proceedings it

seems to me is to call upon those who made these allegations to

come forward, if they will, to particularize these allegations,

if they can, and to prove them.

Now if they fail to do that,

or are unable to do that, I would be inviting this committee

to find them false and groundless.

But these proceedings, it

seems to me, having regard to the terms of reference are an

opportunity for those who made these allegations to come for-

ward and substantiate them.

I don't see how material the

points raised in this letter are to that issue.

The Chairman:

Thank you Mr. Cues.

Professor Baker wishes to make

/ a statement with reference to these documents which were just

• 0

circulated.

Prof Baker: Mr. Chairman, Ladies and Gentlemen, I would like to comment

on thos.e copies which I just circulated.

When I arrived this

morning I assumed that everyone in fact had copies.

I decided

though to try to get some made quickly in case anyone had for-

gotten them.

Consequently you have copies that I made downstairs

this morning off someone else's working papers and on the first

document - that is. the one that begins.. ."It had become apparent

that discrimination....

over on page 2 you have scribbled on the

end of that - four names that were not on the original - Carlson,

Bettison, Srivastava, Somjee and you also have 'rank" scribbled

down and I think "18". On the second one, not being experienced

with the machines, I couldn't get the whole document on and there

is also an addition that certain names were of people known not to

be in agreement were appended.. I want to make it clear that those

circulated this morning were made hastily and are not the originals.

I think some of you have had those.

• The Chairman:

Thank you.

I think we will adjourn for approximately five

minutes to allow the Counsel in these proceedings to confer.

Dr. Carlson: Mr. Chairman, I hope that Professor Baker has made the point

clear that these four names that have been added at the end of this

copy of the document are not anywhere on it originally and I want

this to be in the tape-recording.

The Chairman:

May I read into the tape-recording that the cursively

written names of Roy Carlson, David Bettison, Srivastava and

Somjee are in my own handwriting.

Dr. Carlson:

Thank you.

The Chairman: It was my own working paper and while I was working I was

trying to get the names of the other people in the department - I

couldn't remember at the time.

lam now calling an adjournment

for approximately five minutes.

The Chairman:

I would like to call the Meeting to order.

The Committee

has considered the letters submitted to us by Mr. Simons on behalf

of the signatories.

If you recall,

the objections concern the

membership of this committee and they are specifically that the

signatories or the delegates had no opportunity to have a vote

or a say in the membership of this Committee and the second

objection is that two members of the committee have associated

themselves with the second item on the Senate Agenda of April 1st.

(the second item concerning the proposal that Senate investigate

the academic environment in certain courses in the PSA department.)

The Senate Committee is of the view that these objections are of

little substance because the members of the committee are Senators,

elected by the academic community at large, or by faculty, and

that in particular the Chairman of this committee was elected by

Joint Faculty and that the whole purpose of the establishment

of Senate is to allow a smaller group than the faculty at large

to govern the academic life of the university.

With respect to

the second objection raised under (a) Mr.Foulds has withdrawn and

•

in the Special Meeting of Senate held on April 1st.

I disassociated,

and had recorded in the minutes, myself from the second charge

concerning the academic environment in PSA.

I therefore feel that

it is right and proper that I should chair this meeting and the

•

committee feels that they are truly representative of faculty and

are free from bias.

However, we can't continue these meetings

unless we have the cooperation of all the parties concerned.

Its

quite obvious to us, and lam quite sure to you,

that these pro-

ceedings are voluntary and there is no question of coercion with

respect to your participation and if you don't cooperate or are

unwilling to cooperate with this committee we shall have to

adjourn these proceedings and report back to Senate.

However,

if we do this, there are two points that we would like you to

consider.

The first is we would like to hear your recommendations

concerning the form of inquiry that you would prefer and with which

you would be willing to cooperate and secondly,

in reporting back

toSenate - or I think - we will have to report the facts.

These

are that the people who appear to have made allegations concerning

the integrity of the University Committee cannot cooperate with

M D/'/eJ

-10-

the Senate Committee and secondly, that insofar as the allegations

that appear to have been made have not been substantiated, or will

not have been substantiated by the time Senate next meets, that the

members of the University Committee concerned in these proceedings

cannot be considered to be other than innocent. This is of course

obvious because, although this proceeding is not legal, we accept

the very basic, natural position that if accusations are made

/ against a person, failure to substantiate these allegations must

lead to the presumption that the person or persons against whom

the allegations have been made are in fact free of these charges.

Now, I would like the response of the parties concerned to these

statements I have just made.

Simons:

You: look at me Mr.Chairman - if you wish me to respond first

I shall be pleased to do so.

Firstly, the basis upon which an

objection was taken to Mr.Foulds' being on this committee was not

that he was not a peer of the persons whom I represent - he is a

member of Senate and whether he is a student or a faculty member

or whatever, is not the issue but it was the issue that we set

•

out in the letter.

The people

whom I represent desire to present

their views.

They wish to cooperate and to have an inquiry and

to engage in it.

The only difficulty is that they were unable

to be convinced that this was a proper committee and that the

procedures suggested were proper procedures for them to observe.

The recommendations I will present on behalf of these people are

as follows: that if, Nr.Chairman, you present to the Senate for

their approval, firstly that the form of the inquiry be similar

to an arbitration board.

We will be pleased to select two

members of that board. . Nr.Giles, or whoever wishes to do so

may select two members of the board and by mutual agreement a

Chairman shall be selected.

We would also urge that any hearings

to be held by a board (so constituted) or committee, be "open

hearings" not held in camera, and of course that any parties

to the proceedings may be represented by legal counsel if they

wish. We would also urge that by way of alternative to that

•

point, the very least, the meetings or hearings be open to

members of faculty, members of the Faculty Association, Tdaching

Assistants and a representative of the CAUT.

We would suggest

-11--

that the terms of reference set out in the notice of this

hearing numbered one, two and three have added to them a fourth

being that recommendations be made by the committee or board,

either to Senate or the President, as to what the committee or

board considers would assist in the amelioration of difficulties

such as this that has arisen, this we would suggest be kept

/general so that it apply itself not only to improving university

family relations, if you like, but also that if the University

Act be required to be amended to improve the situation, that

such amendments or suggested amendments be proposed by the

committee or board.

We. ,

wish to make clear, Mr.Chairmai, that

there is much evidence to be presented.

One of the difficulties

that has also presented itself is that notice of this meeting

was given on the 16th., only four days ago and it has been

impossible to marshall the evidence properly to present it

suitably at a hearing so soon.

We unfortunately have absent

from the city persons that we would have wished to have called

to give evidence and they will be available at a later date to

give their evidence.

We also wish, Nr.Chairman, to acquire a

transcript of the proceedings, if one be available., of the

Senate Meeting of April 1st., so that we may better instruct

ourselves and know precisely what allegations

were made by whom

at that meeting, and we consider that is germane to the issues

to be considered by the committee that has been set up by Senate

or any committee that might in the future be set up to consider

this issue.

We have requested by letter of April 16th., a

complete transcription, if one be available, of the Senate

proceedings and we have not yet received it.

Mr.Chairman,

I wish to bring that to the attention of this committee.

The Chairman: I beg your pardon - I didn't get that last point -you

requested....

Simons: Yes, we requested a transcription of the proceedings of the

Senate meeting of April 1st. I believe that was the date on which

this ad hoc committee was formed.

The Chairman:

Mr.Simons is it the complete transcript relating to

this item only or to the total or larger part of the proceedings?

-12-

Simons:

We requested a transcript of the entire meeting because

we understand that certain petitions were presented and

certain remarks made and I don't know precisely whether it

was done in one section of the meeting or not. I don't know

whether there is anything else that is privileged if you like,

if so I am sure that we will be advised and can agree that it

be excerpted from the transcript.

TheChairman: May I ask to whom representation was made?

Simons:

Yes, Mr.Rankin of our office wrote to the President of the

University, Dr. McTaggart-Cowan.

I only hope that is the proper

place to make the request.

I hope it is.

I don't know if there

is anything that I can usefully add now, except that the people

whom I represent, I think, would be grateful for the opportunity

to present evidence at a committee so constituted and in the terms

of reference that we have suggested.

The Chairman: Thank you Mr.Simons.

Mr. Giles?

Giles:

In my respectful submission, there are two aspects of this

matter which are fundamental and should be kept in mind.

The

first is that this committee was appointed and constituted by

the Senate, which is in a sense the Parliament of this University,

and the second is that it was constituted for the purpose not of

investigating or trying or making a determination of the conduct

of those who advanced these allegations but of my clients, persons

I represent.

Now I think that I can give an undertaking that it

is not our intention to bring one centilla of evidence before these

proceedings as to the conduct of those who brought these allegations,

except in answer to any evidence, if it exists, that they can bring

before this Board as to our conduct.

Mr. Chairman, I think it is

important to remember that it is not those who made these allegations

that are ontrial, it is my clients that are on trial - and that

being so, with great respect of anybody, is to object to these

proceedings or the constitution that these committee it should be

those whose rights are in jeopardy.

Now Mr.Chairman, on April 1st.

and a few days subsequent to that, two documents were issued and

Scirculated, far and wide as I understand it throughout this campus,

'd ki 11916?

-13-

which reflect on and impeach the integrity of highly respected

and experienced members of this community which reflect not only

on them, as I understand it, but also on the functioning of the

entire committee system in this community. We were given no

notice that these. statements were to be issued or circulated.

We had no opportunity to make technical objections.

They were

circulated without any notice and in our submission recklessly.

And now a period of some twenty days has passed while these have

been at large, with no opportunity for us at all to know the

nature of the case that is being made against us.

Now that,

I think, is fundamental. Now if Mr. Simons wishes an adjourn-

ment to have an opportunity to cross-examine witnesses, or if

he wants an opportunity to know the type of evidence that we

are going to call in answer to his evidence and his charges,

well and good. But it seems to me that the people who are

responsible for these allegations must have known what they

believed to be the basis for the allegations they made at the

time they made them. And we are asking now that they come

forward and outline the facts upon which these allegations are

based.

What is the evidence?

Let us know the case that we

have to meet.

And if they are unable and unwilling to do so

now, then I say, since our rights are in jeopardy here, since

this committee was appointed by the Senate to adjudicate upon

that, in the absence of such evidence in the absence of such facts,

I ask this committee to find that these allegations are groundless.

Mr. Chairman, I think it, is very important to make it abundantly

clear that we are not proposing to bring any evidence here as to

the conduct of those who made those allegations.

That in this

hearing we stand ready and we invite them to let us know what are

the bases for their charges.

And perhaps I should just add this,

Mr.Chairman, that Mr. Simons has proposed alternate methods of

adjudicating this matter, one of which

a form of arbitration

which I understand was in fact debated and rejected by this body

and it is this body which is constituted to try to determine the

Srightness and wrongness of our conduct.

We are satisfied with that,

We want to proceed.

There is nothing I can usefully add to that,

Mr.Chairman.

-14-

)t/

Simons:

Mr.Chairman I think I should reply to that.

Mr. Chairman,

I think the matter Mr.Giles refers to was tabled by the Senate

rather than presented and rejected.

I would like to make these

observations.

If Mr. Giles suggests'his clients are on trial I

don't personally feel that is so.

Certain, perhaps procedures,

are.on trial if you like or being investigated or maybe invest-

igated but certainly his clients are not on trial. If he considers

that they are and are subject to some penalty by way of either civil

or criminal proceedings I don't know of it, and it's not the intention

of myself or anyone I represent to pursue that area.

If. Mr.Giles

has in mind holding an examination for discovery in anticipation of

some action he proposes to bring then I suggest it is not proper

for him to do so, and use: matters that arise in this kind of a

hearing, particularly if it is going to be a private hearing.

would suggest with respect, Mr.Chairman, that this committee cannot

find that the allegations that have been made are groundless' simply

because the matter doesn't proceed on April 20th., at 9 a.m.

Clearly

my clients are prepared to present the evidence.

They are prepared

to do so at a properly constituted committee.

We must, with respect

to. your comments Mr. Chairman, adiere to our position that this

committee is not properly constituted since this morning.

The Chairman: Well if I could sort of express my own view on the two

statements that have just been made (I am leaving to one side the

legal technicalities of these proceedings).

I think it would help

us a great deal, as a sort of fact-finding committee, to know or to

get some response to the question of whether or not allegations have

been made.

I would like to know whether any of your clients Mr.

Simons would wish to make some statement with reference to the two

documents and the identification or non-identification with the

contents.

Simons: Without wishing to appear obstructive, we have already made our

views known of the commi

ttee as it is

presently constituted.

And

I don't wish Mr.Giles to suggest later that we are stopped

-15-

c '

from taking any objection by submitting to the committee,

or acceding to the committee as constituted by making representations

and I would respectfully suggest that we not make any representations

at this time that they will be made at a proper time before a

properly constituted Board.

The Chairman:

Thank you Mr.Simons.

H.ebenton:

I think that the committee ought to add one thing for the record.

We the committee are going to be in a somewhat embarrassing situation.

We have been asked by Senate to go out and do a job and we are going

to come back and say we haven't - we couldn't - and we maybe proposing

or passing on proposals of other ways that it could be done and I

think in our own defense we have got to say we would have proceeded

and I think if we had been some sort of court with wider powers,

we could have, but we want to make it clear that it's because we

don't have power to subpoena people and to put people on oath that

we are not going ahead to do it.

The only way we can proceed

is if we have cooperation and we have been set up by Senate and we

find there is nothing we can do, so we must go back and it is up

to Senate then to decide which way, if at all, it wants to pursue

something.

I don't think that you can ask us, not that I am

suggesting that you have, to recommend that the procedure your

clients require Mr.Simons be adopted by Senate.

Senate must make

up its own mind and we can only say what we have attempted to do

and how far we have got.

Simons:

If I may be permitted this observation Mr.Chairman in respect

of Mr. Hebenton's comments.

Of course cooperation is very

difficult when it is imposed rather than when parties mutually

agree to something.

I think if the Senate set up a Board in the

terms of reference we have suggested and to which I have heard no

objection taken so far from my clients.

They are prepared wholly

to cooperate with it and I think that might be a useful inquiry to

be made.

• Cues:

Mr.Chairmarl.

If I could make this observation at the fisk of

trespassing on your time because I am.repeating myself by commenting

on what Mr.Hebentofl said.

I wish to make it abundantly clear

that we are ready to proceed and insofar as the form is èoncerned

'1'

-16-

and Mr. Simons' comments - this again and I am repeating myself -

this committee was, appointed by Senate - was properly constituted

by the Senate and to attack its constitution or its procedures

is I say to attempt to impeach the authority of the Parliament

of this university.

We are ready to proceed before this committee.

Simons:

Mr. Chairman no sanctions have been imposed by the Senate in

respect of this hearing at all and I would suggest with respect

that Mr. Giles might indicate

to this committee whether he is

prepared to appear and cooperate with another Board as constituted

in the manner we have suggested if the Senate should in its

wisdom see fit to institute such a Board.

Cues:

Mr. Chairman, I am here to represent and protect the interests

of my clients, and I shall do that in any forum properly constituted.

But I say this is a forum properly constituted by a lawful author-

ity of this university and I am here to do just that.

The Chairman:

Well I think that the committee has a fairly clear idea

of the positions which have been adopted by Counsel here and we shall

take these under advisement.

We shall report back to Senate on

the basis of the statements I have made before and I now adjourn

these hearings.

:pp

April 29th,1968.

IIM

SIMON FRASER UNIVERSITY.

NOTICE OF HEARING.

At a Special Meeting of the Senate of Simon Fraser University,

held on April 8th, 1968, an Ad Hoc Committee composed of the

persons named below was formed to investigate allegations,

contained in the recent documents, of non-professional conduct

by University Committees in considering Faculty appointments.

The first Hearing of the Committee will be held on,Satunay,

April 20th, 1968 at 9 a.m. in the Board Room, Library Bui1djg

You are requested to assist the Committee in answering three

questions:

Were allegations of non-professional conduct'actually made?

If allegations were made, by whom, and against whom were

they made?

If allegations were made, are they true or false?

Procedure:

The Hearings, on the instructions of Senate, shall be closed.

The Committee shall. have a legal advisor.

All persons who-wish to present evidence shall have the

right to be represented by counsel.

All persons against whom charges are laid shall have the

right to all information relating to these charges.

All persons involved in the allegations shall have the

right to be present when anything is said, against them,

and they shall have the right to cross-examination.

Hearsay evidence shall be deemed inadmissible.

A verbatim record of the hearings shall be kept, and this,

together with the minutes of the Hearings shall be the

property of Senate.

R.J. Baker.

•

E.M. Gibson.

S.K. Lower.

S. Foulds.

R.J.C. Harper, ( Chairman).

It has become apparent that discrimination on political grounds is being

applied to faculty recommeidations for new appointments in the PSA Dept.

Four appointments all made with the overwhelming support of members ol

the Department have been obstructed for non-academic reasons. The personal

histories and political background of candidates are being investigated.

,4 4

Heacb and other administrative officials are writing or phoning a range of

people other than theapplicants' referees and asking them -- in effect --

if they know anything bad about them, most often without even informing

the candidate that they have done so.

This obstruction of appointments and investigation of candidates is immoral,

damaging to the careers of those concerned and makes it impossible for us

presently on the staff to teach an adequate program. Therefore it is

imperative that we bring this matter to the attention of the entire university

community.

One of the four appointments being blocked is that of Professor A. C. Frank.

Professor Frank did not apply for a position but was invited by the

Department for an interview last October. Because of budgetary difficulties

the Department voted in January to offer him a one-year visiting appointment

to replace Professor John Leggett who is on leave next year. The vote was

overwhelmingly in Frank's favour, with two abstentions and no opposing votes.

According to Professor D.C. Bettison, Head of the PSA Department, however,

the University Committee is not satisfied and is seeking further information

about Frank's political activities.

According to Professor Bettison's report, the University Committee is delaying

approval because they object to Frank's politics, because they feel that the

PSA Department is being run by a "left-wing cabal" which must be halted, and

because they feel it is advantageous for them to reject a temporary appoint-

ment now before Frank comes here rather than to fight later against a

permanent appointment should Frank be proposed for one.

Professor Frank's major book, Capitalism and Underdevelopment in Latin America

(Monthly Review Press, 1967), examines historically the economic relations

of Chile and Brazil with the industrial nations of Europe and North America,

and concludes that such countries cannot develop their socio-economies without

undergoing revolutions. The book, now translated into four languages. has

aroused theoretical controversies among both orthodox economists and tradi-

tional Marxists throughout the hemisphere. Frank has also produced a large

number of other works on economic underdevelopment, including a notable essay,

"Sociology of Underdevelopment and Underdevelopment of Sociology" (Catalyst,

Buffalo, N.Y. 1967), which effectively challenges most of the orthodox

theories of underdevelopment current in the United States over the past two

decades. This essay, too,has aroused the ire of a number of North American

social scientists. In addition to his scholarly writings, Frank has taken

stands on current political and moral issues. At Sir George Williams University,

he and Professor A.M. Shah recently wrote an article in The Georgian advocat-

ing a sit-in against Dow Chemical, the manufacturers of napalm. (Dow ceased

its

interviews and left the campus before a confrontation could occur.)

i'1J

Considering Frank's scholarly ac

complishm:'nts on the one hand and the

reactions

the University Committee on the other hand, we feel that this

raises the question of political represssion in faculty appointments. It

is clear that with the implementation of such a repressive policy, questions

of scholarship, intellectual liveliness and controversy, democratic procedures,

and the particular interests of PSA faculty and students are being sacrificed.

We therefore propose -- to all students and faculty who arc interested in

free enquiry and who want vital and incisive minds on thiS campus -- that we

bring Professor Frank to this campus. We must have departments staffed by

the most qualified persons. Let

bring Professor Frank to Simon Fraser to

teach us. Let us, the students and faculty of Simon Fraser, pay his salary.

Let us be his audience. In this way we would avail ourselves of his know-

ledge and company, which we greatly value, and we also would be able to work

with him on research problems that interest us all.

We would normally have waited for the University Committee's final verdict

before launching this project. Professor Frank's appointment, however, has

been delayed for the past five months and by the time the verdict is reached

this term may be over and the university community dispersed. Professor

Frank himself must also make his own plans for next year within the next few

weeks. This is a case upon which we can and must act immediately. If we

bring Professor Frank here those administrators and faculty who fear and

oppose his presence will then be obliged to read his works and debate his

ideas, not his politics. These debates will take place publicly where Frank

can reply and where we can participate and register our own judgments.

We solicit the support of all who still are willing to work for a vital

university.

Appended is a curriculum vita of Frank. We will make available copies of his

article, "Sociology 'of liuderdevelopment and Underdevelopment of Sociology".

Other works may £e'obtained from the library.

Kathleen Aberle

Nathan Popkin

J. Alldritt

David Potter

M. Bricmberg

Martin Robin

F. Collinge

C. B. Rush.

Louis Feldhammer

C. Sperling

J. Katz

P. Wheeldon

John Leggett

Martin Nicolaus