SiMON FRASER UNIVERSITY

M Dllsjbc

Paper S--133

The Registrar

The Secretary of Senate

Senate Agenda Request

Subiect

................................................................... ...................................................

I wish

to bring before Senate allegations of non-professional

conduct In the Faculty of Arts.

The grounds for this request are:

Senate, on April 8, decided that such matters

were the proper business of Senate.

Allegations were brought to the attention of

the Academic Affairs ConmLttee of the Faculty

Association. These allegations were reported

out of the Committee only to the Faculty

Association Executive.

The recommendations made to the President by

the Academic Affairs Committee of the Faculty

Association were not acted upon.

I do not wish to circi

the IIëations-sIncé they have

not been Investigated and affect Individuals.

I request that this item be placed on the agenda for the

May 1 meeting of Senatefor

discussion.

KO:e

SPA

i1MJ I'fiIftJIJ'/

•

C'JF;L

jr.'j

'...

:' •'

Fir siwx.,

t; L':.i

1 cor.

etC:

.or1

Into

c:nt in mt

.vl ).

e') ly

r u L' d by t h

3t-,(l

i1 s()

.(' ('

1VL

3tcd by th

:vifl .

cc:. . t

V c 1'

r' ('

o tl

(fl tnI t 0

1 } rJ (4:1)

flk tWo

ndLdxtR 'hO

;tr

rpO1rit

nt:

in the . .

tepUn t

In v

ticl.:

t'i

Uwt

. c

Lrt,tl2

prie3

or i

3ition t SFJ.

U'v.r

mbke

izquire1i

ut ht

ppople

other

fcc-c.. hiprior pcm,

tinec

i .

f.ct tht iwh jnjr

rJtWtiy )1

in niVtrity

ciccu

dock; no, !.n ovw

vie

rumt

#tC.

Cmdiduto.s '.,ould ti-c'

in a

poit.Ofl

to cvditc

kind. o qu Uor which are be n.

ut the;

in • t

of tne c' tho actv

BTrtflt

SFU as

intitu.on.

1CfO

UL. S

contriiLOfl to th'

of SFU would he 60 101"P , l

ntit.l

r.h.t we vctud crotly

appoCt

rfrts to

kt h

Gtfl

and ndvico

.wii&b1e to ficuI-ty

S-IgQd,

1•

•

•c

:•''•

.-.•'

40.1

a..1

•?

•

;..t•o•1r

dt.h

r. '.

•:

•

•;

' 1

1616 T

May 1st, 1968.

REPORT OF THE SENATE AD HOC COMMITTEE,

INTRODUCTION: At its meeting on April 1st, 1968 Senate appointed R.J. Baker,

S. Foulds, E.M. Gibson, S.K. Lower and R.J.C.Harper as an Ad Hoc Committee

(hereafter referred to as our Committee) with the following terms of reference:

1. 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:

1. 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.

6. 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.

In accordance with the foregoing we requested Sholto Hebenton to provide

us with legal advice.

Believing that the questions presented 'should be resolved as quickly as

possible and given the fact that certain persons involved would be leaving the

campus at the end of the semester we set Saturday, April 20th. 1968, as a

date for hearing evidence.

We invited to the meeting the members of the

University Committee on Dr.. A.G. Frank and also persons whose names appeared

on Attachment #1 of the transcript of the Senate Sub-Committee Hearing #1.

SUMMARY OF HEARING: .

The Meeting of April 20th. was attended by some of the people whose names

appeared on Attachment #1, the members of the Senate Sib-Committee and some of

the members of the University Committee. Each group brought a legal advisor.

At the outset of the hearing one of our members, Mr. Simon Foulds, withdrew

from the proceedings.

His reasons are set out in his letter which appears at

pages 3 and 4 of the transcript.

Subsequently, Mr. Simons, legal advisor to

persons associated with Attachments #1 and #2, took the procedural objection

that with the absence of Mr.Foulds, the Committee was not properly constituted.

r.Giies, representing members of the University Committee on A.G.Frank argued

IIj

that the objection had been taken too late; that

Mr.

Simons waited until Mr.Foulds

left the hearings and could not be recalled before making his objection.

Mr.Simons then submitted a letter (see page 6 of the transcription) stating

that its signatories identified themselves as persons who have complained about

faculty appointment procedures and refused to proceed because of the election

procedure and composition of our Committee.

Mr.Giles stated that his clients wanted to proceed.

He urged that in the

absence of any clear specficatiornd proof of the allegations that his clients

be presumed innocent.

The meeting was adjourned and our Committee considered its position.

then stated that we rejected the objections on the grounds that we considered

them to be irrelevant, and in any case 'not completely true. Firstly, one

of Mr.Simons' clients (Mr.Gerry Sperling) nominated two of the Senators who

subsequently served on the Committee and secondly as to the charge of bias

in the Committee Mr.Foulds had withdrawn from it and Professor Harper had

disassociated himself with the item on academic environment in PSA.

explained that we wished to proceed with the hearings but that we were unable

to do so without co-operation of all parties because we had no power to compel

anyone to testify.

We also cautioned Mr.Simons' clients that insofar as the

allegations that appear to have been made have not been substantiated that the

members of the University Committee concerned in these proceedings cannot be

• ' considered to be other than innocent.

We invited further comment from those present.

Mr.Simons confirmed the

refusal of his clients to proceed.

Mr.Gils confirmed that his clients were

willing to proceed.

We adjourned the Meeting; there was no point in asking

the University Committee to present its position because no case had been

presented for them to answer.

We expressed our regret that we were unable to

carry out the full investigation entrusted to us.

CONCLUS IONS:

We report the persons whose names appear on Attachments #1 and #2 have

been provided with the opportunity to set out and prove their case.

They have

not done so.

The persons accused of non-professional conduct were prepared

and willing to meet whatever case might be presented against them.

However, at the request of Mr. Simons, we further report that his clients

have proposed that the matter be investigated in accordance with the procedures

set out at pages 10 and 11 of the accompanying transcript.

fl,,1

)11I1

CONCERNING THE SPECIFIC TERMS OF REFERENCE THE COMMITTEE CAN ANSWER THE

FOLLOWING QUESTIONS.

In answer to our first question, namely, "Were allegations of non-

professional conduct actually made?"

We find, (see documents) that they have.

2. In partial answer to our second question, "If allegations were made, by whom,

and against whom were they made?"

The answer is that allegations were made

against at least one university committee, namely that set up to process the

recommendation for Dr. A.G. Frank's appointment. However, the refusal of

those persons whose names appear on Attachment #1 and #2 and who attended

the hearing, to co-operate with the committee forestalled the attempts to

determine who made the allegations.

In ansier to question #3.

"If allegations were made, are they true or false?"

We reprt that to date the allegations made against the University Committee

remain unfounded and unsupported by any evidence.

I 15 jjj

April 20

1968.

Professor

Mr. J. Si]

R. J. Baker

E.N. Gibson

S. K. Lower

R.J.C. Harper

non Foulde

Dear Sirs:

We have received notice of a hearing to be

held by an Ad Hoc Committee formed to investigate alle-

gations of non-professional conduct by University Committees

in considering Faculty appointments, and have been invited

to attend this hearing on April

20th,

1968.

•

For a number of reasons, we find it in-

appropriate and inadvisable that we should take part in

this hearing.

These reasons are as follows.

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

authorities concerned with Faculty appointments. Our

reaons are: -

(1) Members of the university who have been

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. Foulde) 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 P.S.A. 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

MoTaggartCowan that they be investigated, we are still more

. . . . . /2

7.^

p h

I 16 10

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.

Yours sincerely,

Ld.

Aberle

1A1dritt

/1•

M. Briemberg

&az

•1

G.B. Sper1i

Popkin

DO. Potter

F?1. .ttODlTI

-G,B.Rush

WheeIdi

5M 115169

MAI&

Dr. R.J.C.Harper,

Chairman,

AD HOc Committee of Senubo

April 20th 1968

• Dear Sir,

I respect the confidence which Senate has expressed in me in electing me

to serve on the Ad Hoc Coiimitt.ee to investigate allegations, Contained in

recoit documents, of non-professional conduct by Univerr,iy Committees in

considering Faculty appointments.

However, I request that I be allowed towithdraw from the deliberations

of thiq committee specifically on the principla that a man has the right to be

heard by his peers.

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 shallwjthdraw

myself from this meeting.

Yours truly

J. Simon Foulds.