DRAFT UNTIL APPROVED BY SENATE

MINUTES OF THE SENATE OF SIMON FRASER UNIVERSITY

HD IN THE BOARD AND SENATE ROOM

ON MONDAY FEBRUARY 6 1967, AT 1.30 PM

PRESENT:

P.D. McTaggart-Cowan

Chairman

M. Bawtree

D. Berg

T.B. Bottomore

F. Candelaria

J.L. Dampier

A.J. Ellis

W. Hamilton

R.J.C. Harper

A.F. Hean

C. Kirchner

Koerner

E.S. Lett

S.K. Lower

C.H. McLean

A.R. MacKinnon

Mills

K.E. Rieckhoff

. M. Shrum

G. Sperling

A.M. Unrau

W. Vidaver

W. Whiteley

W. Williams

D.P. Robertson

Secretary

M. Dawson

Recording Secretary

ABSENT:

R.J. Baker

A.E. Branca

J.F. Ellis

C.J. Frederickson

G.N. Perry

IN ATTENDANCE:

T.H. Brose (for part of Item 3A)

D. Roberts, Information Officer

D.C. Tuck (for Item 3B)

1. APPROVAL OF MINUTES

Minutes of 9 January Meeting were approved with the following amendment:

Item 2, motion by K.E. Rieckhoff, amend to read: 'should include one

representative appointed by the Dean, and one elected representative,

from each of the Faculties of Arts and Science'.

BUSINESS ARISING

None.

NEW BUSINESS

A. REPORT OF THE SENATE COMMITTEE ON STUDENT REPRESENTATION AND OPENESS

OF SENATE MEETINGS

K.E. Rieckhoff presented the Committee's report. He said that the

Committee's frank discussion on the openess of Senate meetings had brought

out points previously not thought through and had changed views previously

held by some members. The Committee felt that as there was no clear cut

•

evidence that openess would b e detrimental to the work of Senate, the

experiment should be tried. If such a trial turned out to be a failure, the

meetings could be closed again.

On the question of student representation, the Committee felt that

since one of the prime intents of student representation on Senate is that

of communication of the ruling body of the University with a vital part of

the University community, once this is accepted as a desirable thing, a

student representative,or, in the future, more than one, could make a

useful contribution to this body. The principle that a student might prove

a useful addition to Senate was agreed on; the only point on which the

Committee could not reach unanimous agreement was the timing of introducing

such representatives. The Committee had recommended introduction of three

student representatives singly over the next three years.

The President said that two questions were posed:

(a)

recommendations on the openess of Senate and

(b)

recommendations on student representation:.

If either or both of these were approved, he suggested that the same

Committee should investigate and recommend ground rules of procedure.

W. Hamilton suggested it was an unwise course and unfair to the students

to bring in one student representative at a time. He felt that one student

could not truly represent the opinions of the whole student body and this

would defeat the object of having student representation on Senate.

/KE. Rieckhoff...

.LIT?

K.E. Rieckhoff said he thought it should be stated to Senate that the

feeling of the Committee members from Senate who made this recommendation

was that the climate would be unfavourable in Senate at this stage and that

Senate would be more likely to accept a recommendation for one student

representative. If however Senate were willing to accept three representatives

immediately, the Committee would have no objection.

W Hamilton stated he was in agreement with the idea of having student

representation on Senate and felt there would be some satisfaction in showing

the way to other Universities in this. He was, however, strongly opposed

to the recommendation on openess of Senate meetings, and said that he felt

that to have Senate proceedings with individual viewpoints and interchange

between members reported in the Press and open to public discussion could

prove to be detrimental to Senate. He also felt that opening Senate meetings

to observers was a decision that could only he reversed at very great

embarrassment to Senate.

A. Hean said that he was in support of student representation on the

Senate and thought it should immediately go to two, possibly three.

He would like to see student representatives have two continuous semesters at

•

Simon Fraser before election to Senate, He supported W.Hamilton's view on

openess of Senate meetings, but thought that Senate should not be opened

immediately but after two years experience with students in Senate decide at

that time whether meetings should be opened.

W. Vidaver was strongly in favour of implementing one suggestion at a time,

and felt that student representation should come first. J.L. Dampier agreed.

A.F. Hean asked if students were really more interested in openess of

meetings than in student representation.

KE. Rieckhoff

a id

that to some the openess of Senate was the more

important issue, but that the recommendations would have to be taken independently.

Regarding student representation, the question of qualifications and

experience had been discussed at great length by the Committee, who felt the

only qualification they could recommend was that the students should be of

provincial voting age.

Regarding openess of Senate meetings, the Committee had recommended

opening meetings to those directly affected by Senate decisions, i.e.

Faculty, students and staff, the number to be controlled, and also that there

should be an identified reporter from "The Peak personally responsible for

accurately reporting the debates, K.E. Rieckhoff went on to say he himself

was convinced and he hoped that Senate would be convinced that the idea of open

Senate meetings was worth a trial.

/The...

The President pointed out to the meeting that there would be an

automatic addition of three Faculty members to Senate, if the motion

was passed.

The Chancellor said that he was not strongly opposed to student

representation, but thought it should be restricted to one student. As

an alternative he suggested a Standing Committee of the Senate on Student

Affairs, who would sit down with the students and report their views to

Senate. He said that the nine Universities of the State of California who

have very much more experience than Simon Fraser were going very slowly in

their approach to the matter of admitting students to any administrative

body of faculty. He thought it was probably a step to be discussed with

the other two Universities in the province with a view to taking joint

action.

C. Sperling said that he was sure the Chancellor was aware of some of

the problems obtaining in California and wondered if one of the reasons

could be that students are not represented on these bodies? The other

matter was the question of whether or not the Committee had considered

whether each Faculty should be represented by students, as well as the

student body at large? Probably what would be involved would be expansion

beyond that proposed, perhaps something to the effect of three student

members, one from each Faculty, and one at large for the next three years.

K.E. Rieckhoff said that this had been explored by the Committee and

found to be not really desirable, necessary or easily implemented. The

representatives' function on Senate was to contribute to Senate as individuals

rather than as members responsible to the particular constituency which

they came. from.

The President asked whether it was thought that there should be provision

for consultation with IJBC and the University of Victoria before a decision

was taken. If the desire was to engage in this consultation then the motion

should be tabled.

Moved by E

S. Lett, seconded by I.,Koerner

"That the motion be tabled pending consultation with the

Senates of University of British Columbia and the University

of Victoria"

After discussion it was generally agreed that as UBC and the University

of Victoria were not bound to conform to the policy at Simon Fraser University

in the, matter of student representation on Senate, consultation with them

was not necessary.

MOTION LOST

/The...

The Registrar then quoted from a letter forwarded to him by

C.J. Frederickson who was unable to attend the meeting:

"The great majority on the senate consists of various levels

from the faculty and this is the way it should he as its chief

consideration is the curriculum. The students are or should

be concerned with the content and structure of the curriculum

and should be able to make valuable contributions. I am in

favour of student representation on the senate but in a new

university where the great majority is still composed of first

and second year students I think that some degree of caution

must be exercised in the choice of representatives. I realize

that maturity is amuch abused term and, like beauty, is only

evident "in theeye of the beholder"

Nevertheless there are

certain qualities of judgment that accompany experience so I

suggest that the following procedure might be acceptable until

the university reaches a reasonable complement of third and

fourth year students: (1) That student representatives be

third or fourth year students. (2) That they be selected by

the student's council but not members of it. (3) Consideration

might be given at a later time as to the election at large of

such representatives."

R.J.C. Harper then moved, W. Hamilton seconded

"that the election of three students to Senate in conformity

with Section 23(i) of the Universities Act be approved"

MOTION CARRIED

It was agreed that the Committee on Student Representation should

be asked to report to the next meeting of Senate how this intention of

Senate would be accomplished.

The President then called for a motion regarding the openess of

Senate meetings.

A.F. Hean moved, J.L. Dampier seconded

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

which time Senate reconsider the matter of openess of Senate"

K.E. Rieckhoff opposed the motion. He said that it was brought out

in discussion with the students that one of the prime beneficial functions

of partial openess would be the improvement of communications within the

University. To the student, Senate is a remote body; a body that he knows

so little about that he has sometimes the most strange notions about it.

He has the feeling that he cannot get a proper idea of what is going on

merely by second hand knowledge. The fact that Senate meetings are open

would give a sense of security and influence strongly the climate that exists

between Faculty and students. He therefore opposed the motion very strongly.

IA. R .MacKinnon

A.R. MacKinnon said that he too opposed the motion and could find

no clear arguments as to why the meetings should not be open. It seemed

to him that the conditions for opening Senate had been carefully thought

out and had been unanimously approved by the Committee members and on

these grounds he opposed the motion.

W. Vidaver thought that Senate and the University as a whole might

gain a great deal from opening Senate meetings. Senate might have some

apprehension about the irrevocability of such an act but it seemed to be

certainly worth trying. He would have Senate open for a trial perici

with a mandatory break where Senate might assess the effect of openess. If the

experiment didn't work and Senate wished to revoke its previous decision

then with a break of two or three months between there should not be

much difficulty in closing Senate meetings again.

R.J.C. Harper said that the argument was based on the assumption that

what happened during the trial period would be representative of what

happened after the trial period. He was not one to be apprehensive about

the possibilities of abuse. There would be times when Senate would be

embarrassed but he didn't think they constituted a body of fragile egos that

would crumple at any hostile reporting.

The Registrar said that as a member of the Committee that brought in

•

the report he realised that one of the arguments against openess was fear of

people abusing the privilege; but opening meetings would remove what was

now a misunderstanding of Senate. It would put a stop to erroneous rumours.

Everyone talked about Senate but it would be much easier to put down false

statements if students and faculty had the opportunity of attendance and could

hear the debates first hand. He was confident that Senate would be doing

the right thing to open its meetings.

K.E. Rieckhoff said that students, faculty and staff have a concern

to know what Senate is doing; they are members of the University and as

such they have a certain responsibility to the University The students are

very much aware of this responsibility. There is nothing that enforces any

information to stay within the University community - in fact Senate would

have to take a chance and see how responsible they are.

A.F. Hean thought the Committee must have been in error in its

recommendation that observers be limited to those mentioned in the report,

because surely the responsibility of Senate was to the public and not just

to the staff, students and faculty. He suggested that Senate had taken a

very great leap forward for the total community and for the University in

particular by seating students. He thought however that the matter should

be put back for a minimum period of a year.

/J.L.Dampier..

sm 64 / G

J.L. Dampier said that as seconder of the motion his intention

was not to deny openess but just to delay it,

The Registrar read C.J. Frederickson's comments:

"While in favour of open meetings as a matter of

principle I cannot find myself agreeing to such in

the immediate, future.

The senate has been constituted only recently and

until the "shaking down process is completed I doubt the

wisdom of opening the meetings to observers.'

The Registrar reminded Senate that the first request to open

Senate meetings came in November 1965 from Faculty members; if the

recommendations were accepted half the observers would probably be

Faculty members.

G. Sperling thought that the public should be allowed to

attend Senate meetings and that the democratic atmosphere existing in

the University should be maintained.

E.S. Lett said that some months ago Senate had made the minutes

of its meetings available to the University community. She was very

much in favour of delaying the opening of Senate meetings.

W. Williams agreed with W. Hamilton and thought that the prestige

of Senate would tend to be diminished if meetings were open.

K.E. Rieckhoff said that he did not feel that just because the

Committee's decision was unanimous it should be adopted; but the fact

that a number of members, having made a 'detailed study over a period of

time, had come to this conclusion was in itself an argument for the

proposed recommendations, and he would urge his colleagues to defeat

the motion before them.

D. Berg said that he thought no clear case had been made of the

inadvisability of opening Senate, and in fact a number of Faculty

would be embarrassed if Senate were not opened as they had been

elected on this platform. He opposed the motion.

1W.

Hamilton....

W, Hamilton said that D. Berg's observation that he would be

embarrassed if Senate meetings were not opened as he had run for election

upon this was interesting; it was one of the main considerations that

had brought him into opposition to the principle of opening Senate meetings:

Senate could develop into a political body that performed so that it didn't

embarrass people.

T.H. Brose in response to an invitation from the President said that

as a member of the Committee he joined with the Registrar and K.E. Rieckhoff

in recommending openess of Senate meetings. He thought that to allow a

limited number of observers into meetings on a first come first served

basis would have a very healthy effect on the University and, by extension,

on the community.

MOTION CARRIED

The Registrar said that the Committee had worked hard on the report

and had had a great deal of assistance from the three students who

participated, and would appreciate a letter of thanks to them.

Moved by J.L. Dampier, seconded by R.J.C. Harper

"that a letter of thanks on behalf of Senate be sent to the

three student members of the Committee on Student Representation"

•

MOTION CARRIED

B..afld C. REPORT OF THE AD HOC INTERDISCIPLINARY PROGRAMS COMMITTEE and

ESTABLISHMENT OF A CONTINUING COMMITTEE ON INTERDISCIPLINARY PROGRA1'1S

D.G. Tuck presented the Committee's report.

The President said that there were three steps to be taken:

1. that the Committee recognise that the degree program which the departments

of BioSciences and Physical Development, probably PSA and perhaps others in

Arts would mount, be approved with the actual name of the degree left for

further study; 2. that an administrative body be set up to administer this

particular program which could be chaired by the Dean of Science rather than

create another Dean: this Committee to be chaired by the Dean of Science

and have three representatives from Biology, two from Physical Development

and one from PSA; 3. that a high level committee be set up to go into the

more general problems and to go into the Interdisciplinary problems per se. The

Long Range Academic Planning Committee might concern itself with this third

step, but this would not delay the kinesiology program. The President questioned

whether the recommendations on page 1 of the Committee's report were in the

right order of priority.

/D.G.Thck,..

D.G. Tuck said that the order of events was indeed the one the Committee

intended. There were two things to be done. Someone had to go through

the programs in detail and check them out; although the ad hoc Committee

had drawn them up they had chosen not to do this line by line appraisal.

He was not sure that a committee headed by the Dean of Science was what

the Committee had intended: they were looking for a permanent head to look

after this.

C. Kirchner said that there were a number of students already at the

University who would wish to start the course in September 1967, and it was

a vital matter to come to some decision as to what to name, the degree, and

to get the program started. There were in the University some 65 students

enrolled in the first two years of the program.

The President said that the Committee he had suggested, chaired by the

Dean of Science, would get on with the problem of getting this program mounted.

The particular problems throughout the University of interdisciplinary

programs would be referred to the Long Range Committee on Academic Planning.

K.E. Rieckhoff said that it seemed logical to follow the. suggestion

of the President to form a high level committee with very specific

responsibility and, powers to administer this particular program. It also

seemed to him that this could be achieved only by some body that had the

necessary authority of department head or Dean and it seemed logical to

have the Dean of Science responsible; with the Dean of Science, one

representative from Education, one from Arts and three from Science, at

least one of the Science representatives to be from outside the department

of BioScience. This could be done and would have the authority that this

program called for and would have the advantage of being established

immediately instead of bringing in a new Dean.

Moved by K.E. Rieckhoff, seconded by G.Kirchner

"that an Inter-faculty Committee be formed to adminster the

interdisciplinary program in Kinesiology, chaired by the Dean

of Science with three representatives from the Faculty of Science,

from the Faculty of Education and one from the Faculty of Arts"

The President said that the setting up of an Inter-faculty interdisciplinary

high level body that could handle all interdisciplinary programs would be

expensive because another Dean would have to be sought, and the committee

would take some time to set up; however, the committee as now proposed would

be of the same stature.

ID.

Berg...

D. Berg asked if the duties of the present ad hoc Interdisciplinary

Programs Committee would be transferred to the new Interdisciplinary

Committee when that was set up and the President replied that that was his

understanding.

A.R. MacKinnon said he thought there was another function for the

proposed Committee to take on - that of finance. He wondered whether

the Committee of Deans,already in being,, was not the right body to

administer the program.

W. Vidaver said that he felt the implications of such a program should

be considered at a very high level; one aspect was financial and the only

way to handle this kind of problem that he could see was by some kind of

University agency that had the power to approve finance, to direct the

entire University resources if necessary into implementation of the program.

G.Kirchner said that if the ad hoc Committee's recommendations were

accepted it would be possible to organise the program in the Fall.

The Chancellor suggested that there were recommendations in the

report of the Committee and that these should be approved, the details,

being worked out by the President and the Deans concerned.

W. Vidaver pointed out that in its report the Committee had not

specified what degree should be offered to a student completing the program

and the reason for this was that the Committee could not agree on it.

It could be a BA or BSc. He felt however that some high level body could

negotiate this. The President said that this was a perennial problem

in interdisciplinary programs but that the University had 12 to 18 months

which to work it out.

MOTION CARRIED

Moved by E.S. Lett, seconded by G.Kirchner

"that under the direction of the committee just established

the degree program in Kinesiology be mounted"

W.Hamilton said that he hoped that the Committee just established

would have the authority to achieve the end decision. The President said

that there would be at least three departments involved in three different

faculties and that the committee would provide overall coordination and

authority. The Provision of money would be within the departments and

would be coordinated. Guidance of Senate was nowsought as to whether

this program to study human movement was to be offered at bachelor's degree

level.

MOTION CARRIED

/Senate...

'OVA

../,

Senate then approved the material as circulated at the last

meeting of Senate and now in page proof form, for inclusion in the

Calendar.

Moved by K.E. Rieckhoff and seconded by A.F. Hean

"that the Tuck Committee be commended for their hard work

in the difficult task they had had to do"

D • REPORT OF THE SENATE COMMITTEE ON HONORARY DEGREES

The Chancellor reported for the Senate Comniitt:e.e on Honorary

Degrees. A number of names were put forward as candidates for

degrees for the May 20th 1.967 Congregation. These candidates were

discussed and a number of names were approved.

E, REGALIA FOR LAY MEMBERS OF SENATE

The Senate approved the recommendation that the gown for Senate

be the same as that for the Board of Governors, namely a black

doctoral gown with a gold border.

F • ARRANGEMENTS FOR SENATE MEETINGS

•

Senate agreed to the suggestion that where Senate meetings were

expected to continue beyond 5:30 or 6:00, Senate instead of meeting

for lunch would break for dinner.

G. STUDENT SOCIETY CONSTITUTION

The Constitution and By-laws for the Simon Fraser Student Society

were approved with the amendments recommended by the Faculty Council.'

In answer to a question, the President stated that all amendments

to the By-laws and Constitution would be considered by Faculty Council

and brought to Senate for approval. He explained that the Provincial

Registrar in Victoria had refused to grantregistration of the Simon Fraser

Student Society until the University had approved the Constitution and

By-laws and he expected that the Registrar would refuse to make changes

to the Constitution and By-laws unless the University approved as well.

/4..

I1ldt-

/; i

ae'

tLU

Jc(

OTHER BUSINESS

A. PRE ADMISSION MEDICAL EXAMINATIONS

G.Kirchner raised the question of medical examinations for students

before admision to the University. He explained that he was most

concerned that students would not now be required to have medical

examinations before admission to the University and this was going to

cause particular difficulties for the Physical Development Centre and

the Athletic Program inasmuch as they had over 800 students in the current

semester participating in Athletics. It was agreed by Senate that

medical examinations would not be imposed upon students prior to their

admission to the University but that if the Physical Development Centre

felt it necessary ID

impose medical examinations on students before allowing

them to participate in athletic activities, there was no reason why the

Centre could not make this regulation.

The Registrar volunteered the assistance of his office to the

Physical Development Centre if it required such.

5. DATE OF NEXT MEETING

The next meeting of Senate will be at 1:30 PM on Monday, March 6,

1967.

Meeting adjourned at 5:30 PM.

son

Secretary

/-i--

h&J

/ S.

1.-'-..

. L-.