-ç

DRAFT UNTIL APPROVED BY SENATE

MINUTES OF SENATE OF SIMON FRASER UNIVERSITY

HELD IN THE BOARD AND SENATE ROOM

MONDAY, JUNE 5,1967 AT 7 P.M.

Present:

P.D. McTaggart-Cowan

Chairman

•

R.J. Baker

A.E. Branca

F. Candelaria

•

J.L. Dampier

J.S. Foulds

C.J. Frederickson

G.H. Geen

E.M. Gibson

R.J.C. Harper

A.F.C. Hean

Kirchner

I. Koerner

M.A. Lebowitz

E.S. Lett

S.K. Lower

A.R. MacKinnon

Matthews

M O

E, Rieckhoff

D.H. Sullivan

J. Walkley.

S. Wasserman

W. Williams

S. Yandle

D.P. Robertson •

Secretary

M. Dawson

Recording Secretary

In attendance:

D. Roberts, Information Officer

I.Garland (Item 3C only)

• •

Absent:

D. Baird

J. Behrens

D. Berg

A.J. Ellis

W.M. Hamilton

• C.H. McLean

G.N. Perry

G.M; Shrum

G. Sperling

D.G. Tuck

•

S. Wong

lee

-2-

•NNOUNCEMENT OF SENATE ELECTION RESULTS - S-il

The President opened the meeting by proposing that Item 3A of the

Agenda, Announcement of Senate Election Results, be taken first. Senate agreed

and the Registrar presented the results of the Senate election:

Three student representatives:

Three Joint Faculty representatives:

Three Faculty representatives:

Stan Wong (3 year term)

Simon Foulds (2 year term)

Sharon Yandle (1 year term)

J. Baker

M. Lebowitz

D.G. Tuck

E.M. Gibson (Faculty of Arts)

Wasserman (Faculty of Education)

J. Walkley (Faculty of Science)

Moved by R.J.C. Harper, seconded by K.E. Rieckhoff

"that Senate accepts the report of the Registrar"

MOTION CARRIED

The President welcomed the new members of Senate.

1. APPROVAL OF MINUTES

The Minutes of the meeting of May 1, 1967, were approved.

BUSINESS ARISING

CALENDAR AMENDMENTS - S-7

The Registrar said that the timetable for production of the next Calendar

was not yet available as the printing schedule had not beenreceived from the

printers. It was agreed that the Registrar should circulate to Heads of

Department a tentative timetable.

B. LIST OF GRADUATING STUDENTS - S-9

The President said that the Select Committee had approved the conferring

of degrees on all the candidates reviewed at the May 1 meeting of Senate, with

the exception of A.C.H. Lee who had not completed his examinations, and V.Poplavsky

who had not completed the requirement of courses outside his major department of

study.

Ic....

•

5Aj

6 A

A ,

-3-

k4m.4

S2. C. AMENDMENT CALENDAR - PSA COURSES S-10

The Faculty of Arts having concurred in these proposals, Senate

accepted the amendments which were noted in the Minutes of the meeting of

May 1, 1967.

3. NEW BUSINESS

SUMMER ENROLLMENT S12

The Registrar presented the Summa enrollment figures. These were 50%

higher than the projected figures and it was believed that this was because

students felt that with fewer numbers enrolled they had better use of

facilities in the Summer semester.

REPORT OF UNIVERSITY CO-ORDINATING COMMITTEE ON GENERAL EDUCATION

- S-13

The President suggested that discussion be confined to Senate satisfying

itself that the Committee had done what Senate required it to do, and to

questioning the Committee members for any necessary clarification.

S. Wasserman said that there were three points which she would like to

make clear: a. The programs in Section 2 of the report were sample programs,

examples of possibilities; b. the Committee was unanimous in its feeling

that there was a need for separate administration of University Network, and

that this should not be left to casual administration; and c. that the proposal

was the beginning of what a General Education program might be, and the core

of the proposal was its possible future expansion.

The following questions were raised regarding the proposal:

Would the University be financially capable of undertaking

such a program?

Would such a program not require a revamping of all departmental,

course programs as they present

y exist?

Does the setting up of a hierarhy for the administration of the

program not destroy some of the ends to which it is striving?

Does the paper not neglect the desirability of libeälising the

present major and honors programs within the Fac111ties?

Should there not be more stress on the interdisciplinary nature

.of any General Education program?

Do we not offer the ends to which the program is striving in our

present course offerings?

/7....

/t,f47

7.(

-4-

7. Is there not a danger in such a program of institutionalizing

what is essentially a form of traditional student activities?

If we put General Education as

has been proposed into effect,

are we not taking over from extra curricular activities?

.8. Does

a pass/fail system :i

lad to a pass being

given for mere attendance?

Should the program not be presented on a schematic diagram so

that 'the faculty will be

to see at a glance what the

committee's report entails?

10.

Is it possible that a General Education program such as proposed

willentailan extra semester tacked on to the present degree

programs?

Discussion

revolved around the above questions and the Committee gave

its assurance that most of these questions had been considered by them in

the preparation of the report.

After this discussion it was

Moved by W. Williams, seconded by D.H. Sullivan

"that Senate accept the report and refer it to the

Faculties for study and comment through the Committee

of Deans; and that the Committee of Deans working

with the University Co-ordinating Committee on General

Education be enjoined to frame a set of questions that

would ensure the necessary uniformity of treatment and

comment by the Faculties"

MOTION CARRIED

D. REPORT

FROM

ACADEMIC BOARD REPRESENTATIVES - S-14

• The President asked whether the Academic Board had discussed the matter of

transfers from Regional Colleges. R.J, Baker said all University Senates had

made a statement which was in effect that these Colleges would be put on

probation; the recommendation of the Board had been that the three Universities

should accept students from these Colleges in good faith until there was evidence

that might lead to a change of policy.

The President said that he had heard that there were different levels of

acceptance of these students in the three Universities;

R.J. Baker

said that it

was the intent that the three Universities should maintain the same level, but

that there were undoubtedly differences in interpretation of the spirit of the

agreement.

/4.

M 6 / 6 A 7

Al,ee "? ,

-5-

OTHER BUSINESS

A. SCHOLARSHIPS, AWARDS AND BURSARIES

The President asked whether Senate would express its views on the discharge

of its re ,

sponsibilities as outlined in Section 54 (f) of the Universities Act,

which states:

54. It is the duty of the Senate and it has power .....to approve

the establishment or discontinuance by the Board of any Faculty, department,

course of instruction, chair, fellowship, scholarship, exhibition, bursary, or

prize....t'.

Moved by K.E. Rieckhoff, seconded by A.R. MacKinnon

"that the Senate Committee on Scholarships, Awards and

Bursaries be charged with performing the function of

Section 54 (f) of the Universities Act on behalf of Senate,

and with bringing to Senate for decision only those cases

where it is in doubt."

MOTION CARRIED

B. GRADUATE STUDENT REPRESENTATION ON SENATE GRADUATE STUDIES COMMITTEE

D.H. Sullivan said that he had been approached by the Graduate Students'

Society and asked to inform Senate that they would present a paper to the

Senate Committee on Graduate Studies requesting graduate student representation

on that Committee.

5. DATE OF NEXT MEETING

It was agreed not to hold a

Senate meeting in July.

Moved byJ.L. Dampier, seconded by D.H. Sullivan

"that the next meeting of Senate take place on

Monday, 7 August, 1967, at 7 p.m."

MOTION CARRIED.

The meeting adjourned at 8.45 p.m.

D.P. Robertson

Secretary