DRAFT UNTIL APPROVED BY SENATE
MINUTES OF SENATE OF SIMON FRASER UNIVERSITY FIELD ON THURSDAY,
OCTOBER 10, 1968, IN THE FACULTY LOUNGE AT 7:30 P.M.
SPECIAL MEETING - OPEN SESSION
Present:
Strand, Dr. K.T.
Chairman
Baker, R.J.
Baird, D.A.
Collins, N.
Dampier, J.L.
DAoust, B.
Foulds, J.S.
Funt, B.L.
Gibson, E.M.
Hamilton, W.N.
Harper, R.J.C.
Hutchinson, J.
Koerner, Mrs. Otto
•
Korbin, D.
Lett, Mrs. Sherwood
Okuda, K.
Riechkhoff, K.E.
Sperling, G.B.
Stratton, S.
Sullivan, D.
Vidaver, W.
Wong, S.
Evans, N.M.
Secretary
Meyers, D.A.
Roberts, D.
Smedley, J.
Recording Secretary
Absent:
Boland, L.A.
Burstein, K.R.
Ellis, A.J.
i-lean, Arnold F.C.
MacKinnon, A.R.
McLean, Cyrus H.
Perry, C.N.
Shrum, Dr. G.M..
Smith, Mrs. L.
Tuck, D.C.
W
Walkley, J.
Williams, W.E.
ft..
4h
j
2
M
O
The Chairman opened the meeting and drew attention to the fact that this
was a special meeting to consider the Report of the Committee to study
the constitution and functions of governing bodies of the University
under the Chairmanship of R.J. Baker.
1.
APPROVAL OF AGENDA
Moved by M. Collins, seconded by D. Baird
"that the Agenda be approved"
MOTION CARRIED
2.
REPORT OF THE CO1ITTEE TO STUDY THE CONSTITUTION AND FUNCTIONS OF
GOVERNING BODIES OF THE UNIVERSITY - Chairman - R.J. Baker
R. Baker outlined briefly the background leading to the establishment
of the Committee, its membership and the recent request of Senate
that the Committee work extensively on the Report to bring it forward
for consideration for possible submission to the Perry Committee.
He noted that D. Baird prepared the bibliography and later resigned,
.
being replaced by R.J. Baker who acted as Chairman. Other members
on the Committee were B.L. Funt, R.J. Harper, J. Sperling, S. Wong,
and S. Wasserman who was later replaced by K. Okuda.
He indicated that the Committee had felt it was not an appropriate
time to suggest only minor adjustments in the Universities Act
but that study should be given to the whole system and structure.
The Committee had seen the Report of the Interim Council of Joint
Faculty and the proposals of this Committee did not overlap those
of Interim Council. 1-le expressed appreciation to the various
members of the Committee who had worked under a great deal of pressure
to produce the final report in the short space of two weeks. It
was noted that the report was deficient in some items, particularly
in the matter of extensive research. Attention was drawn primarily
to the report as such and its recommendations, with indication
that much of the other material had been included at the request
of certain individuals.
Moved by R. Baker, seconded by D. Sullivan
"that the Report be accepted"
G. Sperling indicated that he had a paper for the members of Senate
and the paper was distributed.
.
0
The Chairman of the Committee continued explanation, indicating that
the Report was the unanimous recommendation of the Committee
although each of the members would have certain reservations on
certain items.
I....
)':L d
A4'za'
7
f
2
M
)DJtJ4Jt4'-4l 1)'
#
-3-
Attention was drawn to the unanimous recommendation of the Committee
at the bottom of Page 3 of the Report. Brief reference was made
to the California System, the New York Board of Regents System,
and others with indication that the Committee did not like the
term "Regents". It was emphasized that the Committee was suggesting
an Integrated System. Attention was drawn to the section on
"Pro's and Con's of possible systems" with further explanation of
the advantages and disadvantages outlined. He commented on the
advantages of the simplicity of structure proposed in the Integrated
System.
The Chairman of Senate suggested that informal discussion of the
Report would be appropriate and this was commenced.
In response to a question the Chairman of Senate indicated the
substance of discussions which had been held with Dr. Perry, Chairman
of the Committee studying Thter University Affairs. It was noted
that submissions should be made by mid.-October.
A number of members commented most favorably on the work of the
Committee and the Report which had been submitted for consideration
•
although some had reservations on some of the recommendations.
Question was raised as to whether adoption of the Report by Senate
might lead to greater government control with loss of autonomy to
the Universities, and response was given that the Committee believed
that governments at large are seeking appropriate methods to pro-
vide some protection to governments in view of the significant
costing demands of education. Reference was made to Dr. Flare's
suggestions and to the possibility of a "buffer" body such as the
commission proposed in the Report.
D. Korbin questioned the propriety of Senate or the Board of
Governors making recommendations to the Perry Committee or
Government until such time as the Student Implementation Committee's
Report is considered and that he proposed to move "that we
postpone discussion of this Report until the Student Society
has considered the Student Implementation Report and the Report
is available".
Comment was made to the effect that most of the arguments in support
of the proposals seemed to concern financial advantages and that
clarification of the academic benefits would be helpful. The
Chairman of the Committee commented on the matter of inter-relationship
between financial and academic benefits and indicated that in his
view many of the benefits which might appear supetficially to
have financial implications only would indeed have direct academic
benefits.
I....
1L')
C/ei f
D t 1
11
U.4'OZ4/
.
-4-
M.
Collins expressed the belief that if the system proposed had
indeed been in existence in recent years Simon Fraser University
might not have benefited as greatly as had indeed been the case.
Emphasis was made on the desirability of having a relatively large
number of bodies bringing persuasion upon government to provide
adequate funds and that the establishment of a single body
might reduce impact. Further reference was made to the helpful-
ness which lay members on Senate could provide through community
and other contacts and the opportunities for providing information
directly in the community. There was some disagreement with the
points of view expressed.
C. Sperling indicated his reasons for endorsing the recommendations
of the Committee and expressed the view that the Integrated
System would be but a small step in the appropriate direction.
lie made reference to the paper he had provided and explained the
nature of the commission as he saw it, with request that
representation thereon be broadly based with strong representation
from the academic community.
Question was raised concerning the minimum information and
.
suggestions made in regard to Senate in the proposals of the
Committee. The Chairman of the Committee indicated that his
Committee did not wish to overlap recommendations of Joint Faculty
which might suggest a greater combination within Senate of the
current roles of Senate and Board, and felt that less specificity
in the Universities Act might be desireable.
Question was raised concerning the role of Chancellor under the
present Act and the Chairman of the Committee noted that under the
current Act the Chancellor has a prime function - the giving out
of degrees - but that there is nothing in the Act which suggests
or requires that the Chancellor be the Chairman of the Board of
Governors.
Comment was made on the paper referring to a grant commission,
which the committee had not adopted as its prime recommendation
but emphasis was given to the desirability of multi-year budgeting
so necessary to better planning.
C. Sperling expanded on his explanation of the Secretariat and
membership suggested in his paper. L. Funt indicated that the
committee at large had not accepted this particular point of view
and provided explanation as to the nature of the commission
suggested in the main committee report, noting recommendations
with the advantages and disadvantages envisaged. Further discussion
.
followed on the question,formula financing, grant commission,
methods of establishing equitable budgets across Universities and
related items. Attention was drawn to the fact that the Chairman
/ .....
(
-5-.
of the Advisory Board, who is also Chairman of the Academic Board,
is a member of the Perry Committee and from that stand point the
Compdttee preparing the current report had not felt it necessary to
make specific recommendations in a number of areas as useful
data would he available directly to the Perry Committee.
Discussion continued with further points being raised on the
question of budgeting, equitable distribution of funds, relation-
ships of costings in various faculties, decisions in respect of
establishing new offerings or faculties, and with strong indica-
tion on the part of some members of potential loss of autonomy
if an Integrated System were established. Question was raised
as to whether or not there were available Canadian studies on
various systems which might prove useful to Senate in making its
decision in respect of the suggestions currently proposed. Some
further discussion arose on various systems in the United States.
Some opposition was made to the suggestion that Simon Fraser
University might suffer financially through the proposed new
structure and argument was given to the effect that each University
must be in a position to clearly define and defend its needs in
terms of the provincial system as a whole. Comment was made
that comparison with a number of the systems of the United States
would not be appropriate and that consideration should be given
to development of a system most appropriate for the province
of British Columbia. Attention was drawn to the weaknesses of
the present system which relied upon the Advisory Board.
Discussion continued with repetition and enlargement of explana-
tions of a number of points made in earlier discussion.
Further comments were made on the possible loss of autonomy
but there was disagreement that such would necessarily arise,
with indication by some that the University did indeed have
considerable autonomy, and that it likely could anticipate retention
of autonomy to a significantly high level.
Suggestion was made that the Report of the Committee be submitted
in its entirety )
along with its supplementsas a submission on
Formula Financing to the Perry Committee on Higher Education in
British Columbia. This suggestion received some considerable
support and consideration was given to most appropriate methods for
making such submission.
Alternative suggestions were made and the Chairman was asked to
make further comment about the Perry Committee.
I....
93tz' /J1u('?A2Ltci
e /e
.
-6-
i. i•.'—•
The Chairman indicated that he believed it most desirable to
have a submission presented to the Perry Committee by October 15
and that it was his understanding the Committee did not propose
to hold bearings but that he expected to have an opportunity to
make oral argument. He noted that in his view there would be
nothing to prevent individual Senators from submitting such
comments as they might wish to make pertaining to recommendations.
Following further discussion suggestion was made that Senate could
vote oa the motion before the members and either pass or defeat
the motion )
with further consideration to be given alternatives in
the event the motion be defeated. In the event the motion be passed
it would be on the understanding that the Report with the
supporting papers would be forwarded to the Perry Committee with
covering letter, with indication of the vote, and on the under-
standing that individual Senators could submit in writing
further comments to the Perry Committee should they so desire.
Vote was taken on the motion by R. Baker, seconded by D. Sullivan
0
"that the Report be accepted"
NOTION CARRIED
11 in favor
7 opposed
D. Korbin requested that his negative vote be
recorded.
The meeting adjourned at 10:35 p.m.
H.M. Evans
Secretary
40