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.

Walkley, J.

Williams, W.E.

ft..

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.

APPROVAL OF AGENDA

Moved by M. Collins, seconded by D. Baird

"that the Agenda be approved"

MOTION CARRIED

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.

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'

)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

U.4'OZ4/

-4-

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

"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