- 10

DRAFT UNTIL APPROVED BY SENATE

MINUTES OF t€ETING OF SENATE OF SIMON FRASER

UNIVERSITY HELD TUESDAY, APRIL 8, 1969, FACULTY

LOUNGE, 7:30P.M.

OPEN SESSION

PRESENT:

Strand, K.T.

Baird, D.A.

Branca, A.E.

Boland, L.A.

Burstein, K.R.

Cole, R.E.

Collins, M.

Conway, J.

Dampier, J.L.

D'Aoust, B.

Ellis, A.J.

Funt, B.L.

Hacring, R.R.

Hamilton, W.M.

Harper, R.J.C.

Hutchinson, J.

Korbin, D.C.

Lachlan, A.H.

MacKinnon, A.R.

Okuda, K.

Frock, .Mrs.L.

Rieckhoff, K.E.

Shrum, G.M.

Sperling, G.B.

Stratton, S.

Sullivan, D.

Tuck, D.G.

Vidaver, W.

Walkley, J.

Wong, S.

Williams, W.E.

Evans, H.M.

Meyers, D.A.

Barboza, J.

Collins, E.

ABSENT:

Hean, A.F.C.

Koerner, Mrs.O.

Lett, Mrs.S.

McLean, C.H.

Perry, G.N.

Chairman

Secretary

Recording Secretary

keeping with procedures adopted by Senate at its meetin

of March

26,

1969,

...2

S.M.8/4/69

-2 -

arrangements were made to provide audio coverage, from the Senate Room

to the Student Cafeteria. In addition, the Chairman of Senate had ruled

that closed-circuit T.V. coverage also be provided with six T.V. monitors

the Student Cafeteria and one T.V. camera in the Senate Room. As at

recent meetings within the Senate Room provision was made for two moving

microphones and one fixed microphone.

Immediately

prior to the opening of Senate a large audience occupied the

Senate Room but left immediately prior to the opening of Senate, with the

Student Ombudsman presenting proposals to the Chairman of Senate with

request that these be considered. The paper presented is attached to these

Minutes as Appendix A - "Proposal presented to President Strand for Senate

Action".

1. APPROVAL OF AGENDA

Moved by K.Rieckhoff, seconded by D.Sullivan,

"that the Agenda be approved".

Amendment was moved by J.Conway, seconded by D.Korbin,

"that the paper handed to the Chairman immediately before

the opening of Senate 'Proposal presented to President

Strand for Senate Action' (Appendix A) be added to

the

Agenda including the items:-

. .

1. that final votes on the academic planning,

admissions and 'open university' motions be made

at an open Senate meeting at the beginning of the

next semester, thus allowing

the student body and

faculty to examine the documents, formulate their

opinions and attend the meeting without the pressure

of exams and essays.

ii.

that Senate indicate its willingness to be bound by

a referendum vote on the question of a parity Senate.

(half students and half faculty, elected according

to their own procedures) conducted among students

and faculty either singly or jointly; that if such a

referendum passed, that Senate would agree to ratify

decisions ir1ade by an interim parallel Senate set up

as an elected parity body before the Universities

Act is formally changed."

The Chairman proposed that items i and ii be considered as two questions

and each dealt with singly. He also noted that suspension of the rules

of Senate would be required.

•

. Debate was commenced and enquiry was made as to why the paper had not

been submitted through the Senate Agenda Committee in the normal fashion.

J.Conway responded that the items arose from a debate held on the Mali

$,M. 8/4169

-3--

that day and that they constituted emergency items. K.Burstein

expressed the view that the items should first be presented to the

Student Body for consideration and disagreed that they constituted

emergency items and hoped that they would be ruled out of order as

they had not been through the Senate Agenda Committee.

The Chairman indicated that he proposed to request inclusion of

Paper S.219, 219a (D.Tuck), dealing with the search for an Academic

Vice President and that this paper had not been through the Senate

Agenda Committee. He was therefore accepting debate on the question

of inclusion of items i and ii above on the Agenda.

Lengthy discussion continued with individuals speaking for and against

inclusion on the Agenda. B.D'Aoust stated that bartering was being

undertaken and with considerable loss of time.

Moved by B.D'Aoust, seconded by K.Burstein,

"that the previous question now be put."

MOTION PASSED

21 in

favour

1 opposed

3 abstained

Vote was then taken on the question of inclusion of item i on the Agenda.

AMENDMENT FAILED

12 in favour

13 opposed

4 abstained

Debate was then undertaken on inclusion of item ii on the Agenda. J.

Conway spoke in favour of inclusion.

K.Burstein raised a point of order stating that the Senate structure

was controlled by the Universities Act and requested that the Chairman

rule the item out of order.

K.Strand, Chairman, ruled the debate in order as it concerned only a

question as to whether or not the item would be placed on the Agenda.

J.Corway continued with expression of the view that the item be

included on the Agenda with opposition-ex pressed by D.Sullivan. S.

•

Wong rose to a point of order noting that the debate pertained only to

the question as to why, or why not, the item should be included 'on. the

Agenda. D.Sullivan argued that the substance of the item deserved

debate, but not in the form in which presented as the structure. of

Senate is set by the Universities Act.

•

K.Burstein rose on a point of order arguing that the item was outside

the power of Senate and, therefore, was. not in order.

...4

S.M. 8/4/69

-4-

K.Strand ruled that the debate concerned whether or not the item be

included on the Agenda and that such debate was in order. K.Burstein,

seconded by D.Tuck, challenged the ruling of the Chair; vote was

undertaken with 14 in favour of the Chair, 13 opposed and 2 abstentions.

The ruling of the Chair was upheld and debate continued as to whether or

not the item would be included on the Agenda. D.Korbin supported

inclusion of the item on the Agenda as the current structure of Senate

was involved and that it was necessary that disproportionate represen-

tation be corrected. K.Rieckhoff opposed inclusion claiming that the

question could be put to Senate in appropriate order and time. J.Conway

argued the importance of including the item on the Agenda now as many

serious matters were being presented to Senate but that Senate was not

structured representatively to handle such serious items.

Vote was undertaken on the question of inclusion of item ii on the Agenda.

AMENDMENT FAILED

5 in favour

24 opposed

1 abstained

Representatives of the student press departed from the Senate Room.

Debate on approval of the Agenda-continued.

amendment was moved by K.Burstein, seconded by G.Sperling,

that item 4a -- Academic Planning, Paper S.215, be deleted

from the Agenda until it has been through the faculties."

D.Tuck enquired of the Chairman as to why the item was now included on the

Agenda, and the Chairman responded that at the last méeing he had

indicated lie proposed to include such paper and that no objections had

been made. The item was included as a part of

the Chairman's

Report with

the concurrence of the Senate Agenda Committee.

G.Sperling submitted that before a presentation to Senate, the item should

receive consideration through the faculties and with opportunity of

student discussion in advance. R.Harper expressed the view that

appropriate steps had been taken. W.Vidaver supported the view that the

item be retained on .the Agenda. K.Burstein expressed opposition to

inclusion as he was not persuaded that Senate should undertake to do.

something just because it has the power-to so

' do, and argued that the

matter should be put through faculties before Senate consideration.

J.Conway requested that the results of votes be announced loudly in order

that those watching the proceedings through audio-visual could know the

results,and enquired of the Chairman about plain-clothesmen on the doors

of the Senate Room. The Chairman indicated that the individuals were

•

University employees..

Vote was undertaken on the amendment proposed by K.Burstein, G.Sperling.

MNDFNT FAILED

10 in favour

16 opposed

4 abstained

S.M. 8/4/69

Discussion continued on approval of the Agenda. The Chairman requested

inclusion of Paper S.219, 219a (D.Tuck) submitted by the Senate Committee

on the Methods of Appointment, Responsibilities and Tenure of Heads and

Deans, on the Method of Appointment of an Academic Vice-President. As

there were no objections, he ruled inclusion in order as item 5c.

As no further changes were proposed, the Agenda was ruled approved.

APPROVAL OF MINUTES OF OPEN SESSION - MARCH 3. 1969

Page 6 - Paragraph 3: The statement "Ruled by K.Okuda" should read "Moved

by K.Okuda".

PaSe

- 4a, Line 1: The word "a" is to be added at the end of the line.

Page 11 - Item ii: In each case where reference is made to Education 499-15

or Education 498-18, change is to be made to indicatethat reference is to

the individual study semester 499 or 498 as the case may be, and that in

terms of course headings these would be dependent upon the particular

department of the Faculty of Education concerned (e.g. B.S.F., S.P.F. etc.).

Page_3-_Paragraph 9: The word "utterly" is to be replaced by the word

"upwardly".

With the changes noted above, the Minutes were ruled approved.

BUSINESS ARISING FROM THE MINUTES

G.Sperling drew attention to Page 7 Item 4b Paragraph 2 concerning the growing

malaise of the Centre for the Communications and the Arts and noted that tbe.

Chairman had not given data in this connection. The Chairman responded that

he did not consider the matter appropriate for Senate at this time, and in

response to further questioning indicated that he considered the faculty

concerned was looking after the matter.

G.Sperling referred to Pae 15, Section iv pertaining to the consideration

by U.B.C.. of raising standards of admission and his enquiry concerning any

consideration being given by Simon Fraser University. The Chairman responded

thatIJ.B.C. wasconsidering this matter but that firm decision had not been

made. He concurred that if. this were done there would be effect upon Simon

Fraser University and notedthat the Ellis Report has certain recommendations.

B.D'Aoust referred to Page 5 on the section pertaining to the introduction of

gradings "W", "WP" and "WF". K.Burstein replied that he did not receive

notice of dates for submission of materialto the Senate Agenda Committee

meeting and that he was still awaiting a

paper indicating the criteria to be

met in order for papers to be accepted by the Senate Agenda Committee. The

Chairman noted that a notice had been issued February 21 indicating th

dates for submission of material for consideration by the Senate Agenda

Committee and stated that up to this time a paper on criteria to be met for

inclusion of papers by the Agenda Committee had not been completed.

$.N, 8/4/69

-6-

4. REPORT OF CHAIRliLN

(a) AcademicPlanning - Paper S.215 (K.Strand)

K.Strand indicated that he would vacate the Chair and requested

that the Acting Academic Vice President assume the chairmanship.

S.Wong raised a point of order noting that under Senate rules the

Chancellor should assume the Chair and that in his absence the

Chair would be then taken by the senior Dean. G.Shruni assumed the

chairmanship.

Moved by K.Burstein, seconded by R.Harper,

"that Paper S.215 be referred to the three faculties for

comment, and then sent to Senate with comments for the

June 2 meeting of Senate."

Debate on the motion was undertaken. W.Vidaver spoke in opposition

to the motion. R.Harper expressed

the view that the paper, should be

considered by the faculties. B.'Aoust concurred that . it likely

should be referred to the faculties but only after discussion by

Senate. B.Funt expressed the view that the principles were well

known within faculties and the need for priorities had been established.

K.Rieckhoff enquired as to the extent the Deans had been consulted in

the preparation of the paper and the Chairman indicated that the Deans

had been consulted at length but that only they could indicate how

much discussion had been held with faculty members. D.Suliivan

indicated that details had not been submitted to general faculty

meetings but that some parts need not go to faculties as general

knowledge existed but that Senate should discuss those aspects u7hich

should be referred to faculties. A.NacKinnoti indicated that the

principles had been before the Faculty of Education frequently but

that the specific paper and procedures outlined had not been presented,

and agreed with D.Sullivan that some items should be referred to the

faculties.

Amendment was moyed by S.Wong, seconded by G.Sperling,

"that Paper.S.215 be referred also to the, Student Society."

S.Wong spoke to the amendment arguing that the students should have

opportunity in the same fashion as the faculty,as the

stu

ents

would

be affected by decisions. M.Collins

spoke against both the amendment

and the. main motion and indicated that the Chairman who had prepared

the paper should be given opportunity to provide information. C.

Sperling spoke in favour of both the amendment and the motion stating

that ample opportunity. should be given for consideration of the items.

D.Suliivan expressed disturbance that Senate should feel it necessary

to go to both the faculty and student body and stated that student

senators should speak on behalf of students on the paper and various

sections. lie stated that most: Of the paper deals with administration.

W.Williams spoke against referral to either the faculty or students,

reEerred to the principles

and expressed the view 'that much informotion

..../

S.M.

8/4/69

was lacking in the paper. K.Burstein referred to an earlier C.A.U.T.

report which had noted that faculty had been bypassed in certain

earlier decisions, that the faculty had fought to obtain rights but

that some individuals were now suggesting that faculty should not

have the right of review of such an important document. J.Conway

indicated that he felt it necessary that a thorough job be done as

many issues were involved and that referral to the students was

essential. He further expressed the view that seeds of controversy

would exist if implementation was made and that students should be

involved on a parity basis with veto if required. W.Vidaver and

K.Rieckhoff spoke against the amendment arguing that Senate had both

the duty and the power to undertake

decisions of this type and that

time was important.

. ...

Moved by K.Rieckhoff, seconded by A.Lachlan,

•

"that the previous question now be put."

lDTION PASSED

21 in favour

5 opposed

1 abstained•

Vote was then undertaken on the Wong-Sperling amendment.

•

AMENDMENT FAILED

9 in

favour.

14 opposed

- .

4 abstained

Debate was resumed on the main motion. D.Korbin spoke in favour of the

main motion noting that the Act does indeed give power to Senate but

that the Act requires revision. B.Funt made reference to priorities

and stated this concept had been known in faculties for some time with

a number of submissions being inad, He concurred that some details

required further debate and discussions. R.Harpr argud that anumber

of points require debate in facult

ie. and spoke

in favour, of referral

to the faculties. A.Lachlan spoke against the motion stating that

planning procedures were required as quickly as possible. K.Burstein

supported the motion for referral arguing that the principle of the

paper was not at stake but rather the principle of procedure and that

faculties had the right to expect opportunity to .debate issues and make

comments before decision is undertaken by Senate. G.Speriing s

poke in

favour of the motion arguing that the present proedüre was dissemination

from the top down and not a two-way discussion-as faculties had no

chance to discuss the paper. J.Conway noted that referral tostudents

had been defeated but that nevertheless he would support ref err

the

faculties and felt that Senate was avOiding

, debate on crucial issues'.

Amendment to the main motion was moved by L.Boland, seconded by J.Walklèy

"that the words 'and then sent to Senate with comments for the

June 2 meeting of Senate' be replaced with the words 'and

S.M.8/4/69

that they

they report back to Senate at th May 5 meeting'".

ANDMENT FAILED

7 In favour

17 opposed

4 abstained

Moved by D.Sullivan, seconded by K.Rieckhoff,

"that the previous question now be put."

MOTION

PASSED

17 in favour

3 opposed

6 abstained

Vote was then undertaken on the main motion of K.Burstein, R.Harper.

MOTION

PASSED

17 in favour

10 opposed

2 abstained

(b) Scholarships, Awards, Bursaries - Pa

er S.216

As the item constituted part of the report of the Chairman,K.Strand

•

commented.

Moved by K.Okuda, seconded by A.MacKinnon,

"that the four proposals of Paper S.216 be approved."

Moved by S.Wong, seconded by D.Sullivan,

"that the motion be postponed until such time as report

is received from the Senate Committee on Scholarships,

Awards and Bursaries on the ho1e nature of University

Awards and Athletic Awards

to be reported to Sen ate at.

its June meeting."

Debate was undertaken on the propriety of postponement. S.Wong spoke

in favour of postponement and made reference to a letterfrom him to

Ic Strand

dated March 10, 1969. He made further reference to a report submitted

to the President in connection with Athletic Awards with argument that

Senate needs to know the policies of the committees before it can

adequately judge if merging would be appropriate. D.Sullivan spoke in

favour of the motion and wished to see reports from the existing

committees, and to ascertain whether or not the committees support or

reject the submission.

Vote on the motion to postpone was undertaken.

MOTION

PASSED

24 in favour

2 abstained

$ . N. 8/

/69

- 9

5. REPORTS OF C01124ITTEES

(a) Senate Agenda Committee Recommendation on Procedures for Considering

the Ellis Report - Pa

er S.217

Discussion was undertaken and K.Burstein referred to Senate rules based

on Robert's Rules with reference to speaking twice (Pages 2 and 10) and

tltat the previous President had emphasized this ruling.

G.Sperling suggested that the procedure for the special meeting provide

for opportunity to move into Committee of the Whole or informal

discussion for a period of an hour.

D.Sullivan requested that the present discussion on Paper S.217 deal

with the items ad seriatim and the Chairman so ruled. D.Sullivan noted

that wide distribution had been recommended for the Ellis Report and

expressed the view that it should be discussed in faculties and by

students. He suggested change in the date proposed for the special

meeting.

Moved by D.Sullivan, seconded by K.Burstein,

"that faculties have opportunity to discuss the Ellis Report

and report their findings for a meeting of Senate to be held

in the third week of May."

•

K.Rieckhoff spoke in opposition to the motion making reference to the

provision for the Consultative Committee, the three-month period given

for preparation of the report, the opportunity for faculty members to

have made their views known, and questioned if Fall semester requirements

could be met if delay arose. The Secretary gave information on

dates.

D.Sullivan spoke in favour of the motion commenting that the report is a

complex document with sweeping recommendations and that if items were

rushed difficulties could arise.

Amendment was moved by D.Korbin, seconded by G.Sperling,

"that the report be referred similarly to the Student Society

for comment."

D.Korbin spoke in favour of the amendment for referral to the students as

they represent the largest group and those most affected by proposed

changes.

L.Boland spoke against referral as provision had been made for a Consul-

tative Committee consisting of faculty and student

Korbin enquired as to whether the student representadves had been elected

and S.Wcng gave ecplanation. J.Conway stated that the students had no

mandate and there had been little discussion with no referral back to the

Student Body. He therefore spoke in favour of the amendment. A.Lachlan

spoke in opposition, expressing the opinion that student views could be

indicated by the student senators.

$.L 8/4/69

- 10

Vote on the Korbin-Sperling amendment was undertaken.

A1ND1NT FAILED

6 in favour

12 opposed

7 abstained.

J.Conway requested a roll call vote and Senate was requested to indicate

its desire. The request for a roll call vote was defeated with L.Boland,

D.Sullivan and S.Wong requesting entry in record that they were in favour

of a roll call vote.

Debate on the main motion was resumed. K.Burstein spoke in favour of the

motion emphasizing that a good job must be done and that this required

extensive debate and discussion. B.D'Aoust spoke in opposition claiming

that the docuaent would provide something better than currently exists

and that revision and improvement could be made at later stages. A.

Lachlan enquired as to whether movement of the date of special meeting to

May or June would make

it technically feasible for introduction of the

regulations to apply for the Fall seaester and the Secretary commented.

K.Rieckhoff spoke strongly against the motion to refar the matter to the

faculties arguing that individuals had been selected to carry out the

study and to act in consultative capacities 1

and that once such selection

is made Senate should give appropriate authority to do the job and that

Senate now had a job of decision to make rather than to refer back for

further debate.

W.Vidaver argued that Senate should make decision without further referral.

Moved by W.Vidaver, seconded by D.Tuck

"that the previous question now be put."

NOTION PASSED

23 in favour

2 opposed

Vote was then undertaken on the main motion by D.Sullivan, K.Burstein.

NOTION FAILED

13 in favour

14 opposed

Further change in the date of special meeting was proposed. Moved by J.

Conway, seconded by D.Korbin,

"that the meeting be held the second week in Nay."

D.Korbin spoke in favour of the change noting that it is

difficult

for

student senators to meet during exams and that the students cannot bring

their demands adequately before Senate or adequately observe debate.

NOTION FAILED

8in favour

15 opposed

1 Cb5;tajjcd

$.X.8/4/69

f .-

11 -

Further discussion on Paper S.217 was undertaken and K.Strand explained

the rationale underlying the paper.

K.Burstein indicated that he would want opportunity to ask questions on

specific items,possibly of the Registrar, the Associate Registrar and the

Assistant Registrar Admissions, and enquired as to whether or not it would

be possible to have them in attendance at the special meeting, to which the

Chairman responded in the affirmative.

J.Conway suggested that the time limits proposed in Paper S.217 be deleted

and any time limits necessary be established during the special meeting.

Moved by G.Sperling, seconded by J.Conway,

"that the time limit of 10 minutes suggested in Section 2 and

the time limit of 2 minutes suggested in 3c be deleted."

Moved by B.Funt, seconded by D.Tuck,

"that this meeting adjourn by midnight."

NOTION CARRIED

13 in favour

8 opposad

3 abstained

Discussion resumed on the Sperling-Conway motion. W.Vidaver spoke in

opposition referring to the problems of unlimited debate. D.Korbin spoke

favour of the motion with argument that as there had been no approval of

referral on many substantive items it would be necessary to go through all

necessary debate at the special meeting.

L.oland pointed out that under the provisions of Paper S.217 for a vote to

pass a two--thirds vote would be required as debate would be limited.

Vote on the Sperling-Conway motion was undertaken.

MOTION FAILED

8 in

favour

15 opposed

1 abstained

Moved by D.Tuck, seconded by J.Rutchinson,

"that Paper S.217 be accepted in its entirety."

MOTION PASSED

16 in favour

8 opposed

(b) Senate Nominatin g Committee - Paper S.218

Moved by D.Tuck, seconded by E.D'Aoust,

-12 -

"that Item 5h,Paper S.218, be tabled."

MOTION PASSED

15 in favour

4 opposed

Responsibilities and Tenure of Heads and Deans, on the Method of

ppointrnent of an Academic Vice-President - Paper S.219, 219a(D.Tuck)

Moved by D.Tuck, seconded by K.Rieck.hoff,

"that Paper S.219a be adopted as university policy."

Moved byL.Boland, seconded by S.Wong,

"that this matter be postponed until the next regular meeting

of Senate."

MOTION PASSED

9 in favour

opposed

abstained

In view of the decision to adjourn at midnight consideration of the date

of next meeting was undertaken.

6. DATE OF NEXT REGULAR MEETING

The normal date for the next regular meeting of Senate would be May 5, 1969,

but it!

view of the number of records to receive consideration for graduation

purposes, time limitations were noted. It was therefore agreed that the next

re g

ular meeting of Senate would be scheduled for Monday, May 12, 1969, on the

understanding that the faculties would provide to the Registrar not later than

Wednesday, Nay 7, 1969, the appropriate lists of individuals to he considared

for the various degrees.

The meeting adjourned at 12:02 a.m.

H. N. Evans

Secretary..