DRAFT UNTIL APVED BY SENATE

MINUTES OF SPECIAL MEETING OF

SENATE OF SIMON

FRASER UNIVERSITY HELD MONDAY,

FACULTY LOUNGE, 7:30

APRIL 14,

1969,

P.M.

SPECIAL MEETING - OPEN

SESSION

PRESENT:

Strand, K.T.

Chairman

Baird,

D.A.

Boland, L.A.

Burstein, K.R.

Cole,

R.E.

Collins, M.

•

Conway, J.

•

D'Aoust,

Funt, B.L.

Macring, R.R.

Harper, R.J.

Hutchinson, J.

Korbin, D.

Lachlan, A.H.

MacKinnon, A.R.

Okuda, K.

Prock, Nrs.L.

Rieckhoff, K.E.

Shrum, G.H.

Sperling,

G.B.

•

Stratton,

Sullivan, D.

•

Tuck,

D.C.

Vidaver, W.

•

Williams, W.E.

•

Wong, S.

Evans, H.M.

Secretary

•

Meyers, D.A.

Barboza, J.

Recording Secretary

Collins, E.

Recording Secretary

ABSENT:

Branca, A.E.

Dampier, J.L.

•

Ellis,

A.J.

•

Hamilton, W.M.

Mean, A.F.C.

•

Koerner, Mrs.O.

Lett, Nrs.S.

McLean, C.H.

Perry,

G.N.

•

Walkley, J.

•'

Audio-visual coverage of the meeting was provided to the Student Cafeteria

•

through the use of two cameras in the Senate Room.

...2

- 2 -

1. STATEMENT BY THE ACTING PRESIDENT

K.Strand, Chairman, spoke generally as follows.

Purpose of the Meeting

To hear a statement by myself and the Acting Academic Vice-

President on the problems of Senate.

ii.

To hear from members of Senate their views- as long as they are

relevant and I intend to be the judge of how long the views of

individual senators are relevant - no motions will be in order.

iii.

To act on an urgent matter - the Search Procedures for an Academic

Vice-President.

He spoke further as follows.

Problem

The immediate problem of Senate can be stated quickly.

A number of decisions of a university-wide nature must be made soon.

ii.

These are the responsibilities of Senate.

iii.

However, Senate, to date, seemingly is unwilling to come to grips with

these issues.

Evidenc e

Referral of a number of items to faculties.

ii.

Endless procedural debates.

iii.

Adjournment while substantive issues require attention.

Possible Reasons

The presence of observers - this is no longer the case so it is no

longer relevant.

ii.

The permissive attitude by the Chairman - this has been the case in

the past, primarily because I have not wanted to cut off relevant

debate. I have now heard so much irrelevant debate, that I have

concluded that I shall be less permissive in the future.

iii.

The non-representative nature of Senate - the charge is that Senate

• is non-representative and on questions before Senate an attempt is

made to prevent action rather than to meet issues. This. issue is

not going to be resolved immediately and I do not regard it as an

excuse for inaction.

iv.

Rejection of Senate as a policy-making body in favour of Joint

Faculty - the charge is that Senate should take no action on matters

of university-wide

I wish to make one

faculties in joint

university-wide si

S }I. 14 / 4 / 69

-3 -

significance until "JointFaculty" has acted.

point

the Faculty voted that Senate, not the

meeting, should make policy on matters of

n i i can ce.

Inadequate delineation of how divergent views of individual

faculties on matters of university-wide significance can be

resolved - my point is that they are not resolved by referral

back to faculties - but need to be resolved by Senate.

There may be other possible reasons and, after the statement by the

Academic Vice-President, I shall be pleased to hear them. At this

juncture, I wish to state that it is my intention to have this Senate

as it is

structured,and the next Senate as it will be structured,become

more effective. In the discussion that will follow I ask you to address

yourself to these questions.

STATEMENT BY THE ACTING ACADEMIC VICE-PRESIDENT

R.Haering, Acting Academic Vice-President, read a prepared statement.

He indicated that the statement would be available for distribution to the

Press at the close of the meeting, if desired (this statement is attached

as Appendix A to the main Minutes).

DISCUSSION ON UNIVERSITY COVERNNT AND THE ROLE OF SENATE

The Chairman indicated he would recognize comments on the immediate problems

of Senate.

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

"that discussion be postponed until the next regular meeting."

The motion was ruled out of order and the Chairman indicated that at the

outset of the meeting he did not propose to entertain motions on the first

three items of the Agenda.

J.Conway expressed disappointment.that the meeting had been called without

senators being given a chance to see in advance the statements, with

opportunity to discuss these before the meeting. He felt that the meeting

had been called to allow the Acting President and the Acting Academic Vice-

President to spank senators. Reference was made to the last meeting and

his belief that discussions held had been significant as debate was needed on

the issues then before Senate; and his belief tnat current statements indicated

underrating of the significance of both students and Joint Faculty. He

expressed the view that the philosophy of the University cannot be determined

in the office of the Acting President orthe Acting Academic Vi

President

but only in the university community at large. He expressed disappointment

that an article in the week-end edition of "The Sun" had not led to appropriate

response from the university.

K.Burstein expressed sympathy with many of the comments made by R.Haering

but felt that there had been over-reaction. He concurred that Senate has

$.N. M/4/69

power to mdke decisions but that in discussions affecting faculty the

advice of faculties should be sought in advance. With reference to the

last meeting his vote for referral to faculties was based on the procedure

involved rather than on the substance of the item then under review. He

concurred that Senate has power but that it needs minimum essential

information before making adequate decision and expressed opposition to a

method of trial-and-error behaviour. He was opposed to the procedure of

referring items back to faculty but felt that items of the type noted should

only come to Senate-by being channelled up through faculties. lie expressed

concern that Senate often votes on things about which it has little data.

R. Haering noted that Paper S.215 had been referred to the faculties without

comment having been made by the Acting President at the last meeting.

C.Sperling stated that the Acting President's statement should have been

available before the meeting in order that senators could consider it to

determine support or opposition. He did not accept the view that because

we have an unrepresentative body in Senate* that it must be lived with, and

enquired as to what might he done. He further enquired as to why copies of

the statement by R.Haering would be provided to the Press when copies had

not been provided to Senate, and felt that the reference to Fotheringham was

inappropriate. He referred to scoffing remarks in the Vancouver newspapers

and felt that these had been in part cause for the calling of a special

meeting with over-reaction.

• Comment was made on remarks by the Acting Academic Vice-President with

respect to Robert's Rules of Order, participatory democracy, Strand's

rules, representative democracy and other items. He did not consider the

President's statement philosophical but believed that Senate had been called

to discuss inter-disciplinary boundaries which was a very serious and diffi-

cult question,and enquired as to why discussion had not first been generated

in faculties. He believed the administrators to be frustrated and that the

view was being undertaken that Senate was powerful and that this would

provide, in the eyes of the administrators, the answer but that Senate had

its own way of handling these items. He expressed concern about the emphasis

on efficiency and presented the view that Senate was not there to be

efficient or get the business done ,but to adequately develop curriculum and

deal with related matters.

D.Korbin referred to the university administration as the civil service and

that they had assembled Senate to lecture the senators. He expressed concern

at the response to the Press statements and stated that Senate looked foolish

the argument that observers prevented decisions,in view of.the fact that

there were none last week and decisions were not made, and noted that other

blames were now being made. He referred to complaints of students concerning

the structure of Senate and argued that Senate was unwilling to act with such

structure, and felt that discussion should be on Senate structure, not on

other items. He noted that administators held eight seats on Senate with

•votes,that they were appointed to implement policy ,but noted that they were

not elected or representative. He referred to gross under-representation of

students and argued that there, therefore, was not representative democracy.

Reference was made to comments by the Acting Academic Vice-President per-

taining to the situation in 1965 where there was apparently totalitarianism,

to the present situation where there was claim of participatory democracy, and

argued that until there are further student representatives there could not be

...5

$ . N.J /4/69

-5-

representative democracy. He was opposed to increasing the powers of the

•

President, was opposed to giving the administration more power with the

Chair deciding on the relevancy of issues and found the philosophy of the

Acting President and the Acting Academic Vice-President unacceptable.

W.Vidaver noted his observations of recent weeks which he had found painful

and which caused him some fear. He referred to the struggle which

Simon

Fraser University-was having to come into existence, that the fight was not

yet won, and feared that it might not be won. He expressed the opinion that

in order to achieve success, some way must be found of managing the affairs

of the university and that this had not yet been achieved. He felt that

there was some anarchy, in a non-political sense, in departments and various

groups in the university. He expressed the view that none of these groups

can, or should, have power to make decisions of the type under discussion,

but that integration must be achieved. He stated that some way must be

found of establishing a representative body to formulate goals, policies and

other important items, and that individual anarchistic tendencies would have

to be overcome to achieve this.

D.Suliivan considered the remarks of C.Sperling and D.Korbin irrelevant. He

claimed that the major problem of Senate is that of jurisdictional areas and

noted that there are few guidelines and procedures established. He expressed

the view that Senate must decide what is proper for it and what is proper to

be sent elsewhere. He noted that there must be an appropriate merging of

academic and budgetary considerations and agreed with the presentations of

the Acting President and the Acting Academic Vice-President. He stated that

•

serious problems faced Senate and felt that the Senate Committee on Procedures

should have a hard look at jurisdictional areas, and that until that problem

is resolved there would be a morass.

R.Ilarper referred to the definition of participatory democracy as defined by

R.Haering as it applies at the university and made reference to the arguments

presented by minority groups. He referred to K.Burstein's opposition to trial-

and error but argued that all organisms find necessity of use of this mechanism

until they have appropriate data to do otherwise. He stated that someone or some

group must decide on first-order approximation priorities, and concurred with

the analysis presented by R.Haering. He expressed regret at R.Haering's

decision to resign, expressed respect for him, stated that he had brought

distinction to the office of Academic Vice-President, believed that it would

be most regrettable if he were to resign and hoped that he would reconsider.

L.Boland indicated that he would refer to specific problems and noted that on

a number of occasions he had refused to enter debate on items until he had

understanding of such items - even such points as calendar items. He noted

further that Senate has been willing to make decisions without criteria but

that he had on a number of occasions argued the need for criteria, particularly

when decision is being made to establish committees. He felt that without

establishment of appropriate criteria, critical issues arose. Under such

circumstances, he felt that Robert's Rules were necessary for protection but

that if Senate were serious they would not be required. He expressed the need

for a flow-procedural system. He believed the role of committees to be impor-

•,

tant but that they were not properly used, and argued that the full Senate

cannot hope to do jobs requiring detailed consideration but that Senate must

rely on its committees to carry out-such detailed tasks. He stated that

- 6 -

14/4 /69

Senate filtered off problems without serious consideration by establishing

committees, that politics arise in the consideration of memberships on

committees and that this problem needs

be overcome, lie expressed

appreciation for such procedures as have been developed up to the present

time with reference, as an example, to the Senate Agenda Committee. lie

believed that the calendar items should first be reviewed by a committee

before presentation to Senate. lie suggested that policy proposals should be

considered by Senate on a two-readings approach. He supported-the Chairman's

- comments that the Chairman had been too lax and permissive.

S.Wong made reference to the specific comments of the Acting President. He

referred to debate on the P.S.A. issue stating that faculty members would not

debate the issue, that he had done so and had been jumped upon by Senate. He

referred to the last meeting of Senate and two items which it had been

requested be placed on the Agenda, noted that he did not support the items

but that he did indeed support putting the items on the Agenda. He stated

that Senate was held in contempt by students for a variety of reasons and

that it often deals with trivial motions when other more important items

urgently require consideration, and made reference to adjournment at midnight.

He commented on the provision for lay members on Senate, indicated that he

supported the idea but that he did not support current lay members as they

vote but do not debate. He noted that in discussion on the P.S.A. issue, he

• had suggested that the lay members sit on committees, but that they state

they are not qualified, but nevertheless they vote on issues. He noted the

comments of the Acting Academic Vice-President to the effect that the Chairman

did not have a chance to speak at the last meeting on Paper S.215,but that

the Chairman did have opportunity but chose not to speak. He referred to the

Ellis Report which he supported in principle but that he also supported sending

it back to faculties for further discussion as he did not believe that un-

democratic procedures should be used on issues requiring democratic procedures.

Ile stated that onmany occasions he had supported the view that faculties

should have full chance to put comments forth before Senate decision. He made

reference to Robert's Rules of Order, Page 5, and stated that the rules were

to provide a deliberative body with protection from itself. He stated that

when first elected to Senate, he had been told to learn Robert's Rules and

the Rules of Senate, but that the previous Chairman had often avoided rules

• and had refused to put items on the Agenda. He argued that rules are

valuable- but that recently they had been violated, and made reference to

the seating of R. Cole on Senate which had called for

•

a suspension of the

rules and not a challenge which was the procedure which had been followed.

He made reference also to frequent interruption of his speeches and his

request that order be called, but without response.

G.Shrum noted that frequent reference had been made in the discussion to the

ex-Acting Academic Vice-President and indicated he did not think this correct

in view of the fact that the resignation had not yet been accepted.

B.Funt expressed the view that Senate is gripped by a paralysis unique in

Canadian universities and that it is proper to see if-there are mechanisms

to correct this difficulty. He believed Senate was neglecting responsibilities

if it

did not act when it had power and knowledge. He believed academic

programmes and standards are suffering because of Senate's preoccupation with

debate and procedural wrangles. He considered also that there had been a

gradual erosion in Senate and noted- that earlier lay senators and deans had

participated in the debate much more frequently. He-referred to the possi-

bility of the utilization of a University Court as it exists in other

•

institutions for the possibility of debate if required. lie believed that

Senate should devote its prime attention to academic matters. He indicated

no apology for suggesting adjournment at midnight as extension of meetings

beyond that time-significantly impaired efficiency and impeded on-going.

academic progress.

K.Rieckhoff stated that he was not speaking only as an individual senator

but that he had a mandate from the Faculty of Science which had considered

the paper on academic planning that day. He expressed sympathy with the

statements of the Acting President and with the Acting Academic Vice-

President except for R.Raering's intention to resign. lie expressed objection

to the statement of G.Sperling that Senate is not here to be efficient and to

get business done. He referred to the comments of S.Wong with reference to

lay members of Senate and the fact that they did not participate in debate.

He argued that it is not necessary that all members of Senate debate on items

if adequate expressions of pros and cons have been given and there are not

new points to be stated. He felt that extension of debate in such fashion

merely prolonged the agony and that if an individual has done his job in

advance with careful thought, entry into the debate is not necessary if

discussion has been adequately covered.. He referred to Paper S.215 dealing

with academic planning and indicated that it had been considered at the

Faculty of Science meeting that day with very few comments and that the

Faculty of Science had unanimously endorsed the pacer. lie stated that he

had voted against referral of the paper back to the Faculty of Science as

he had done his job and knew that the faculty would render support. He

• claimed that this was but one example of many similar issues on which there

had been intensive debate in Senate for referral of items to faculties. He

stated that if lines of communication are kept adequately open,that Senate

could indeed make decisions. He was of the opinion that often there is no

permanent or full solution but that decisions are essential for day to day

operations, He expressed full support for the Acting President and for the

Acting Academic Vice-President.

A.MacKinnon indicated that he was disturbed by the comments of those who

suggest havoc and ruin,as much has been achieved at Simon Fraser University.

He noted that many similar questions were facing other institutions. He

concurred that Senate needs criteria to guide its actions and that there is

great need for establishment of priority of problems. He was of the view

that too much time was spent on procedures and not sufficient on policies.

He concurred with the need for as much information as possible commensurate

with the time available to deal with urgent items. He noted the necessity

of getting committees working to do their jobs and the need for Senate to

enunciate problems clearly, to provide appropriate data in order that

commit-tees could get to work. He referred to Robert's Rules of Order and

noted that it included statements indicating that the purpose of the rules

was to assist the assembly and argued that they were not provided to dominate

the assembly.

B.D'Aoust stated that he was again seeing Senate acting as usual with nice

speeches and some ideas, and enquired as to why a paper could not be prepared

for submission dealing in depth with the topic as he felt that merely speaking

did not accomplish much. He expressed agreement with the statements of the

Acting President and the Acting Academic Vice-President and concurred that

S •

- 8-

$.N.14/4/69

some of the criticisms made had validity.

consi

dee.d it essential that

Senate address itself to policy priorities.

K.Okuda stated that a number of the problems currently facing Senate had

faced departments of the university earlier including such things as non-

clear terms of reference, the treatment of committee reports cavalierly, the

introduction of frivolous or stalling motions.

He suggested that it might

be in order to have a rule that no committee report could be amended on the

floor of Senate but that the report would be returned to committees where.

necessary. He noted also that in some instances committee members who

supported certain discussions within committee and in the preparation of the

report then opposed such items when they reached the floor of Senate.. lie

considered it unfortunate that Senate seemed unwilling to accept reports from

its committees.

D.Tuck commented that the current meeting showed a sincerity of debate which

had often been lacking. He did not consider it necessary for everyone to

debate particularly if entry into the discussion would merely repeat expression

of points already made, He

considered that efficiency at a university is not

measured in budgetary or similar terms but rather in learning, teaching,

research and scholarship. He could see no necessity of having every issue a

public debate.

S.Stratton noted that often an individual senator's method of presentation

could be inhibiting a discussion and referred

to such items as sarcasm, taking

items

out of context, red herrings and misleading statements. He believed that

all should speak to the real issue at hand and should totally avoid insincerity.

A.La,chlan supported R.Haering's statement and believed that Senate could

proceed faster if the Chairman were given more discretion to guide debates.. He

suggested that Robert's Rules of Order be abandoned and that-the Chairman's

rulings should pertain.

K.Strand commented on a number of the points which had been made. He believed

that the comments on giving committees tasks without adequate criteria were.

well taken. He concurred that the statements on jurisdictional matters were

pointed. He appreciated the idea of using first and second reading on policy

items. He noted that he had left the Chair at the last meeting to talk to

Paper S.215, that he had decided against talking as there were procedural

issues, and believed that he probably should have done so. He expressed the

view that a number of the points raised were of value and considered the

discussion helpful.

L.Bolànd indicated that he wished to speak further and was reluctant to cease

the debate as he considered that further discussion could be of value to Senate.

He expressed the view that representative democracy alone is not sufficient but

that there must be effective use of the committee structure on the premise that

if the committees do their job adequately, giving pro and con arguments, then

Senate can make adequate decisions; but that if these are not given in the

paper provided by the committee, voting likely would be political. He

expressed irritation at a number of the attitudes shown on Senate and stated

that he had no wish. to be on a political body.

4. SEARCH PROCEDURES FOR AN ACADENLC VICE- SIDENT - PARER S.219,

219a (D.Tuck)

S.Wong rose on a point of order and noted that at the last meeting a

motion had been passed to table the item for the next regular meeting

and that if Robert's Rules of Order were followed, the item should not

be dealt with at this time.

Moved by D.Tuck, seconded by L.Boland,

"that the motion to postpone discussion on Paper S.219,

219a to the next regular meeting be rescinded."

MOTION PASSED

18 in favour

3 opposed

2 abstained

D.Tuck, Chairman of the committee which presented the report, commented

thereon.

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

"that Senate adopt the recommendations of the Senate Committee

on the Methods of Appointments, Responsibilities and Tenure of

Heads and Deans for the general method of appointment of an

Academic Vice-President and that this policy be recommended to

Academic

Board of Governors."

L.Boland noted that there were errors in fact in the references to Interim

Council Report and Joint Faculty voting.

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

"that Senate accept in principle the participation of students

on the Selection Committee in all future selections of an

Academic Vice-President, including this one."

Debate was undertaken and S.Wong spoke in favour of the amendment noting

that students participate on the Presidential Search Committee and that

students are affected by the position of Academic Vice-President.

G.Sperling spoke in favour of the amendment referring to inclusion of

students on the Presidential Search Committee and that similar conditions

should pertain to the two committees.

D.Tuck made reference to the Student Implementation Committee Report,

indicating the committee had considered the report and drew attention to

Page 10, Paragraph 420, in which the Student Implementation Report

recommended that the position of Academic Vice-President be abolished

before being created.

•

M.Collins expressed the view that Senate was again entering into a long

debate, that a committee had brought in its report, that an amendment had

been proposed, and that if this were considered necessary the report

should be referred back to the committee for further consideration.

- 10

D. Korbin stated that use of the argument by D.Tuck based on the Student

Implementation Committee Report was inappropriate and that under no

circumstances should students be left off the Search Committee as they are

effective.

G.Shrum spoke in favour of the amendment and interjected words of defence

of lay members. He considered it disastrous that of six lay members of

Senate only one had indicated willingness to serve again. He referred

to the contributions made by a number of the lay senators. He considered

that it would be helpful to have students serve on the Search Committee.

K.Rieckhoff noted that the mover indicated the recommendations were

following those approved by Joint Faculty, that the report had received

major consideration of the committee submitting it and that it was

following the procedures of Joint Faculty which had passed by an over-

whelming vote, and spoke against the amendment.

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

"that the previous question now be put."

NOTION PASSED

17 in favour

1 abstained

Vote was then undertaken on the amendment by S.Wong, G.Sperling.

AMENDMENT PASSED

11 in favour

10 opposed

3 abstained

Amendment was moved by R.Haering, seconded by K.Burstein,

"that the three student representatives on the Presidential

Search Committee be placed on the Search Committee for the

Academic Vice-President."

- but as S.Wong had indicated he had a further amendment to propose if the

first amendment passed, the Chairman ruled the Hacring-Burstein item Out

of order.

Amendment was moved by S.Wong, seconded by D.Korbin,

"that Senate include five students on the Acting Vice-

President Search Committee with power of veto on a majority

vote among the student senators."

(Note that in the student group a vote of three out of the

five could veto S.Wong stated that the amendment was to

apply to Item 2 of Paper S.219a).

K.Okuda spoke in opposition to the amendment noting that it stated both

numbers of students and the procedures which the committee would follow.

.11

11 -

s.N.14/4/69

G.Shrum suggested that the mover and seconder adopt the. Iaering motion,

enquired why five students would be needed, and indicated disagieement

with the proposal for veto.

S.Wong noted that the Presidential Search Committee provided fora pdwer

of veto and argued that students have a great institutional loyalty, and

said that there need not be fear of misuse.

M.Collins indicated astonishment and stated that the main concern of the

individual appointed would be with faculty not with students, but that the

item was now being discussed as a political issue.

S.Stratton enquired as to whether the question could be separated with

vote-being undertaken on the numbers of students and then on the aspect of

veto.

Moved by S.Stratton, seconded by C.Shrum,

"that the question be divided into two parts."

MOTION FAILED

6 in

favour

13 opposed

2 abstained

C.Sperling spoke in favour of the amendment and stated that the Academic

Vice-President would indeed affect students as he dealt largely in matters

dealing with curriculum. He noted that students serve on the Presidential

Search Committee and considered that there should be consistency across the

two committees.

D.Sullivan wished to give information on a point of fact and noted that

students do not have a power of veto on the Presidential Search Committee,

but that unanimous vote is required.

D.Tuck noted that Senate had before it a committee report and was again

acting as at certain previous meetings. He deplored the nature of the debate

and the tone of it.

W.Vidaver opposed the amendment and indicated that he would support the motion

which had been proposed by Haering-Burstein.

Moved by W.Vidaver, seconded by K.Burstein,

"that the previous question now be put."

MOTION PASSED

21 in favour

Vote, was then undertaken on the amendment by Wong-Korbin.

.' .

NOTION FAILED

3 in

favour

17 opposed

3 abstained

- .....

12 -

.$.M.14/4/69

Moved by R..Tiaering, seconded by C.Shrum,

"that the three student representatives on the Presidential

Search Committee be placed on the Search Committee for the

Academic Vice-President."

R.Haering stated that this would be for future selections and that it could

fit into items No.1 or 2 or 3 and that he would now specify Item 3.

D.Korbin argued the motion out of order. D.Tuck enquired as to whether Senate

was going to deal with the matter tonight or whether it was going to refer the

matter back to committee. Discussion became involved and it was decided that

the three items of Paper S.219a would be considered ad seriatim.

Moved by G.Sperling, seconded by K.Burstein,

"that the items of Paper S.219a be considered ad seriatim, 1,

2, 3."

MOTION CARRIED

12 in favour

6 abstained

Moved by K.Burstein, seconded byG.Sperling,

"that Item No.1 be tabled."

MOTION FAILED

2 in favour

10 opposed

2 abstained

L.Boland referred to error in Item 1 in that Interim Council had made a

recommendation to Joint Faculty and that Joint Faculty had passed the

recommendation.

Amendment to Item 1 was moved by L.Boland, seconded by W.Vidaver,

"to delete and change Section 1 to read 'that a Selection Committee

as recommended to Senate by faculties in joint session be used in

the selection of an Academic Vice-President. The composition of

this ccmmittee shall be the (Acting) President, the three Deans of

the Faculties, one representative elected by each faculty, and two

faculty members elected at large.'

AMENDMENT PASSED

9 in favour

7 opposed -.

2 abstained

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

"that all action taken on this Agenda, Item 4, Paper S.219a,. at

•$.N.14/4/69

-13-

this meeting up to this time be rescinded."

MOTION FAILED

9 in favour

8 opposed

4 abstained

(two-thirds

required)

Motion was made by R.Haering, seconded by K.Rieckhoff,

"that we rescind Robert's Rules for the remainder of this

meeting and all future meetings until this body becomes

convinced that we cannot operate more smoothly under the

system which we advocated earlier."

but the motion was not accepted by the Chairman.

Amendment was moved to Item 1 by L.Boland, seconded by B.D'Aoust,

"that we accept three students elected by the Student

Society on the committee."

D.Korbin moved an amendment to the amendment,

"that there be nine students."

but the Chairman ruled the amendment to the amendment out of order on

the ground that if the amendment which would include three students were

defeated, then D.Korbin could make amendment for nine students. The ruling

of the Chairman was challenged by D.Korbin, seconded by J.Conway; vote on

the ruling was undertaken with 17 in favour of the Chair, 4 opposed, and

the ruling of the Chair was upheld.

D.Korbin then spoke to the amendment,in opposition, indicating opposition

to tokenism, to the rules being used, and argued that representative

democracy needs to be proportional representation.

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

"that the previous question now be put."

MOTION CARRIED

16 in

favour

1 opposed

Vote was undertaken on the Boland-D.'Aoust amendment to.include three

students on the committee.

M1END1ENT FAILED

favour

9 opposed

3 abstained

Amendment to Item 1'was moved by D.Korbin, seconded by G.Sperling,

S.M.14/4/69

-14 -

'that there be added the words 'plus nine students elected by

the Student Society'."

AMENDMENT FAILED

4 in favour

17 opposed

1 abstained

Amendment to Item 1 was moved by K.Rieckhoff, seconded by A.Lachlan,

"that one student elected by the Student Society be accepted

on the committee."

AMENDMENT FAILED

6 in

favour

8 opposed

8 abstained

Amendment to Item 1 was moved by D.Sullivan, seconded by A.Lachlan,

"that two students be accepted on the committee."

D.Sullivan gave notice of motion that if the above amendment passed that

this would be implemented on all committees.

AMENDMENT FAILED

4 in favour

10 opposed

8 abstained

Amendment to Item was moved by K.Okuda, seconded by L.Boland,

"that three student representatives be added to the committee,

one to be the President of the Student Council and two to be

elected by the Student Society at large."

D.Korbin opposed the amendment stating that it was undemocratic and that

students had the right to select who would represent them on committees.

AMENDMENT FAILED

7 in

favour

10 opposed

3 abstained

Amendment to Item 1 was moved by K.Rieckhoff, seconded by D.Sullivan,

"that there be three students, one the President of the Student

Society and two students to be elected by the Student Society,

to act in a consultative capacity to the Search Committee."

A priority motion was introduced by S.Wong.

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

S.M.14/4/69

-15--

"that the meeting

now adjourn."

D.Tuck asked the Chairman

what he would

do if the meeting adjourned

without solution to the

problem and

the Chairman stated

that he would

make recommendations to

the Board of

Governors and take

responsibility'

therefor.

Vote was undertaken on

the motion to

adjourn.

NOTION PASSED

11 in favour

8 opposed

1 abstained

The meeting adjourned at 12 midnight.

H. N. Evans,

Secretary.