fl
DRAFT UNTIL APPROVED BY SENATE
MINUTES OF A SPECIAL MEETING OF THE SENATE OF SIMON FRASER UNIVERSITY
?
HELD MONDAY, JUNE 16, 1969 IN THE FACULTY LOUNGE AT 7:30 P.M.
Present: ?
Strand, K. T.
?
Chairman
Baird, D. A.
Barlow, •J. S.
Brown, R. C.
Burstein, K. R.
Campbell, N. J.
Carlson, R. L.
Claridge, R. W.
Cole, R. E.
D'Aoust, B. R.
Drache, S.
Freiman, L.
Hutchinson, J. F.
Kenward, J. K.
Korbin, D.
Lachlan, A.
Lebowitz,
M. A.
Rieckhoff, K. E.
Sayre, J.
Srivastava, L. N.
Stone, A. L.
Sullivan, D. H.
Walkley, J.
Evans, H. M. ?
Secretary
Kelsey, I. B.
Mackie, M.
Neakin, D.
Wright,
Barboza,
L.
J.
E.)
)
?
Recording Secretaries
Absent: Caple, K. P.
Collins, N.
Funt, B. L.
Hamilton, W. N.
Hean, A.F.C.
MacKinnon, A. R.
McDougall, A. H.
McLean, C. H.
Perry, G. N.
Stratton, S. T.
Tuck, D. G.
Turnbull, A. L.
Wassermann, S.
Is
- 2 -
?
S.M. 16/6/69.
The Chairman called the meeting to order. Copies of Motion J-2
and Amendment to J-1 were distributed. The Chairman said motions
would be taken in the following order: Paper 3; if 3 failed, Paper J-2;
if 3-2 failed, Paper 3-1 and the amendment to J-1 brought forward from
the floor.
Dr. Strand. introduced Mrs. Drache to Senate. He noted that al-
thought Dr. Stone had been present at the previous meeting, he had not
been introduced, and the Chair wished to introduce Dr. Stone.
Moved by K. Rieckhoff, seconded by L. Srivastava,
"That Senator Stone be seated."
MOTION CARRIED
PAPER S.240-12 - Referring to Recommendation 20 of the Ellis Report
Motion 3
Introducing Motion 3, K. Burstein said his concern was that Senate
could be in the position of passing policies and delegating implementa-
tion with the result that the policies could be radically changed by
the implementing body. This matter required a great deal of discussion
and Immediate implementation would be unfair to students.
The Chairman stopped discussion here to discover which Senators
wished to speak for or against the motion. At this point, A. Lachlan
asked how the Registrar, H. Evans, felt about approval of 3-1.
H. Evans said that his personal view was approval or rejection of
3-1 would give rise to problems. Generally, implementation of the Ellis
Report - given understanding that it could not be expected to work per-
fectly In every case - would give rise to a lesser set of problems than
those encountered without implementation.
Opposing the motion not to implement the Report by the Fall of
1969, a Senator made the point that "fine print" on detailed aspects
could not be made in advance and that it would have to be evolved on.
the basis of practical experience. He said that the Academic Board
would provide recommendations, not instructions. Departments were
merely being asked to provide more detailed views on what courses they
choose to accept.
Miss Mackie was asked for views on the feasibility of implementa-
tion of the Ellis recommendations for the September semester. She
said' she felt it was not possible to implement the entire Ellis Report
for the fall semester.
The argument was put forward that a cornerstone of the Ellis
.
?
Report was, that the Academic Board should be the crediting agency on
extra-University courses and It. was not possible for that body to
commence this function in time for the fall semester, 1969.
- 3 -
?
S.M. 16/6/69
On the subject of how fall semester applications should be handled
without approval of the Ellis Report recommendations being implemented
for that time, the suggestion was made that departments could provide
• ?
the accreditation lists and where the departments lack competence in a
subject, UBC could be approached for advice.The further point was
made that if this system worked as an interim measure, then there was
no reason why it should not be used as the, permanent system, obviating
the need to obtain the services of the Academic Board.
A Senator, speaking in favor of Notion J-1, said it was imperative
that students at present entering colleges should know which of the
courses, they were contemplating would be
. acceptable for transfer credit.
The interim procedures of J-1 could guide admissions for the fall
semester.
K. Burstein interposed that Motion J was not intended to preclude
communication between colleges and the University with regard to trans-
fer credit. Senator Burstein clOsed 'debate on Motion J by asking how
Senate proposed to implement the Report if Motion J failed.
Moved by K. Burstein, seconded by K. Rieckhoff,
"That Motion J be adopted."
MOTION FAILED
3 in favor
. ?
17 opposed
Moved by K. Burstein, seconded byK. Rieckhoff,
"That Motion J-2 be adopted."
MOTION FAILED
8 in favor'
18 opposed
Speaking for Motion J-1, L. Srivastava said the main merit of
this motion was that it set up criteria to be used as framework
until the Academic Board commenced its proposed functiOn. it was not
the intention of the Ellis Report that there should be any hastiness
about implementation of its recommendations.
L.
Srivastava said that he would accept the amendment to J-1 sub-
mitted from the floor. The amendment was accepted also by the
seconder to the main motion, J. Walkley. These amendments were in-
corporated in J-1 for discussion.
A request by J. Hutchinson for permission to place another amend-
ment before Senate was refused by the Chair.
Replying to a question, L. Srivastava said the University would
only be required to give credit for courses submitted by applicants
- 4 -
?
S.M. 16/6/69
if that course had been designated acceptable by the Academic Board
or the interim body carrying out the intended function of the Board.
In subsequent discussion, J-1 was criticized on the grounds
that it had been indicated that departments had not always cooperated
over accreditation with the Registrar's office and this motion did not
put pressure on them to do so in future. This problem could be solved
if departments were made responsible for their decisions to Senate.
J. Hutchinson proposed an amendment to J-l.
Moved by J. Hutchinson, seconded by J. Sayre,
"That J-1, Part 1, be amended to read: 'that
until such time as the Academic Board performs
its function (as delineated in Part B and
covered in Recommendations 2, 3, 4), to prepare
on advice of the liaison committees in the
disciplines where appropriate a list of courses
offered by Junior and Regional Colleges in
British Columbia and to decide which of them
are University level courses."
A Senator expressed the wish that if the accreditation system
could be achieved without the Academic Board's involvement, this
should be done.
L. Srivastava asked for this amendment to be changed to read,
"to prepare a list of courses in consultation with the liaison corn-
mittees," rather than "on the advice of the liaison committees."
J. Hutchinson rejected this alteration on the grounds that he did not
have faith in the strength of the word "consultation."
Questioners asked J. Hutchinson how binding the advice of the
liaison, committees was intended to .
be under his amendment. He
answered that his intent was that decisions would be made at liaison
committee levels, and therefore the advice would be binding.
The principle of putting such power in the hands of the liaison
committees was criticized on the grounds that decisions would be made
by majority vote. Agreeing with this, a Senator made the point that
the Senate representation on the liaison committees is a minor factor.
On a point of information, J. Hutchinson stated that the liaison
committees consisted of representatives from the universities and thE
junior colleges. He did not feel that voting would be influenced by
institutional politics.
The argument was heard that Simon Fraser University may have
difficulty getting information from the liaison coiümittees during
summer, due to its trimester system.
- 5 -
?
S.M. 16/6/69
Speaking against adoption of the amendment, a Senator argued
that it could delay implementation of critical policies by not
giving criteria to students entering the University in the coming
fall semester.
Discussion ensued on the possibility of advice, by definition,
being binding and J. Hutchinson said that he used the word in the
sense of "advise and consent."
Moved by M. Lebowitz, seconded by D.Sullivan,
"That the amendment moved by J. Hutchinson
be amended by adding the word. 'binding' in
front of the word 'advice."
A Senator said the proposed amendments depended on the existence
of liaison committees for each discipline.
J. Hutchinson said rejection of his amendment would amount to
rejection of much of the Ellis Report. He also made the point that
the Academic Board on any specific day may not contain a representa-
tive from the discipline affected.
Question was called on the amendment to the amendment, and a
vote taken.
AMENDMENT TO THE
AMENDMENT FAILED
8 in favor
13 opposed
Question was called on the Hutchinson amendment, and a vote
taken.
AMENDMENT CARRIED
15 in favor
8 opposed
.1 abstained
The Chairman said that the main motion J-1, with the earlier
incorporated changes and with the amendment just approved, would be
considered. Replying to a question from the Chair, M. Lebowitz said
the intent of the motion was that if difficulties arise in the
proposed system, then the matter will be brought before Senate.
Discussion followed on the term "unassigned credit." Senate
agreed generally that this was a misleading term.
Moved by J. Sayre, seconded by K. Burstein,
• ?
"That J-1 amendment, 2(b), be amended by
deletion Of the words 'and unassigned credit.'."
J. Sayre said he was asking that a list be received that clearly
states where unassigned credit is not given. The students should know
this.
- 6 - ?
S.M. 16/6/69
H. Evans said that when a student submits documentation it is not
necessarily clear what area he will eventually be studying in. At.
present different faculties treat outside courses in different ways
and it seemed unfair that a student should lose credit by changing
departments.
K. Burstein asked if the movers of the lotion to delete
"unassigned credit" would consent to the word "electives" iii the place
of "unassigned credit." J. Sayre consented, but the Chairman refused
permission for the substitution.
A suggestion from the floor was that the problem could be solved
by a "final degree check" between three and six months before gradua-
tion, when the major objective of the student was clear. The Registrar
would implement this by sending the student a form, setting out the
remaining requirements for the degree.
Opinions were expressed that the amendment failed to accomplish
anything.
Asked to summarize and clarify the intent of the amendment, J.
Sayre said the motion was to delete the words "unassigned credit" and
replace these words with "and electives."
Moved by J. Sayre, seconded by K. Burstein,
"That J-1 amendment be amended to read .' 2(b) To
obtain from academic departments and faculties
an indication of those University level courses
they do not consider acceptable for course
equivalent, unassigned credit in a subject area,
and electives."
Asked whether the original motion, J-1, referred to unassigned
credit in a subject area or unassigned credit, the Chairman explained
that the original motion applied to the latter.
B. D'Aoust addressed the chair on a point of order. He said
that an amendment of wording and intent had been accepted by the
Chairman. He added that Senate was unprepared for such a thing and
it should not have been accepted. J. Walkley asked that the amendment
be tabled.
The Chairman said it was perhaps true that he should have ruled
the amendment out of order, but he would not do so.
B. .D'Aoust challenged the ruling. J. Campbell seconded the
challenge.
Question was called to support the ruling of the Chair, and a
. ?
vote taken.
MOTION FAILED
AMENDMENT OUT OF
ORDER
- 7 -
?
S.M. 16/6/69
J. Sayre gave notice that he intended to bring the amendment
before Senate at the following meeting.
K.
Burstein moved that Section 1 of J-1, as amended by Senate,
should be further amended to end "from the discipline and departments
involved."
J. HutchinsOn requested the Chair to rule K. Burstein's motion
out of order on the grounds that the departments were already repre-
sented in the disciplines. The Chairman granted the request and K.
Burstein's motion was ruled out of order.
S. Drache suggested another amendment to J-1 on the grounds that
Senate was doing the work of the Academic Vice-President.
Moved by S. Drache, seconded by K. Bursteln,
"That J-1 be amended to read, 'That Senate
charge the Academic Vice-President or a
committee(s) nominated by him with imple-
mentation of the Ellis Report as speedily
as possible. Until such time as a particular
section is ready for implementation, Senate
instruct the Registrar to process applications
for admission under the present regulations,
. ? provided in so doing there is no obvious
conflict with the intent and principles of
the Ellis Report"
M. Lebowitz asked for this motion to be ruled out of order on the
grounds that It contradicted the unamended motion and support of the
amendment could be indicated by voting against the motion. The
Chairman agreed and S. Drache's motion was ruled out of order.
On a point of information, K. Burstein asked that the procedures
would be to determine transfer credit. Replying, L. Srivastava said
that there would be consultation with the disciplinary committees and
faculty.
A. Stone asked to amend J-1 so that the last paragraph would read,
"Until such time as a particular section is ready for Implementation,
Senate Instruct the Registrar to process applications for admission
under the present regulations." He said his suggestion was conditional
on the meeting not being adjourned until the matter was handled.
The Chairman ruled A. Stone's suggestion out of order.
Moved by L. Freiman, seconded by J. Sayre,
"That the previous question be put."
MOTION CARRIED
15 in favor
6 opposed
1 abstained
- 8 -
?
S.M. 16/6/69
Question was called on Motion J-1 as amended, and a vote taken.
MOTION CARRIED
18 in favor
3 opposed
1 abstained
K. Burstein asked that his opposing vote be recorded.
These motions resulted in the following as related to Recommenda-
tion 20 of the Report:-
"That Senate charge the Academic Vice-President or a
committee(s) nominated by him with implementation of
the Ellis Report as speedily as possible. In so doing,
the Academic Vice-President or the committee(s) be
asked:
1.
?
that until such time as the academic, Board performs
its function (as delineated in Part B and covered'
In Recommendations 2, 3, 4), to prepare on the advice
of the liaison committees in the disciplines where
appropriate a list of courses offered by Junior and
Regional Colleges in B.C. and to decide which of them
are University level courses;
2.a) to obtain from academic departments and
'
faculties an
indication of those University level courses which
they consider SFU course equivalent, unassigned credit
in a subject area, and unassigned credit;
b)
to obtain from academic departments and faculties an
indication of 'those University level courses which
they do not consider acceptable for course equivalent,
unassigned credit In a subject area, and unassigned
credit.
c) to obtain an explanation from academic departments
and faculties for their decisions In respect to those
University level courses considered not acceptable.
d)
to make all information received in accordance with
items 2(a) - 2(c) available to Senate.
3.
to ensure that all necessary fine print is written for
each section or subsection in Part E (Admissions and
Transfer);
4.
To implement the Report In stages if necessary, as each
part becomes complete under #3 and adequate personnel
Is available in the Registrar's Office to ensure its
implementation.
Until such time as a particular section is ready for implem-
tation, Senate instruct the Registrar to' process applications
?
- 9 -
?
S.M. 16/6/69
for admission under the present regulations, provided
in so doing there
18
no. obvious conflict with the
intent and principles of the Ellis Report."
RECOMMENDATION 23
Senate then passed to RecOmmendation 23 of the Ellis Report,
"That Senate make a speedy decision on the question of retroactivity."
The Chairman said a motion of "no retroactivity" should be debated
and if this failed Senate could pass to discussion of what degree of
retroactivity was favored.
Moved by D. Sullivan, èeconded by K. Burstein,
"That there be no retroactivity and that the
Implementation of any section of the motion
just passed apply only at the time of intro-
düctIon with no retroactivity whatsoever."
B. D'Aoust suggested that Senate go into committee of thewhole
and all members state their views, the discussion to end with the
Chairman.
After considerable discussion about 'a point of order on this
matter, it was moved by B. D'Aoust, seconded by J.' Kenward,
"That Senate go into committee of the whole,
debate this Issue and' end the debate with the
Chairman's remarks."
D. Sullivan asked the Chair to rule this motion out of order
as there was already a motion on the floor. The Chair ruled that
the D'Aoust motion was In order.
Question was called on the D'Aoust motion, and a vote taken.
MOTION
.
FAILED
7 in favor
10 opposed
It was then stated by the Chairman that discussion would follow
on the main motion of no retroactivity and that Senators wishing to
speak for or against should so indicate.
D. Korbin asked that Senate hear the Registrar's opinion on the
recommendation first. The Chairman agreed to this.
Moved by J. Sayre, seconded by L. Srivastava,
"That each speaker on the motion observe a
• ?
time limit of two minutes."
MOTION CARRIED
.
- 10 -
?
S.M. 16/6/69
H. Evans said the intent of the motion (that new policies should
not be applied retroactively) was that there would be no retroactivity
where a stuIent had already been admitted. However, if an application
was processed before the effective date of implementation but the
student had not yet entered the University, such cases would be con-
sidered. Implementation would be effective from the Intake date, not
the application date. Replying to questions,
H.
Evans said the motion
under debate was the implementation of a) on Page 45 of the Ellis
Report and that, as he understood It, the motion was that implementa-
tion should run from a particular term and cover all the intake for
that term.
Agreeing with the motion, o Senator said that retroactivity would
not be feasible and would create more problems than it would rectify.
In reply .to aSenatôr who asked if adoption of c) on Page 45 of
the Ellis Report ("New policies should be applied retroactively to all
students who petition for review and who can demonstrate that a review,
if successful, could shorten their degree program") would be an admini-
strative problem,
H.
Evans said that the recommendation in ) would be
desirable if machinery, cOuld be set up for implementing it. It was a.
most difficult problem, as a student who Intended to apply for Admission
n
to Simon Fraser University could have been advised to take a particular
course under the pre-Ellis system and could find on admission that the
advice had been Incorrect under the Ellis Report recommendations.
A Senator made the point that the situation could arise where a
student was dismissed from the University, while the recommendation d)
in the Ellis Report did not put a student in jeopardy.
M. Campbell gave notice that he intended, to move adoption of c)
after the debate on Di Sullivan's "no retroactivity" motion.
Several Senators voiced views that adoption of retroactivity was
dangerous; one said it may set a precedent that would result in depart-
ments giving credit in one instance and not in another.
Disagreeing, another Senator said that just because retroactivity
would be difficult to implement, that did not mean that it should not
be attempted.
Senate heard the argument that if retroactivity were applied to
credits, it could also apply to degrees.
Speaking against the motion, a Senator said that if it could be
argued that students already admitted to the University knew where
they stood, there could have been no point in' undertaking the,Ellis
Report. Recommendation c) of the Ellis Report did not hurt any
students and would help many. Agreeing with this viewpoint, another
Senator said it was a principle in law that where a law was changed,
the new terms were applied to those who would benefit from them but
not those penalized by them.
- 11 -
?
S.M. 16/6/69
One Senator said that the question should be examined in the light
of how it will directly affect the University - adoption of any policy
could result in another sit-In. The problem should be presented to
the students to
gain their opinions.
Question was called on the "no retroactivity" motion, and a vote
taken.
MOTION FAILED
11 in favor
11 opposed
0 abstained
J. Sayre asked to move that Senate consider c) on Page 45 of the
Ellis Report. The Chairman said that the question of retroactivity
turned
on.Implementation
and it would be premature to
.
act on implementa-
tion at the meeting. He allowed J. Sayre's motion, however.
On a point of order, R. BrOwn said that M. Campbell had already
?
given notice of motion. M. Campbell then moved that the meeting adjourn.
Moved by M. Campbell, seconded by J. Walkley,
"That the meeting adjourn."
• D. Korbin said the Chair had erred by not recognizing the notice
of motion given earlier by M. Campbell and which had now been reduced
to a move to adjourn. The Chair agreed with this view and disallowed
N. Campbell's motion to adjourn.
Moved by N. Campbell, seconded by J. Kenward,
"That c) on Page 45 of the Ellis Report: 'New
policies, should be applied retroactively to
all students who petition for review and who
can demonstrate that a review, if successful,
could shorten their degree program' be adopted."
On a point of order,. D. Sullivan asked to make a procedural motion,
but the Chair refused to recognize this.
Moved by K. Rieckhoff, seconded by K. Burstein,
"That the meeting now adjourn."
MOTION TO ADJOURN
CARRIED
12 in favor
7 opposed
The meeting adjourned at 11:20 p.m.
H. M. Evans
Secretary
