.
[I:
DRAFT UNTIL APPROVE]) BY
SENATE
MINUTES OF THE SPECIAL MEETING
OF SENATE OF SIMON FRASER
UNIVERSITY HELD MONDA', JULY 14, 1969, FACULTY LOUNGE, 7:30 P.M.
PRESENT:
Strand, K.T.
Chairman
Baird, D.A.
Barlow, J.S.
Burstein, K.R.
Campbell, N.J.
Caple, K.P.
Cola, R.E.
D'Aoust, B.R.
Drache, Mrs.
S.
Freiman,
Hutchinson, J.F.
Kemiard, J.K.
Korb:Ln, D.
Lachlan, A.H.
Lebowitz, N. A.
McDougall, A, H.
Rieckhof f, K. E.
Sayre, J.
Srivastava, L. N.
Stratton, S.
Sullivan, D.H.
Turnbull, A.L.
Wassermami, Mrs. S.
Evans, 11. M.
Secretary
Neakin, D.
Wright,
MrsL.
Recording Secretary
ABSENT:
Brown,
R'. (3.
Carlson, R.L.
Claridge, R.W.
Collins, N.
Hamilton, W.M.
I-lean, A.F.C.
McLean., C. H.
Perry, G.N.
Stone, A.L.
Tuck, D.G.
%a1k3ey, J.
B.L.Funt and A.R,MacKinnon wer:e represented respectively by J.S.Berlow
and S.Stratton.
N.Lincoin, Head of the Department: of Modern Languages, was in attendance
for part: of the meeting dealing wiLh Calendar changes in the Dpartrne
of Modern Languages.
4
/
$.M.14/7/69
4
4.1
-2--
1. APPROVAL OF AGENDA
Moved by L.Srivastava, seconded by D.Sullivan,
"that Senate approve the Agenda."
.
MOTION CARRIED
2. SELECTED UNFINISHED BUSINESS FROM THE MEETING OF JULY 7. 1969
A. Senate Committee on Graduate Studies
Reorganization of Graduate
Studies - Paper 5.245 and
S.245a -
For action
Moved by L.Srivastava, seconded by D.Baird,
"that: Senate adopt Paper S.245 as policy."
L.Srivastava indicated that opportunity had been provided for major
discussion of these papers, particularly following discussion of the
Harper Report at a meeting of the Senate Committee on Graduate Studies
held in October. M.Lebowitz. enquired as to whether or not the final
report now coming before Senate had indeed gone back to Faculties, and
L.Srivastava indicated that discussion had been made available at two
levels, mainly through the Deans of Faculties and the representatives
on the Committee of Graduate Studies through the Head's
ea.d
'
of each depart-
ment or the departments delegates, but that final referral back to
Faculties had not been made.
Senator Lebowitz made reference to a paper which he had distributed at
the commencement of the meeting to all members of Senate with the
paper attached to these Minutes as Appendix A. L.Srivastava indicated
that it had not been considered desirable that graduate students sit
on I)epartmeutal Graduate Studies Committees as they could then be in
a position where they had to review the work of other students at that
level and that this was not considered desirable. M.LebowiLz and others
disagreed with this point of view in that graduate students could con-
tribute substantively to discussions at that level but, nevertheless,
be restricted from consideration, of the work of individual graduate
students.
Moved by M.Lebowitz, seconded by D.Korbin,
"that Senate postpone discussion until such time as discussion
of the paper has been held in the Faculty of Arts."
Discussion was then undertaken on the propriety of postponement with
individuals speaking for and against the motion.
Vote on the motion to postpone was undertaken.
.
MOTION TO POSTPONE FAILED
5 in favour
12 opposed
2 abstained
$.M.1417169
-3-
.
K,Burstein enquired as to why there was difference between the total numbers
of senators in attendance at the meeting, and the total number of votes
•
arrived at through addition of those in favour, those opposed and those who
had abstained. The Chairman indicated that it was not necessary that an
individual Indicate by show of hands any one of the three votes called by
the Chair, but that in order to overcome this difficulty in future in
general he would require only those voting in favour and those voting in
opposition.
Further discussion followed with individuals supporting and opposing the
motion, and with technical questions being raised by M.Campbell as to
whether or not the Dean of Graduate Studies could indeed be elected by the
Senate Committee on Graduate Studies. The Chairman indicated that such an
election would constitute a recommendation to Senate and, if approved by
Senate, would then constitute a recommendation to the Board of Governors.
Moved by K.Burstein, seconded by J.Kenward,
"that adoption of Item 3b of Paper IGS-1 be postponed until quali-
fications for the Dean of Graduate Studies be forwarded to
Senate by the Senate Committee on Graduate Studies."
MOTION TO POSTPONE FAILED
7 in favour
13 opposed
K.Burstein requested that his vote in favour of the motion be recorded.
Further debate ensued on the question of participation of graduate students
with a number of individuals speaking in favour of graduate students on the
committee and a number of individuals opposed.
Moved by A.Lachlan, seconded by M.Campbell,
"that Paper S.245, Item ld,he amended to read 'At least two-thirds
of the members of the Departmental Graduate Studies Committee must
be persons who have demonstrated high scholastic ability with
experience in supervising graduate work and must not be candidates
for higher degrees'."
Considerable debate followed.
J.F.Hutchinson gave notice of motion to the effect that members of the
committee who were themselves candidates for degrees should not participate
in the decisions judging others directly who are candidates for degrees.
Further discussion followed. K.Burstein expressed the view that the amendment
violated the
intention of the motion and requested that the Chair rule the
motion out: of order. K. Strand ruled that the motion was in order and
challenge of the ruling was made by K.Burstein, seconded by K.Rieckhoff.
Vote was undertaken on the challenge, with 14 supporting the ruling of the
Chair,
4
opposed to the ruling,and the ruling of the Chair was upheld.
U
S.M. I//7/69
- 4 -
*,A
"S^,tl,
Following further discussion, vote on the amendment by A.Lachlan, i.
Hutchinson was then undertaken.
AMENDMENT FAILED
9 in favour
12 opposed
.M. Campbell again referred to item 3b, with particular reference
to
"election" of a Dean by the Committee and following discussion, the
Academic Vice-President accepted change
in Item
3b, line
1 with the
word
to
be replaced by the
word f!recoiendedU"t.
0
S °fu
3
e
o' '
c-
4
'.
cic
.._'N:
9CX L)3...
I-
L\Q$\W
L&LQ
CL-
lç '
1t3c
.0
(t
c
(
c_c'.$Q
&sZ&Q Q.
O" \
Q Q
.4c\('.-&c?
\
Amendment to Item I was made y K.Burstein, seconded by S.St atton,
"that Item le be added, as follows 'Departments may at their
discretion and in a manner to be designated by them allow
graduate students to participate
in
the decisions of the
Departmental Graduate Studies Committee, with
the
proviso
that
such graduate students may not participate
J r. deliber
ations with respect
to
individual graduate studeits."
40
The Chairman ruled the motion out of order on
argument that it contravened
the intent of the
original
document. The ruling
of
the Chair
was challenged
by
D.Korbin, seconded by M.Lebowitz, and vote was undertaken with 12 in
favour of
the
Chair, 6 opposed to the ruling of the Chair, and the ruling
of the Chair was uphcld
Debate continued and M.Lebowitz enquired as to whether Item id
would
require that faculty members working on degrees would have to stop super.
vising
graduate students, to
which the Acting Academic Vice-President
responded "No".
Discussion continued and
amendment was made to Page 3, Item 1, by
M.Lehowitz, seconded by L. Srivastava,
"that the word 'oversee' he replaced by the word 'execute'."
MOTION CARRIED
Moved by J .Hutchinson. seconded by K .Rieckhoff,
"that the previous question now be put."
N0TJ:0N ON PR
E
VIOUS
QUESTION PASSED
12 in favour
•
4 opposed
Vote was then undertaken on Paper S.245 as amended
MOTION CARRIED
13 in favour
8 opposed
..
S.M. 14/7/69
-5-
(Paper S.245 as amerded is attached).
Moved by K.Burstein, seconded by S.Wassertr.ann,
"that the Senate Committee on Graduate Studies bring forward
to Senate recommendations on the desirable qualifications
for a Dean of Graduate Studies."
MOTION CARRIED
B.Department
-
of Modern Languages - Calendar Chanes - Paper S.247
Moved by D.Sullivan, seconded by K.Rieckhoff,
"that Paper S.247 be adopted."
D.Sullivan requested that N.Lincoln be seated with him in order to
provide information as needed by Senate, and the request was granted.
D.Sullivan then outlined the history of the paper and stressed that
there had been much revision to ensure that the paper agreed with the
views of the Faculty. He indicated that the submission involved no
commitment for Faculty and resources beyond those presently held.
Attention was drawn to Page 2, Paragraph 2, second sentence, and it was
agreed that the sentence would be reworded to read "Students who received
their secondary education in a French, German, Russian or Spanish-speaking
W
country will not normally be admitted to a language course in their
native tongue between 100 and 300 inclusive".
Discussion on the paper continued and it was noted that registrations in
French were up, but that registrations in Spanish, German and Russian
were down, and it was hoped that a change could be made in this trend.
N.Lincoln indicated that in a number of courses three semester hours
credit had been given for as much as 8 hours of work but that in some
Courses it was now proposed that
four
semester hours credit be given, for
4 or 5 hours of work. A number of questions were raised on minor technical
features and it was indicated these would be clarified in the final form
of the paper.
Vote was then undertaken on the motion, with minor changes noted.
NOTION CARRIED
C. Graduate Coursesin Chemistry -- Paper S.249
Moved by J.Barlo, seconded by L.Srivastava,
"that Senate approve Paper S.249 covering graduate courses
in Chemistry."
.
MOTION CARRIED
...6
S.N.14/7/69
•
.
•
-6-
D. Unassigned Credit -- Paper S.250, J.Sayre
J.Sayre indicated that the paper was an attempt to clarify the meaning of
"Unassigned Credit" as used in the Ellis Report. He indicated-further,
that he wished to withdraw Item 4 on Page 2, and renumber Item 5 as 4, and
Item 6 as 5, with reference in Item 6 then being to points 2 and 3.
Moved by J.Sayre, seconded by D.Sullivan,
"that Senate adopt Paper S.250 asmodified."
It was suggested that Section 2 be altered so that courses will be accepted
as general elective credits in the three'Faculties, and M.Campbell proposed
amendment to delete the last two lines in Section 1, all of Section 2 and
the other parts of the paper where reference is made to Section 2, but
these changes were not adopted.
Vote on the main motion was undertaken.
MOTION CARRIED
E. Academic Planning- Paper S.215, S.215a, S.215b, S.215c
Moved by K.Rieckhoff, seconded by S.Wassermann,
"that Senate adopt Paper S.215 in principle."
D.Sullivan enquired as to how the paper could be adopted in principle as
apart from practice and made reference to the Paper S.215b which had been
submitted from the Faculty of Arts as a preliminary paper. He indicated
that the Faculty of Arts was of the opinion that more data was needed and
review required.
Moved by M.Lebowitz, seconded by D.Sullivan,
"that Senate adjourn."
MOTION FAILED
4 in favour
8 opposed
K.Rieckhoff indicated that when the paper was first presented to Senate it
had been argued that it should be placed before the Faculties,and that if
the Faculty of Arts had not had sufficient discussion on the paper this was
deplorable. He was of the opinion that departments or Faculty want final
say on interdisciplinary problems and that this would not resolve the
problems, but that Senate could attempt to do this by hearing proposals
and agreeing to institution of programs.
M.Lebowitz requested that discussion on the paper be ruled out of order as
S
the original conditions that comments be received from the Faculties had
not been met, and noted the preliminary report of the Faculty of Arts.
K
The
Q
'
co -
eci----
c'._\ qc--
'L
S.M. 14/7/69
-7-,
4-&-t
./
iç
• Chairman ruled
received. The
D.Korbin; vote
supporting the
the discussion in order, as views of the Faculties had been
ruling of the Chair was challenged by M.Lebowitz, seconded by.
was undertaken and the ruling of the Chair was upheld with 8
Chair and 3 opposed.
D.Sullivan stated that the paper was before the Faculty of Arts Planning
Committee and when that committee had completed its deliberations, the
paper would go to the Faculty of Arts for consideration.
K.Strand indicated that he would leave the Chair. in order that he could
speak to his paper, and L.Srivastava, Acting Academic Vice-President, under-
took the Chair.
K.Strand stated that the paper had been presented to Senate in March so that
ideas. could be heard and drew attention to the covering memorandum which
indicated that debate and analysis had been requested, but that Senate had
referred the paper to Faculties without significant debate and that,
regrettably, he had not commented on the paper at that meeting. He drew
attention to three main principles to which reference was made in the paper,
namely that in the matter of growth there need be distinction between on-
going programs and new programs, that a system of priority academic planning
was envisaged rather than implemental growth on all levels, and that there
is a need for a channel to Senate for ideas of an interdisciplinary nature.
Discussion continued and M.Carnpbell supported the paper but enquired as to
the nature of conflicts. K.Strand indicated that if the principle of
priority planning was adopted, approval of a program would not constitute
its implementation nor necessarily its priority at that time. Support
for the paper was expressed by J.Sayre who hoped that a mechanism for
priorities would be established at a "University" level or if not at that
level, then at the Faculty level, but not at the Departmental level. He
also believed that there should be opportunity for representation as
broadly as possible across the University. K.Burstein indicated that for
a number of months he had emphasized the necessity for a procedure for
having items of a University-wide nature reviewed and moved forward, but
that at present there were no adequate procedures. He suggested that the
fact that Senate had certain powers should not necessarily mean that Senate
-. would use the power, but that consultation and reason were important,with
clear indication needed of the role of individual members of Faculty,
Departments, Faculty and Senate, with known channels for communication and
inter-movement of items. He requested that the Senate Committee on Rules
and Procedures give consideration to this matter.
S.Drache suggested that the University needed to be set as a top priority
and that she considered it desirable that the matter be extensively discussed
in Committee of the Whole.
K.Srand indicated that if the paper ere approved in principle, the three
major principles to which he had made reference would be those which were
being adopted.
Vote on the motion was undertaken.
MOTION CARRIED
S . M.14 /7 / 69
MM
/Ly
.
F. Faculty of Science - Program Priorities, Paper S.229; Computing Science -
Paper S.229a; Biochemistry - Paper S.229b
•
J.Barlow reviewed relevant features of the papers and pointed out that they
gave an outline of what is involved in program priorities in principle.
Moved by D.Sullivan, seconded by K.Burstein,
•
that Paper S.229, 229a, 229b, be received by Senate as informa-
tional papers, subject to discussion which may be helpful to the
•
Faculty of Science and to be sent to the Faculty."
K.Jtieckhoff indicated that as the papers had been submitted to, Senate some-
time ago, there should be no further delay and that there had been opportunity
for feedback earlier. The Chairman indicated that he believed the Faculty of
•
Science should be commended for its promptness in submitting the papers and
noted the need for a planning cycle.
He emphasized that the order in which
programs may be approved by Senate would have no bearing in terms of their
•
placement on academic priority listing for implementation purposes. One
•
member argued that there was no procedure for dealing with a paper passed in
principle. K.Rieckhoff submitted that if there were passage in principle,
this would indicate that Senate accepted the program as academically sound,
•
but that the decision as to when or how the program might be introduced need
not necessarily be known and that the development of such procedures could
follow later. There was evidence of some support and some opposition to
• :
this point of view.
Summarizing the debate, the Chairman said that approval in principle would
be a viable action for Senate to.take. Unfortunately, such action had
been 'abused historically within the University as it often had been equated
•
with authorization for implementation. The opponents to this view state
that approval in principle indicates acceptance that a program is academically
sound but that this is not an indication of authority for implementation nor
of the priority level at which such program might be placed.
Debate continued and suggestion was made that the paper go -to the. University's
new Academic Planner but the Chairman stated this was not in order.
Moved by M.Lebowitz, seconded by D.Sullivan,
"that Senate postpone discussion on Paper S.229 until such time
•
as the procedures related to Paper S.215 are developed and
approved and that this item then receive' early attention."
A discussion followed with indication by one member that it would not be
appropriate to keep the Faculty of Science in a vacuum not knowing where it
•
stood, and another member recommending that the paper be accepted in
principle as the first new program to be implemented when the procedure for
.so-doing was set up.
•
• •
Moved by J.Barlow, seconded by D.Sullivan,
•
•
"that the previous question
'
now he put."
•
••
MOTION CARRIED
NWIJ
S.M.14/7/69
9-
t.
Vote was then undertaken on the motion to'postpone.
S
.
MOTION TO POSTPONE CARRIED.
G. Gradings for Withdrawing Students -
Paper S.230, S.230a, K.Burstein
Moved by K.Burstein, seconded by D.Sullivan,
"that Paper S.230a be approved."
0
The Chairman indicated there had been some discussion by the Senate Agenda
Committee about the lack of support papers but that it had been decided to
include the item. K.Burstein stated that it had been his intention to
close a loophole whereby students who felt they were going to fail a course
could withdraw from that course. without their performance being indicated.
D.Korbin indicated that
the motion should be tabled but support was not
obtained for this view. A member supported the motion as it would have the
effect of relaxing rules on Withdrawal as students could withdraw very
shortly before examinations,but the procedure would be fair as the student's
performance to date of withdrawal would be indicated. J.Hutchinson indicated
strong oppoã
.
tjonto ...the motion and recommended substitute wording to the
effect that students should not be permitted to withdraw from a course after
the first six weeks except on medical grounds.
Moved by M.Campbell, seconded by D.Sullivan,
•
"that the paper be referred back to Senator Burstein for further
documentation.'.'
M.Campbell, who requested his comments be noted in the Minutes,. stated that
Senate had no knowledge of how adoption of the paper would affect students
and that it should be presented in a more refined form with further infoma-
tion
k
n its anticipated
MaVnl^
ON^
_on R4
Vote on
t e
in
MOTION TO
REFER FAILED
7 in favour
10 opposed
Moved by J.Barlow, seconded by DSullivan,
"that the previous question novi be put."
MOTION ON PREVIOUS QUESTION
CARRIED
Vote was then undertaken on the main motion.
MAIN
MOTION FAILED
H. Starting Time of Senate Meetings - Paper S.230, S.230b, K.Bursteiri
Moved by K.Burstein, seconded by D.Sullivan,
"that Senate approve Paper S.230b."
• 10
•
.S.M.14/7169
-
Moved by K.Rieckhoff, seconded by M.Campbell,
"that this matter be referred to the Rules-Committee for con-
sideration and
•
Amendment to the motion to refer was made by D.Sullivan, seconded by
•
L.Freiman,
"that there be added at the end of the motion the following
•
•.
words 'and that they report back at the next meeting'."
• AMENDMENT FAILED
Vote was then undertaken on the motion to refer.
MOTION TO REFER FAILED
Moved by K.Rieckhoff, seconded by M.Campbell,
"that Senate now adjourn."
MOTION TO ADJOURN FAILED
Vote was then undertaken on the main motion,
"that Senate approve Paper S.230b."
MAIN MOTION FAILED
The meeting adjourned at 12:40 a.m.
H. N. Evans
Secretary
2d
4&-
VERBATIM CONTS AS TRANSCRIBED FROM THE
TAPE RECORDING OF THE SNATE MfETING OF JULY 14, 1969
COMMENTS RELATED TO LAST PARAGRAPH, PACE 60FTHE MINUTES OF JULY 14,1969
Lebowitz: I would like to ask the Chair to rule discussion on this motion
out of order on the grounds that the original conditions that Senate estab-
lished April 8 that comments should be received from the faculties have not
been fulfilled and in the absence of a rescinding motion discuss-ton is out
of order.
Strand: The language as I see it here is for the three Faculties for
comments and comments were received from these three Faculties.
Lebowitz: If that will be the way in which the Chair interprets it then
I believe that the Chair will be establishing a precedent by which faculty
committees can, that the view of faculty committees can be substituted at
any time for the view of faculties when faculty views are requested and
if the Chair wishes to make that ruling
'
that is fine and I think that
should be indicated in the Senate minutes because I believe that will
introduce an interesting legal precedent.
-
Strand: I will respond. I don't know that the interpretation in perpetuity
neCd be placed upon the comments on the word for comment and I would rule
it out of order. I wouldn't place that interpretation on the langujtge.
Senator Lebowitz - I assume that you wish to challenge.
Lebowitz: I wish to challenge your ruling. (Seconded byKorbin)
Sullivan: I would ask that the previous speaker's remarks be struck from
the minutes as being inaccurate and begging an assumption of fact which
was not established and I would like to speak on this.
Strand: Why don't you just speak to the point without being struck.
Sullivan: All right, I would like to comment very pointed then. Professor
Lebowitz unfortunately doesn't always read or listen very carefully. I
said that this was a preliminary report because if he will read what has
been said in the submission from the Faculty of Arts, this matter is before
the Faculty of Arts planning committee. All matters in the Faculty of Arts
that either, under his terms or anyone else's, wind up being disoissed and
voted on by referendum or wherever in general go to the relevant committees
first. When the academic planning committee of the Faculty of Arts
finishes its deliberations on this paper, though it may not be by the time
limits that this Senate appreciates, than it will go to the faculty in
general. Until that time this is a preliminary report and I wish Professor
Lebowitz would read more carefully before he makes erroneous assumptions.
11
