13 in favor

DRAFT

UNTIL APPROVED BY SENATE

MINUTES OF MEETING OF SENATE OF SIMON FRASER UNIVERSITY

HELD MONDAY, DECEMBER 1, 1969, FACULTY LOUNGE, 7:30 P.M.

OPEN SESSION

PRESENT:

Strand, K. T.

Baird, D. A.

Burstein, K. R.

Campbell, M. J.

Caple, K. P.

Carlson, R. L.

Claridge, R. W.

Funt, B. L.

Hamilton, W. M.

Hean, A.F.C.

Hutchinson, J. F.

Kenward, J. K.

Kirchner, G.

Korbin, D.

Lachlan, A. H.

MacKinnon, A. R.

Munro, J. N.

Rogow, R.

Sayre, J.

Srivastava, L. N.

Stratton, S. T.

Sullivan, D. H.

Tuck, D. C.

Turnbull, A. L.

Vidaver, W. E.

Walkley, J.

Wassermann, Mrs. S.

Webster, J. N.

Evans, H. N.

Kelsey, I. B.

Barboza, Miss J.

Norsworthy, Mrs. R.

ABSENT:

Cole, R. E.

Collins, N.

Drache, Mrs. S.

Freiman, Mrs. L.

Lebowitz, N. A.

McDougall, A. H.

McLean, C. H.

Perry, G. N.

Chairman

Secretary

Recording Secretary

Norman Wickstrom, President of the Student Society, was in attendance

from 7:30 p.m.. until 7:45 p.m.

E^]

1. APPROVAL OF AGENDA

- 2 -

S.M. 1/12/69

Moved by M. Campbell, seconded by K. Burstein,

"that Paper S.260 - Procedures and Responsibilities

to Senate of Senate Committees - be placed on the

agenda."

The Chairman stated that the Senate Agenda Committee had

deferred consideration of the item because the person who had

originated the paper was not going to be present at the Senate

meeting of December 1, 1969.

Question was called, and a vote taken.

MOTION FAILED.

8 in favor

9 opposed

Moved by L. Srivastava, seconded by W. Vidaver,

"that the agenda be approved."

MOTION CARRIED.

At this point Norman Wickstrom, President of the Student Society,

was called upon to speak to the membership. He gave an outline of the

activities of the Society, expressed concern on two recent negative

actions of Senate pertaining to abeyance on academic probation and

suspension, and on the seating of the Student Society President on

Senate, and suggested possible revision of the Universities Act to allow

the seating on Senate of the President of the Student Society.

2. APPROVAL OF MINUTES OF OPEN SESSION OF NOVEMBER 10, 1969

L. Srivastava, referring to paragraph 6 on page 12 of the minutes,

stated that the body that handles applications for credit should read

"Admissions Board" and not "Academic Board." K. Burstein argued that as

the terms of reference approved by Senate in the Ellis Report did not

provide for assessment of this kind of credit by the Admissions Board the

recording of the minutes was accurate.

The Chairman declared the minutes approved as distributed subject

to change when the transcript is checked. The transcript on this

particular point was checked and a revision was made to clarify the

situation on transferability of courses. The revision now reads,

-0

- 3 -

S.M. 1/12/69

"L. Srivastava enquired as to what body would now be

concerned with transferability of courses and what

body had performed this task before the Ellis Report.

H. Evans indicated that there were two aspects. Prior

to the Ellis Report it had been the Senate Committee on

Undergraduate Admissions and Standings and, more recently,

the Acting Academic Vice-President's Implementation

Committee. Temporarily it would be the Vice-President's

Implementation Committee, and on a long term basis the

Academic Board, which would advise on university level

transferable courses. The Academic Vice-President stated

that some time in the future the Admissions Board or some

other agency would have to carry out the work of identifying

transfer credit.."

BUSINESS ARISING FROM THE MINUTES

The Chairman stated that his paper outlining the use of a

Point of Personal Privilege as outlined in Robert's Rules of Order

had been circulated to Senators as promised.

REPORT OF CHAIRMAN

The Chairman noted that a Financial Report on the University

(Paper S.292) had been distributed to Senators for information. The

Chairman also had circulated to Senatorsa paper on statistical data

in connection with undergraduate registrations and courses which

developed as a by-product of the resolutions passed by Senate as a

result of the strike within the PSA Department. This paper has been

aacieto these minutes as Appendix A.

Paper S.302 Departmental Review

L. Srivastava introduced this paper and stated that inasmuch as

the procedures for departmental reviews had not been specified in the

original document of the same title, Paper S.224, criteria had been

devised by the Deans of the Faculties and three separate proposals

were presented for Senate consideration. The Chairman noted that the

Board of Governors would have to be the final authority on the

criteria submitted to Senate and accepted by it, whether these criteria

were standardized or diversified from Faculty to Faculty.

Considerable discussion evolved in connection with Section IV,

paragraph 2 of Paper S.224, which reads:

"At the appropriate time the President shall request Senate

to establish an ad hoc Senate committee, referred to hereafter

- 4 -

S.M. 1/12/69

•

as a Review Committee, under the chairmanship of the Dean of

the Faculty involved. This committee shall consist of the

Dean, the Academic Vice-President, and two members of the

Faculty concerned, nominated by the Faculty and approved by

Senate. The latter two members of Faculty should not be from

the Department under review."

It was noted that on a motion by K. Burstein, seconded by S. Drache,

during the meeting of Senate of August 4, 1969, "that no action be

taken with respect to Section IV, paragraph 2 of Paper S.224 until

Senate had had an opportunity to discuss the procedures to be followed

by the Review Committee referred to in this Section."

Now moved by K. Burstein, seconded by D. Sullivan,

"that paragraph 2, Section IV of Paper S.224,

and paragraphs 3 and 4 (i.e. all items), dealing.

with the Departmental Review Committee be

rescinded."

D. . Tuck objected to this action as the paper had been passed by Senate

virtually its entirety and no new evidence has been revealed since

the original submission. He felt that the departments should be free

•

to select their own chairmen. D. Sullivan warned Senate that the

Departments in the Faculty of Arts were prepared to resist review as

proposed in S.224, and he felt that the whole question of review should

be reopened for clearer details and acceptable criteria.

Moved by J. Munro, seconded by M. Campbell,

"that the question now be put."

MOTION ON PREVIOUS

QUESTION CARRIED.

Question was called on the motion to rescind paragraph 2,

Section IV of Paper S.224 and related items, and a vote taken.

MOTION TO RESCIND

FAILED

3 in favor

Debate continued on the required criteria and structure of

Review Committees, and it was finally agreed that consideration

should be based on either standardization or diversity of proposals

as a point of principle.

SMove

- 5 -

S.M. 1/12/69

by L. Srivastava, seconded by G. Kirchner,

"that Senate accept in principle diversity of

proposals with regard to the papers submitted

by the Faculty of Arts, the Faculty of Education

and the Faculty of Science on approaches to

review of Departments."

Debate followed, the question was called, and a vote taken.

MOTION CARRIED

13 in favor

10 opposed

Moved by L. Srivastava, seconded by J. Walkley,

"that Senate consider separately each of the

Faculty proposals on the matter of Departmental

Review, as outlined in Paper S.302, on a 'Yes-No'

basis."

It was pointed out that a suspension of Robert's Rules of

Order was involved here, and therefore a 2/3 majority vote would

be required.

Question was called and a vote taken.

MOTION CARRIED

16 in favor

5 opposed

In an interpretation of the, last sentence of paragraph 2,

Section IV, of Paper S.224, which deals with the composition of

Departmental Review Committees, the Chairman ruled that "should

not" in this case means that it is recommended that the two

faculty members on the Review Committee not be from the Department

under' review, but that they could be. His ruling was challenged

by A. Turnbull, seconded by K. Burstein. A vote was taken and the

ruling was not sustained, with 6 in favor of the ruling and 18

opposed. The effect of the vote meant that the two faculty members

on a Departmental Review Committee shall not be members of the

Department under review.

Moved by D. Sullivan, seconded by J. Walkley,

"that the Faculty of Arts paper as contained

in Paper S.302 dealing with a review of

Departments within the Faculty of Arts be

accepted."

-6-

S.M. 1/12/69

Considerable debate followed on the review procedures to be

followed within the Faculty of Arts with W. Hamilton and D. Sullivan

taking differing views on who should be influencing and deciding

policy in these matters of review, who was competent to judge the

soundness of various departments and faculty and how this judgment

was to be made, with D. Sullivan arguing that the words "well-

regarded" were unclear.

Question was called on the Faculty of Arts submission and a

vote taken.

MOTION FAILED

4 in favor

16 opposed

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

"that the Acting Academic Vice-President, without

further consultation with the Deans, bring forward

to Senate a paper on Departmental Review Committees,

consolidated on the basis of the papers before it,

and the debate tonight."

It was agreed that the paper could show some diversity, but that

there were also-common points. Question was called on the motion

to refer-this matter to the Acting Academic Vice-President, and a

vote was taken.

MOTION TO REFER

CARRIED

12 in favor

10 opposed

Paper S.303 - Calendar Preparation

L. Srivastava introduced this paper and pointed out that at

this time the rationale for calendar preparation does not pertain

to the Graduate Calendar. The preparation of the calendar can be

delegated to the Registrar's Office, but will involve constant

participation by the various departments. The following change

was added by L. Srivastava to page 2, following item 2 (ii, b)

before the last paragraph of Item 2:

"It is recognized that as a result of approval of new

courses the entries for a particular semester's offering

may vary from one Course Guide to the next. For instance,

entries for 70-3 published in the Summer 1970 Course

Guide may show additions to but not deletions from the

entries published in the Spring 1970 Course Guide."

•

- 7 -

S.M. 1/12/69

Moved by L. Srivastava, seconded by W. Vidaver,

"that Senate accept the method for calendar

preparation as outlined in Paper S.303 and

agree that courses approved by Senate shall

not be offered for at least two complete

semesters following such approval by Senate."

Question was called, and a vote taken.

MOTION CARRIED

Paper S.304 - Pre-Registration

L. Srivastava outlined a number of administrative and

operational problems that would be involved in instituting a

system of pre-registration, stated that there would be a

minimum lag period of approximately eight months before a

computerized system could be incorporated, and stated that a

system would not be introduced until these problems could be

adequately overcome.

Moved by L. Srivastava, seconded by S. Wassermann,

"that Senate agree with the principle of pre-

registration."

MOTION CARRIED

Moved by L. Srivastava, seconded by J. Webster,

"that courses approved by Senate shall not be

offered for at least two complete semesters

following such approval by Senate. Note:-

Since this policy is a major departure from

existing policies, courses and programs approved

between now and the May 1970 meeting of Senate will

not be subject to therestriction in item 2 above

provided at least one semester has elapsed between

the time of approval by Senate and the actual offer-

ings of the courses and/or programs."

L. Srivastava said that it is hoped that the computerized

system of pre-registration can be implemented by

- 8 -

S.M. 1/12/69

summer of 1970 but noted that this might not be possible. He added

a clause to page 4, item IX, "1970, or failing that Fall 1970." J.

Sayre read a motion passed by the Student Society to the effect that

the Society endorses the principle of computerized pre-registration.

Question was called on the motion to change the present policy

on when courses and programs may be offered, and a vote was taken,

MOTION CARRIED

It was pointed

out that at least three to four weeks are required

forprintingof a Course Guide, but that material approved prior to

January 31 would be published in the guide for Summer 1970. S.

Stratton, supported by A. Lachlan, requested that it be recorded in

the minutes that pre-registration does not apply to graduate students.

Following a good deal of discussion on the problems facing

departments in attempting to meet the January 31 deadline for

producing data for the publication of the Course Guide, it was

moved by A. Lachlan, seconded by K. Burstein,

"that there be no attempt to pre-register any

students for the Summer Semester 1970."

Considerable discussion followed. K. Burstein asked a series

of questions of the Registrar who indicated that there was considerable

doubt that a system of pre-registration could be introduced for the

Summer 70-2, and emphasized the necessity of completing current data

processing program development. He noted that a number of policy items

likely would require Senate attention. L. Srivastava made it clear that

pre-registration would not take place until problems were overcome,

albeit after Fall 70-3, although efforts would be made for Summer 70-2.

Question was called, and a vote taken.

MOTION FAILED

6 in favor

16 opposed

Paper S.305 - Ellis Implementation Committee Report

i) College Transfer List - Paper S.305a

This list was circulated for the information of Senators, and

no objections were raised. It was noted that data on General

Elective Credit had been awaited for some time from the Faculty of

Arts and was still lacking.

9 in favor

5 opposed

- 9 -

S.M. 1/12/69

ii) Proposed Constitutions and Procedures for Senate Undergraduate

Admissions Board and Senate Appeals Board -

Proposal for the Establishment of the Senate Undergraduate

Admissions Board and the Senate Appeals Board - Paper S.305b,

Report of Senate Committee on Undergraduate Admissions and

Standings - Paper S.293 (Paper S.305 as explanation).

L. Srivastava stated that these papers had been drawn up in

accordance with the recommendations contained in the Ellis Report

with the exception of the recommendation contained in Section 2.3

of that Report..

Moved by L. Srivastava, seconded by S. Stratton,

"that Section 2.3, found on page 20 of the Ellis

Report, be deleted."

The Chairman explained that policy is to be established only

by Senate and the Senate Undergraduate Admissions Board and that

administration of policy as so defined is the responsibility'of the

Registrar. In individual cases policy will be made on the individual

basis by the Senate Undergraduate Admissions Board and all decisions

will be final. The Senate Appeals Board, for an individual, decides

if the policy has been correctly interpreted by the Registrar's Office.

The Appeals Board is not a policy making body, and therefore does not

determine whether a policy is right, but only if the policy was applied.

Question was called for deletion of Section 2.3 of the Ellis

Report, and a vote was taken.

MOTION TO DELETE CARRIED

13 in favor

5 opposed

Moved by L. Srivastava, seconded by D. Sullivan,

"that Senate approve the section of Paper S.305b

pertaining to the establishment of a Senate

Undergraduate Admissions Board, considering only

the procedures and operation, deferring membership

at the moment."

J. Sayre objected to examining the proposal in parts and said

that he would like to deal with the matter as a whole. D. Sullivan

argued in favor of division.

Question on examining the proposal in divisions was called,

and a vote taken.

MOTION CARRIED

- 10 -

S.M. 1/12/69.

D. Korbin suggested that general discussion and comments on

the total paper were in order, but the Chairman ruled that by

voting to examine the proposal in sections this was precluded.

J. Sayre seconded the challenge of D. Korbin on the ruling of the

Chair, and a vote was taken. The ruling of the Chair was upheld

with 11 in favor of the ruling and 3 opposed.

Moved by D. Korbin, seconded by J. Kenward,

"that the sentence 'Decisions by the SUAB shall

be final' be deleted from the first paragraph

2 of Paper S.305b."

On a privileged motion it was moved by L. Funt, seconded by

D. Sullivan,

"that Senate adjourn and reconvene in a

week's time."

After assurance by the Registrar that there were no items

on the closed agenda of high priority, the question was called,

and a vote taken.

MOTION TO ADJOURN CARRIED

13 in favor

4 opposed

5. ADJOURNMENT

The meeting adjourned at 12:20 a.m.

H. N. Evans

Secretary