DRAFT UNTIL APPROVED BY SENATE
MINUTES OF SPECIAL MEETING OF SENATE OF SIMON FRASER
UNIVERSITY HELD MONDAY, JANUARY 26, 1970,
FACULTY LOUNGE, 7:30 P.M.
OPEN SESSION
?
PRESENT:
?
Strand, K. T.
?
Chairman
Burstein, K. R.
Carlson, R. L.
Cole, R. E.
Funt, B. L.
Hamilton, W. M.
Hutchinson, J. F.
Kenward, J. K.
Kirchner, G.
Korbin, D. G.
Lachlan, A. H.
Lebowitz, M. A.
Rogow, R.
Sayre, J.
Srivastava, L. M.
Stratton, S. T.
Sullivan, D. H.
S ?
Turnbull, A. L.
Vidaver, W. E.
Walkley, J.
Wassermann, Mrs. S.
Webster, J. M.
Evans, H. M.
?
Secretary
Barboza, Miss J.
?
Recording Secretary
Kooman, Miss S.
?
Recording Secretary
?
ABSENT: ?
Baird, D. A.
Brown, R. C.
Campbell, M. J.
Caple, K. P.
Claridge, R. W.
Collins, M.
Drache, Mrs. S.
Freiman, Mrs. L.
Hean, A. F. C
McDougall, A.
McLean, C. R.
Perry, G. N.
The meeting was called to continue with the Agenda for the Open Session of
Senate following the meeting of January 12, 1970, at which Items 1, 2 and 3
of the Open Agenda had been completed.
-
2
-4^
S.M. 26/1/70
0
1. UNFINISHED BUSINESS FROM AGENDA OF DECEMBER 1, 1969, CONTINUING THROUGH
DECEMBER 8, 1969, JANUARY 12, 1970, AND JANUARY 26, 1970
a) Proposed Constitutions and Procedures for Senate Undergraduate
Admissions Board and Senate Appeals Board (including 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; Report of
the Acting Academic Vice-President - Paper S.308)
The Secretary was requested to indicate the actions which had been
taken up to the present time in the present situation. He drew
attention to Paper S.305b (Sayre), to Paper S.293 (Senate Committee
on Undergraduate Admissions and Standings) and to Paper S.308
(Acting Academic Vice-President). At earlier meetings there had been
discussion on division of the paper into four parts with general
consensus that this be done. Senate had voted upon the two major
parts of Paper S.305b, with changes, pertaining to (i) The procedures
and operation of the Senate Undergraduate Admissions Board and (ii) The
membership of the Senate Undergraduate Admissions Board. He noted that
major change had been made in the membership as originally set forth in
Paper S.305b with substitution of the membership as suggested in Paper
S.293 but drew attention to Page 16 of the Minutes of December 8 noting
that the final question on which vote had been taken related only to
the numbers and types of members but not to the other items of S.293 on
•
?
membership. Paper S.308 suggested a change and there still remained
the matter of the Senate Appeals Board.
Discussion was undertaken on the membership of the Senate Undergraduate
Admissions Board.
Moved by L.Srivastava, seconded by G.Kirchner,
"that the constitution of the Senate Undergraduate Admissions
Board as outlined in Paper S.308 be adopted by Senate, and
replace that previously approved on December 8."
Considerable discussion followed and vote was undertaken.
MOTION CARRIED
12 in favour
5 opposed
The Acting Academic Vice-President indicated that procedures and
operation and membership pertaining to the Senate Undergraduate
Admissions Board had now been approved but that the "Purpose" on
Paper S.305b had not been approved.
Moved by L.Srivastava, seconded by G.Kirchner,
S ?
"that Page 1 of Paper S.305b outlining the purpose of the
Senate Undergraduate Admissions Board be approved."
1.
- 3 -
?
S.M. 26/1/70
—2
It was suggested that in Line 4, Paragraph 1, under "Purpose" the
word 'elaborate' be deleted and as there was no objection this was
accepted.
Vote was then undertaken on the motion covering "Purpose."
MOTION CARRIED
Attention was then turned to the section of Paper S.305b pertaining
to the Senate Appeals Board, and following some discussion it was
agreed that the body would proceed ad seriatim with review.
K.Burstein argued that by decisions made earlier there was no need
for the Senate Appeals Board and that such body would be in conflict
with earlier decisions of Senate and that discussion should be ruled
out of order, but the argument was not accepted by the Chair.
It was then moved by A.Turnbull, seconded by B.Funt, that Page 3 of
Paper S.305b pertaining to 'Purpose' of the Senate Appeals Board be
approved - but K.Burstein indicated he wished to challenge the ruling
of the Chair on his argument. The Chairman reviewed for Senate the
nature of the argument which claimed that discussion of the Senate
Appeals Board was irrelevant because of earlier decisions of Senate
and amendments made in the earlier portions of Paper S.305b. He
called for a vote on the challenge. Vote was undertaken with 9 in
favour of the Chair and 7 opposed.
is
Discussion followed and difficulties arose.
Moved by B.Funt, seconded by D.Sullivan,
"that Paper S.305b be tabled until a report is received
from the Registrar outlining the mechanisms and sub-
mechanisms which are contained in Paper S.305b."
MOTION CARRIED
12 in favour
5 opposed
b) Reports of Committees
i) Senate Committee on Graduate Studies - Reorganization of Graduate
Studies - Paper S.294
Moved by L.Srivastava, seconded by D.Sullivan,
"that Item id of Paper S.245, earlier approved by Senate
be rescinded."
MOTION CARRIED
SL.Srivastava spoke to Paper S.294 and the motion which had been
made as outlined in that paper by Ramilton/Koepke to which he
- 4 -
?
S.M. 26/1/70
tee
wished to make changes before presenting the formal motion to
Senate. Specifically the first paragraph of the motion would be
changed to read "Members of Departmental Graduate Studies
Committees must be members of Faculty who have demonstrated high
scholastic ability with experience in supervising graduate work
and must not be candidates for higher degrees...
Moved by L.Srivastava, seconded by D.Sullivan,
"that with the changes noted the motion of Paper S.294
be approved and be inserted to replace the former
Item id of Paper S.245."
Discussion was undertaken and it was agreed that when consideration
was being given the four prime items outlined in Paper S.294, the
Departmental Graduate Studies Committee would consist only of qualified
faculty members as defined in the preliminary statement and that
this meant that others would not be present, and could neither vote
nor participate in discussions on such items.
Debate continued.
Moved by J.Hutchinson, seconded by J.Walkley,
"that this Paper S.294 be referred back to the Senate
Committee on Graduate Studies for rewording."
0
?
MOTION FAILED
Amendment was then proposed by M.Lebowitz through substitute motion
as follows:
Moved by M.Lebowitz, seconded by L.Srivastava,
"that the original motion of Paper S.294 be approved by
Senate and substituted for the former Item id of Paper
S.245."
MOTION CARRIED
Amendment was moved by M.Lebowitz, seconded by D.Sullivan,
"that in the last paragraph the words 'as defined in the
preliminary statement' be deleted and replaced with the
words 'who have demonstrated high scholastic ability
with experience in supervising graduate work and must
not be candidates for higher degrees.???
AMENDMENT CARRIED
NOTE
The motion as finally passed, to replace the former Item id of
Paper S.245 reads as follows:
-Ld
-
5 -
?
S.M. 26/1/70
"At least 50% of the members of Departmental Graduate
. ?
Studies Committees must be persons who have demon-
strated high scholastic ability with experience in
supervising graduate work and must not be candidates
for higher degrees.
The Departmental Graduate Studies Committee is charged
specifically with:
i)
Admission of graduate students.
ii)
Appointment of supervisory committees.
iii)
Evaluation of the progress of individual graduate
students.
iv)
Provision of information on the above matters to
appropriate persons in accordance with general
administrative procedures developed by the Senate
Committee on Graduate Studies.
The composition of the Departmental Graduate Studies
Committee on the above matters will consist only of
faculty members who have demonstrated high scholastic
ability with experience in supervising graduate work and
must not be candidates for higher degrees. On other
matters the committee may include graduate students and
other faculty members up to a maximum of 50% of the
committee."
J.Walkley requested that copies of the paper as finally passed be
sent out to all members and it was agreed that this be done.
ii) Senate Committee on Graduate Studies - Requirements to Continue
in Graduate Studies - Pa
p
ers S.295. S.295a
Moved by L.Srivastava, seconded by D.Sullivan,
"that Paper S.295 be approved."
Considerable debate was undertaken. S.Stratton wished to know the
implementation date and how far back the effect would go. J.Walkley
was not satisfied that a demand of 3.0 on outside courses was
appropriate. L.Srivastava pointed out that it was somewhat more
stringent to fulfill qualifications to remain in graduate studies
than to fulfill the requirements for the degree but that there was
a parallelism with the undergraduate requirements.
Amendment was moved by A.Lachlan, seconded by K.Burstein,
"that in Item 2(i) all words following the first two
sentences,beginning with 'This information ---' be
deleted."
Ia ?
A.Lachlan felt that the process was too complicated and wished
...6
- 6 - ?
S.M. 26/1/70
simplification. L . Srvastava opposed and indicated that the purpose
• was to ensure that there was knowledge as to \hat students were
doing and that the appropriate responsibil:: in to students were
carried out. A number of individuals
p oLi Ir and against the
amendment.
Vote on the amendment was undertaken.
AMENDMENT FAILED
5 in favour
10 opposed
S.Stratton again indicated his concern with the implementation date
and L.Srivastava, the Acting Academic Vice-President, indicated that
the matter of the date for implementation would be referred back
to the Senate Committee on Graduate Studies for report for the next
meeting of Senate.
Vote on the main motion was undertaken (non-inclusive of a date of
implementation).
MOTION CARRIED
iii) Senate Committee on Graduate Studies - Extension of Calendar Dates -
Paper S.296
0 ?
This paper was withdrawn.
2. REPORT OF CHAIRMAN - DEPARTMENTAL REVIEW - PAPER S.309
L.Srivastava suggested that there be informal discussion following which the
paper would be withdrawn if there were major disagreements, but otherwise
would be left for a Yes/No vote, but D.Sullivan objected.
Moved by L.Srivastava, seconded by G.Kirchner,
ti
t ha t
Paper S.309, related to Departmental Review, be adopted.
D.Sullivan indicated that he had raised objections before, that he was pleased
to see a number of improvements, but that there were certain specific aspects
about which he was concerned. It was hoped that there would be an administrative
review only. He noted that under Senate ruling, members of the Review Committee
could not be from the department under reviewbut that the Dean was required to
include evidence of competence of two faculty members in the subject area of
the department under review and that this could present difficulties in certain
fields. He stated that the Chairman of departments in Arts were not opposed to
an academic review but were opposed to a review tied to the choice of a
Chairman and were also concerned with the kind of review. He drew attention to
the nature of review proposed for graduate studies. He considered that the
proposals would represent in large measure a ritual only and wcuicl not do a
good job and that the item should be rejected until the job could be done well.
W.HamilLton drew attention to the comments of D.Sullivan, indicated that a
number of decisions had been made earlier by Senate and that the debate should
- 7 - ?
S.M. 26/1/70
be short in view of those decisions. K. Burstein disagreed that a number
of decisions had been made earlier, submitted that the procedures which
were being followed resulted from decisions made at a much earlier time
under different circumstances and that administrative officers should
carry Out a number of these functions.
K. Strand summarized the situation for Senate expressing the view that
Paper S.224, which had been earlier approved, attempts to achieve two
goals with one mechanism and that this presents difficulties. However,
Senate should either accept the current proposal through Paper S.309 or
re-look at the total matter.
D. Sullivan thought it would be better to re-examine the whole matter
as some of the conditions under which Paper S.224 had been generated
and approved were no longer germane.
?
He did not believe that review
needed to be tied to the chairmanship selection. M. Lebowitz outlined
a number of alternatives available to Senate. B. Funt thought that
S.309 was workable and could be of assistance in conjunction with S.224
although S.224 was not entirely satisfactory.
Moved by J. Sayre, seconded by K. Burstein,
"that Item IV, Page 3 of Paper S.309 be deleted."
. ?
K. Burstein spoke and requested that his comments be recorded in the
Minutes. He requested that the D'Aoust motion, made in conjunction
with paper S.224, be read and this was done by the Chairman.
"Moved by B. D'Aoust, seconded by K. Burstein, that
'because 1) goodwill for a policy or a department is not
easily come by but can easily be lost, and
2) the greater probability of objectivity and
competence should help to avoid the nurturing
of bad will,
moved, in principle,
that where a department's academic soundness is seriously
questioned, and whenever feasible, that outside authorities
within the department's general field of competence be
called in to assess its soundness.'
MOTION CARRIED"
K. Burstein stated that, in view of
motions were passed and the Review
functioning of a department that at
be to call in an outside committee.
was correct and K. Strand responded
the D'Aoust motion, if the current
ommittee finds reason to doubt the
that point the normal procedure will
He enquired of the Chairman if this
in the affirmative.
4,4i
4J
-
8 -
?
S.M. 26/1/70
-Discussion was undertaken on the meaning and intent of Itenc IV of Page 3.
J. Hutchinson wished to know whether or not Item IV provided an avenue
for external review of a department if it was ascertained that this was
required or whether or not it presented a block to such review. L. Srivastava
expressed the opinion that if the Review Committee considered external
review required, that it should draw this to the attention of Senate.
J. Sayre indicated that he wished to withdraw his motion, but the seconder
was opposed.
Moved by J. Kenward, seconded by B. Funt,
"that the previous question now be put."
MOTION ON PREVIOUS
QUESTION CARRIED
11 in favour
2 opposed
Vote was then undertaken on the Sayre/Burstein amendment.
AMENDMENT FAILED
Moved by J. Kenward, seconded by B. Funt,
"that the previous question on the main motion now be put."
MOTION CARRIED
13 in favour
3 opposed
Vote was then undertaken on the main motion to adopt Paper S.309.
MOTION CARRIED
11 in favour
6
opposed
3. REPORTS OF COMMITTEES
a) Senate Nominating Committee - Election to Senate Committee -
Paper S.310
It was noted that in the election to be conducted by Senate for an
alternate member (to replace A. L. Turnbull) on the Senate Committee
on Appeals the name of J. M. Webster had been submitted by the Senate
Nominating Committee and as no other nomination had been received,
J. M. Webster was declared elected by acclamation.
A. L. Turnbull replaces J. L. Walkiey as a regular member with
J. M. Webster as an alternate.
-
- 9 -
?
S .M. 26/l/7
b) Senate Committee on Graduate Studies
i)
Graduate Programs in Psychology - Paper S.311
Moved by L. Srivastava, seconded by R. Cole,
"that Paper S.311 - Revised Psychology Program M.A. and
Ph.D. - be approved."
MOTION CARRIED
ii)
Master of Arts (Education) Program B - Paper S.312
Moved by L. Srivastava, seconded by G. Kirchner,
"that Senate adopt Paper S.312 - Master of Arts
(Education) Program B."
R. Rogow enquired as to whether Paper S.314 should be discussed
before S.312 receives consideration, and L. Srivastava noted
that Paper S. 314 was being presented to Senate for information.
R. Rogow indicated that he thought the paper normally would
have come forward for discussion.
. ?
K. Burstein enquired as to the intent of the ten hours of transfer
credit as outlined on Page 2 of the submission and considerable
discussion followed. In substance it was agreed that there was
no intention to grant credit for courses already used for credit
towards a degree but rather to provide for the recognition of
appropriate credit for advanced work in courses which may not have
been used for degree but possibly for raising certification.
R.
Rogow indicated that he wished assurance that resources were
available, and noted that whereas there were some 12 students now
working at the graduate level it was anticipated that 75 might
be added and wished to know whether or not this would have
impact on the undergraduate operations and offerings. He was
also concerned about operating expenses and wished to know whether
or not there could be problems generated at the undergraduate level
because of some shift in emphasis. He noted further that there
would be staffing through the visiting professors and assumed
this to be for summer. He wished to know whether or not there
would be a diversion, in terms of the funds noted, from other
areas or offerings or whether new monies would be required.
S.
Stratton directed enquiry to the Chairman concerning the
matter of budget versus the matter of principle of acceptance
of the academic programme. K. Strand indicated that if the
paper were passed it would indicate acceptance as an academic
programme but that its offering would be subject to financial
review before implementation could be undertaken.
10
e-eAA^
to
/ A!
- 10 -
?
S.M. 26/1/70
S. Stratton indicated that it was not intended to overload
faculty or unnecessarily to divert funds but that if funded it
was proposed that the programme be advanced with all possible
speed.
K. Burstein enquired as to whether or
,
not consideration at this
time would be placing the programme ahead of certain other pro-
grammes which had come forward for consideration but which had
been held in abeyance pending certain developments in academic
planning. K. Strand expressed concern as it was a new programme
and that if it proceeded then questions of equity would have to
be considered.
D. Sullivan was of the opinion that the matter should be treated
in the same way as the earlier programmes in Science, pertaining
to Computing Science and Biochemistry, had been considered.
Moved by D. Sullivan, seconded by K. Burstein,
"that this matter be tabled until action has been under-
taken by Senate on the question of implementation of
new programmes, i.e. until such time as the mechanisms
for dealing with such new submissions have been defined,
and that the matter be placed in the 'hopper' with other
such new submissions."
D. Sullivan indicated that there likely would be four new pro-
grammes coming before Senate at very early stages and that the
matter of the Science programmes was still in abeyance. S. Stratton
indicated that he wished further discussion in view of the
desires of the Faculty of Education. K. Strand referred to the
earlier debate on Science when it had been decided by Senate
that debate would not be undertaken as approval in principle
frequently had tended to be accepted as approval for implem-
entation. S. Wassermann protested deferment of the programme
as there had been intensive work and lengthy discussions and
noted that the programme would be self-sustaining. B. Funt
emphasized that the Faculty of Science had placed top priority
on Computing Science, that the submissions had been well
documented, that there was intensive student demand, that the
material had been submitted approximately a year ago and that
it would not be equitable to deal with a much later submission.
S. Stratton enquired as to whether tabling would necessitate
the submission of the programme through the procedures outlined
in Paper S.314 for consideration by Senate. K. Strand indicated
that he could not give assurance that it would not go back to
the Senate Committee on Graduate Studies for reconsideration.
K. Strand noted that the motion which had been made to table
was in effect a motion to postpone. Vote on the motion to
postpone was undertaken.
.
1^1
.11
9ç4
IV
S.M. 26/1/70
•
ttd.?1
.t
W ?
MOTION TO TABLE
?
I)
CARRIED ?
44-&eA
F
12 in favour?
4 opposed
iii)
Master's Program in Kinesiology - Paper S.313
Moved by L. Srivastava, seconded by B. Funt,
"that Paper S.313, to change the degree title
to Master of Science (Kinesiology) from Master
of Science (Education), be approved."
MOTION CARRIED
iv)
Procedures for Introduction of New Graduate Programs and
Reassessment of Existing Graduate Programs - Paper S.314
For Information)
It was noted that this paper had been provided for information.
c)
Senate Committee on the Interdisciplinary Program in Kinesiology
0
?
i) Curriculum Change - Kinesiology 043-3 - Paper S.3-15
Moved by B. Funt, seconded by G. Kirchner,
"that Senate approve Paper S.315 authorizing a
new course Kinesiology 043-3."
MOTION CARRIED
ii) Course Requirement Change - Paper S.316
Moved by B. Funt, seconded byJ. Webster,
"that Paper S.316, dealing with a minor change in
a course in Biology, be approved."
MOTION CARRIED
d)
Senate Committee on Undergraduate Admissions and Standings
i) Early Processing of Admissions - Paper S
0
317 --
Moved by L. Srivastava, seconded by J. Kenward,
"that Senate approve Paper S.317 related to
the early processing of admissions."
.12
S
?
44'
-
?
-
I ?
/3'4t
L
-
12 -
?
S.M. 26/1/70
D. Sullivan reported as a member of the Academic Board, noted
that letters will be coming from the Board to the University
shortly, and described some of the overall problems in the
development of Regional Colleges and other matters. He was
concerned about the matter of admissions to the University and
its resources, and wished to know what steps were being con-
templated to provide priority for British Columbia students.
L. Srivastava indicated that the Academic Planner and the
Registrar were working in these areas. H.Evans indicated that
the proposals of the paper would not restrict further appropriate
developments but that action on these proposals at this time was
necessary in order that the first appropriate steps could be
undertaken.
MOTION CARRIED
K.
Strand indicated that he would hold discussions with
D. Sullivan and J. Hutchinson who were the representatives
of Simon Fraser University on the Academic Board to identify
appropriate procedures whereby information could be brought
before Senate.
ii) Date for Dropping Courses - Paper S.318
Moved by L. Srivastava, seconded by S. Stratton,
"that Paper S.318, changing the date for dropping
courses, be approved."
Considerable debate followed. M. Lebowitz questioned the
philosophy, noted that at the earlier date proposed mid-term
results were not known, disagreed with a number of the comments
and felt that the arguments were not well made.
J. Hutchinson believed that an earlier date could be appropriate,
particularly at the Upper Division level where seminar approaches
were being used. Question was raised by J. Kenward as to whether
or not there had been discussion with students and members of
faculty and it was identified that there had not been such
discussion.
L.
Srivastava enquired as to how the date had been established
and D. Sullivan gave background information.
Moved by A. Lachlan, seconded by J. Kenward,
"that Paper S.318 be referred to the Faculties and
Student Council for comments."
?
S
MOTION TO REFER
FAILED
8 in favour
8 opposed
.13
) ?
V
Cd..' e '
-
13 -
?
S .M
a
Further debate was undertaken.
Moved by A. Lachlan, seconded by J. Kenward,
"that the motion to refer be reconsidered."
MOTION TO RECONSIDER
FAILED
7
in
favour
8 opposed
The Secretary was asked to give information and it was noted
that under the present schedule of refunds, individuals who
withdrew after the seventh week were not entitled to a refund
of fee, that the schedule of refunds down to the seventh week
was on a graded basis dependent upon time, and that individuals
who withdrew in the eighth and ninth week did so without academic
penalty but without fee refund. A change of dates therefore
would necessitate some adjustment in the refund schedule and
there could be a costing factor to the University.
Debate continued with individuals speaking for and against
the motion.
0 ?
Vote on the motion was undertaken.
MOTION FAILED
4. REPORTS OF FACULTIES - SCIENCE - RETROACTIVITY OF RENUMBERING OF TWO
COURSES IN MATHEMATICS - PAPER S.319
Moved by B. Funt, seconded by J. Kenward,
"that Paper S.319, retroactivity of renumbering two courses
in Mathematics, be approved."
MOTION CARRIED
The meeting adjourned at 12:20 p.m.
H. M. Evans?
Secretary
S
