DRAFT UNTIL APPROVED BY SENATE
/
MINUTES OF MEETING OF SENATE OF SIMON FRASER UNIVERSITY
?
HELD MONDAY, JULY
6, 1970,
EAST CONCOURSE CAFETERIA,
7:30
P.M.
OPEN SESSION
PRESENT:
?
Strand, K. T.
?
Chairman
.
Barlow, J. S.
Basham, G. D.
Bradley, R. D.
Brown, R. C.
Burstein, K. R.
Campbell, M. J.
Claridge, R. W.
Ellis, J. F.
Freiman, Mrs. L.
Hamilton, W. M.
Harper, R.J.C.
Hutchinson, J. F.
Kenward, J. K.
Kirchner, C.
Lachlan, A. H.
McAriinch, J. R.
O'Connell, M. S.
Rieckhoff, K. E.
Rogow, R.
Stratton, S. T.
Sullivan, D. H.
Turnbull, A. L.
Vidaver, W. E.
Weinberg, H.
Williams, W. E.
Evans, H. M.
Kelsey, I. B.
Norsworthy, Mrs. R.
Secretary
Recording Secretary
ABSENT: ?
Baird, D. A.
Caple, K. P.
Carlson, R. L.
Drache, Mrs. S.
Hean, A.F.C.
McDougall, A. H.
McLean, C. H.
Perry, G. N.
IN ATTENDANCE: ?
Boland, L. A. (to speak to Paper
S.382) ?
Webster, J. M.
is
- 2 -
?
S.M. 6/7/70
10
?
1. APPROVAL OF AGENDA
The agenda was approved as distributed.
2.
APPROVAL OF MINUTES
The minutes of the Open Session of June 1, 1970 were approved as
distributed.
3.
BUSINESS ARISING FROM THE MINUTES
There was no business arising from the minutes.
4.
REPORT OF CHAIRMAN
a)
Paper S.380 - Report on Status of Paper S.358 forwarded by Senate to
the Board of Governors - Report of Senate Committee on the Method of
Appointment, Tenure and Functions of Deans and Heads of Departments
(ad hoc).
The Chairman of Senate stated that Paper S.380, which had been
distributed to Senators earlier in June, 1970, indicated that the Board
of Governors has considered Paper S.358, dealing with the report of the
Senate Committee on the Method of Appointment, Tenure and Functions of
• ?
Deans and Heads of Departments, and is holding decision on the complete
paper pending legal opinion. Paper S.380 showed, however, that the Board
had approved, with some change, Sections III. A. (Selection of a Dean's
Search Committee) and III. B. (Terms of Reference of the Dean's Search
Committee). As there were no questions on Paper S.380 the next item of
the agenda was considered.
b)
Paper S.381 - Proposal for Establishment of the Senate Undergraduate
Admissions Board and the Senate Appeals Board (R. C. Brown).
Moved by R. Brown, seconded by G. Kirchner,
"That Motions 1, 2 and 3 of Paper S.381, dealing with
establishment of the Senate Undergraduate Admissions
Board (SUAB) and the Senate Appeals Board (SAB) be
adopted."
At this point the Chairman of Senate stated that Senators could ask
questions on the paper of Senator Brown and he in turn could reply to the
queries. During the questioning period it was noted that several changes
should be made in the paper. The following changes were noted and agreed
upon:
1. Page 2 (Motion 1): Where the words "Admissions Board" appear, this
should be changed to read "Senate Undergraduate Admissions Board
(SUAB) ."
S
0
0 ?
-
3 -
?
S.M. 6/7/70
2.
Page 3 - Operating Model: A line should appear between the statement
immediately preceding the Operating Model and the Operating Model
itself.
3.
Page 3 - Operating Model: The title "Operating Model (SAB)" should
be changed to read "Operating Model (SUAB and SAB)."
In response to the question whether any Senator could propose policy
changes for the Committee, Senator Brown stated that it was the intent to
have either the Registrar's Office, or the Committee, or Senate itself,
or any other interested body propose policy changes. In other words,
recommendations for the need of policy changes did not necessarily have
to come from the Registrar's Office alone.
Question was called on the motion to approve Mbtions 1, 2 and 3 of
Paper S.381, and a vote taken.
MOTION CARRIED
Moved by R. NcAninch, seconded by J. Ellis,
"That Senate reconsider the motion just passed."
•
?
?
It was pointed out that several Senators had thought that Motions
1, 2 and 3 were going to be handled individually.
Question was called on the motion to reconsider, and a vote taken.
MOTION CARRIED
1 opposed
Amendment was moved by R. McAninch, seconded by A. Turnbull,
"That membership of the Senate Appeals Board (SAB)
be changed by adding the words 'plus alternate'
after the statement 'one faculty member of SUAB';
by substituting the words 'two students' for the
words 'one student'; and by adding the word 'faculty'
between the words 'one' and 'Senator.'"
The effect of the motion would be to add an alternate faculty member
at large of SUAB and one student, and to replace the one Senator with
a faculty Senator.
R. McAninch pointed out that from his experience on the former
Senate Committee on Appeals (Admissions and Standings) students and
faculty had somewhat different perspectives on the cases brought
before it, and that it was helpful in making decisions to have such
a balance. He thought that the proposed change to two faculty members
.
?
- 4 - ?
S.M. 6/7/70
and two students would ensure this balance. This view was supported
by A. Turnbull, who had also served on the previous Committee. He
added that the former Committee had originally been set up on a
student-faculty parity basis and that the agreed upon arrangement
where a split or tied vote would be considered lost had worked out to
the satisfaction of the Committee.
R. Brown spoke against the amendment and stated that in his view
the Committee should have an uneven number in order to prevent a tie
occurring in voting. Other Senators spoke on the issue with some
expressing the view that the Committee should be on either a student-
faculty parity basis or that students should have the majority. Others
opposed this view claiming that students would then be "running the
Committee."
Moved by R. Harper, seconded by J. Kenward,
"That the previous question be called."
Question was called on the previous question, and a vote taken.
PREVIOUS QUESTION CARRIED
Question was called on the amendment to add one alternate faculty
.
?
member from SUAB and one student and to replace one Senator at large
with one faculty Senator, and a vote taken.
AMENDMENT CARRIED
19 in favor ?
2 opposed
Amendment was moved by H. Weinberg, seconded by K. Rieckhoff,
"That the following statement be added under
Membership of the Senate Appeals Board (SAB)
'One member at large to be elected by the
other Committee members.'T'
H. Weinberg stated that this additional member would preclude the
possibility of a split vote and offer an opportunity for either a
student or a faculty member to be elected by the group.
Question was called on the amendment to add one member at large
to the Committee, and a vote taken.
AMENDMENT FAILED
2 in favor
It was noted that in the event of a tied vote on the Committee,
the motion would be declared lost.
- 5 - ?
S.M. 6/7/70
Moved by G. Basham, seconded by L. Freiman,
"That the following words be deleted from the
section entitled 'Operation' in Motion 2 found
on Page 5: 'Meetings shall be closed and
proceedings shall remain confidential. Policy
statements will be publicized through normal
channels. '"
It was claimed that the Senate Undergraduate Admissions Board is
dealing with policies relating to undergraduate admissions, re-
admissions, standing, and credit transfer, not individuals, and that
if Senators were to influence policies in these areas, it was important
for them to know what was going on with regard to these policies in the
meetings to be held by the Senate Undergraduate Admissions Board.
However, it was claimed by some Senators that there would be numerous
times when individual cases would have to be discussed for the formation
of new policies and that where this was the case meetings should be
closed and proceedings kept confidential. It was felt by some Senators
that discretion should be exercised by the Committee on whether or not
to keep some of its proceedings confidential, for instance when it is
dealing with individual cases. The Chairman of Senate stated that if
this amendment passed the Committee is to use its own discretion in
deciding upon whether or not meetings are to be closed and proceedings
• ? confidential.
Question was called on the amendment to delete the formal statements
relating to closed meetings and confidential proceedings, and a vote taken.
AMENDMENT CARRIED
3 opposed
Question was called on the main motion to adopt Motions 1, 2 and 3,
as amended, and a vote taken.
MOTION CARRIED
5. REPORTS OF COMMITTEES
Paper S.382 - Senate Committee on Examination and Grading Practices -
Terms of Reference.
The Chairman of Senate pointed out that the Senate Agenda Committee
had asked Dr. L. Boland, Chairman of the Senate Committee on Examination
and Grading Practices, to be present at this meeting to speak on the
Terms of Reference for this Committee and to answer any questions which
Senators may have on these Terms of Reference, or the specific charges
placed before the Committee.
0
- 6 -
?
S.M. 6/7/70?
Moved by J. Hutchinson, seconded by R. Bradley,
"That the Terms of Reference for the Senate
Committee on Examination and Grading Practices,
as outlined in Paper S.382, be adopted."
Dr. Bolarfa spoke to the note which appeared at the bottom of the
page dealing with the Terms of Reference of the Committee, pointing
out that the Committee will not attempt to make decisions in the case
of individual grades assigned to any student, but that it may consider
information derived therefrom in developing appropriate policies for
recommendation to Senate to correct major inequities in future. Dr.
Boland stated that the Committee did not want to be a "police Committee"
for individual grades.
Dr. Boland then offered to answer questions which Senators might
have on the Terms of Reference and the specific charges given to the
Committee. Several Senators challenged the assumption on which the
Terms of Reference had been made, the assumption being that there were
wide discrepancies in grades. It was suggested that the Committee
examine whether or not there were wide grade discrepancies.
Other Senators questioned why the Committee was establishing its
own Terms of Reference rather than carrying out the Terms of Reference
•
?
?
Senate supposedly assigns to its Committees. It was pointed out that?
there were no Terms of Reference given either to the original ad hoc
Committee or to the present standing Committee on Examination and
Grading Practices, and that the Committee members felt strongly that
they needed some guide lines in carrying Out the work assigned to the
Committee.
It was moved by R. Bradley, seconded by K. Burstein,
"That in paragraph 2 of the Terms of Reference the
following words be deleted 'with a view to reducing
wide divergencies in future."'
It was noted that the powers of the Committee should not be confused
with those of Senate. It was pointed out that the effect of this deletion
would be to have the Committee gather the facts on grade discrepancies and
then let Senate decide on the action to be taken with regard to the infor-
mation gathered. Several Senators spoke against the amendment stating
that they would like to see the Committee come forward with recommendations
to Senate on how grade divergencies can be reduced. Other Senators spoke
in favor of the amendment claiming that the Committee does not have
authority to interfere with the differences in grading throughout the
University, because in effect what the Committee is doing is interfering
or questioning the competence of the instructors giving the grades.
S
- 7 -
?
S.M. 617170
Moved by M. Campbell, seconded by L. Freiman,
"That consideration of this question be postponed
to the August, 1970 meeting of Senate."
M. Campbell stated that it was grossly improper for any Committee
to establish its own terms of reference. He pointed out, however,
that in this case the Committee was not at fault, but Senate itself,
for failing to give to this Committee the Terms of Reference it
required to carry Out its duties. He stated that postponement of the
question would give ample time for Senators to consider Terms of
Reference they think should be given to the Committee.
Moved by C. Basham, seconded by J. Kenward,
"That the previous question on postponement be called."
Question was called, and a vote taken.
PREVIOUS QUESTION CARRIED
Question was called on the motion to postpone, and a vote taken.
MOTION TO POSTPONE FAILED
S
2 in favor
Senate returned to consideration of the amendment to delete the
words "with a view to reducing wide divergencies in future."
Moved by R. McAninch, seconded by K. Rieckhoff,
"That the previous question on the amendment be
called."
Question was called, and a vote taken.
PREVIOUS QUESTION CARRIED
Question was called on the amendment to Section 2 of the Terms of
Reference, and a vote taken.
AMENDMENT CARRIED
14 in favor
?
7 opposed
0
.
??
- 8 -
?
S.M. 6/7/70
Moved by K. Burstein, seconded by M. Campbell,
"That consideration of Paper S.382 - Terms of
Reference of the Senate Committee on Examination
and Grading Practices - be tabled."
Question was called on the motion to table, and a vote taken.
MOTION TO TABLE FAILED
3 in favor
Moved by R. McAninch, seconded by G. Basham,
"That Sections 1, 3 and 4 of the Terms of Reference
be deleted and that the following statement be added
as Section 1: 'An assessment of the current grading
practices of Simon Fraser University, which would
include a full consideration of the current premises
which underlie the evaluation processes at this
University; as well as consideration of matters
raised in Senate Papers S.375, S.379 and S.378."'
R. McAninch stated that Senate should seize the opportunity of
. ?
the problem which has arisen as a result of the grading within PSA
and the resulting effects on the awarding of scholarships, awards
and bursaries to examine the whole problem of grading. This Committee
should examine the problem of grading throughout the University and
recommend to Senate what should be done to solve the problem rather
than have the problems such as awarding of scholarships and bursaries
sent to the Committee for solution.
Considerable debate followed on the merits of this proposal with
a number of Senators indicating that it was too broad a problem to be
handled in a relatively short time by this one Senate Committee. It
was noted the Committee was concerned with "practices." It was sug-
gested that perhaps a commission should examine the whole problem of
grading throughout the University. It was claimed that the Senate
Committee on Examination and Grading Practices would be unable to
report back to Senate on this very important matter for at least a
year or more under the present wording of this amendment. K. Burstein
stated, as he has on several occasions, that this matter of grading is
a responsibility of Department Heads and should be left in their hands,
rather than in the hands of Senate or one of its Committees.
Moved by R. Brown, seconded by K. Rieckhoff,
"That the previous question be called."
4 0 ?
Vote was called on the previous motion.
PREVIOUS QUESTION CARRIED
- 9 -
?
S.M. 6/7/70
Question was called on the amendment to delete Sections 1, 3 and
4 and substitute a new Section 1, and a vote taken.
AMENDMENT FAILED
6 in favor
19 opposed
Amendment moved by W. Vidaver, seconded by C. Basham, "That the
statement in Section 1 of the Terms of Reference is not to be construed
that the Senate Committee on Examination and Grading Practices cannot
make recommendations in the area of grading philosophy or theory."
W. Vidaver stated that in re-reading the Terms of Reference as
they appeared before Senate, he could see nothing that precluded the
Committee from making recommendations to Senate on grading and examina-
tion practices. He stated that he feared that the preceding debate would
leave Committee members with the feeling that the intent of Senate is not
to consider any recommendation on grades, that the present system is
immutable and therefore must not be discussed or tampered with by the
Committee. He reiterated his view that that intent should not be read
into these Terms of Reference, and that he would not like the Committee
to interpret the Terms of Reference that way, unless Senate explicitly
• ? stated that the present grading system is not to be tampered with.
It was agreed that the amendment would be withdrawn with the
provision that Senator Vidaver's comments on this particular aspect of
the problem be recorded in the minutes.
Moved by D. Sullivan, seconded by K. Rieckhoff,
"That the previous question be called."
Question called on the previous question, and a vote taken.
PREVIOUS QUESTION FAILED
15 in favor
10 opposed
(two-thirds required)
At this point R. McAninch wished to make amendments to Sections 1
and 3 of the Terms of Reference. As there was some confusion as to the
exact wording, it was felt that a recess at this time to clarify the
wording would be most helpful.
Moved by M. Campbell, seconded by K. Rieckhoff,
"That Senate recess for five minutes."
Question was called on the motion to recess, and a vote taken.
MOTION TO RECESS CARRIED
- 10 -
?
S.M. 6/7/70
Senate recessed at .9:35 p.m.., and reconvened at 9:40 p.m.,
approximately.
Amendment moved by R. McAninch, seconded by G. Basham,
"That Section 1 be changed to read 'To make
recommendations to Senate as to whether or not
it should adopt grading and examination practices
which are designed to ensure reasonable equitabil-
ity in a) assignment of grades within courses and
across courses, b) the use of grades, and to ensure
the internal and external credibility of grades
given at Simon Fraser University'; and that Section
3 be changed to read 'To make recommendations to
Senate as to whether or not the University should adopt
appropriate methods for equating grades so that sum-
mary measures of scholastic standing utilized are
equitable for students, for such purposes as awarding
scholarships on the basis of academic merit.
Considerable discussion followed on the propriety of these changes
with several challenges on the Chair's ruling that the amendment.was
in order. It was claimed that the amendment was in conflict with what
Senate had previously examined and defeated.
is thatChairman ruled that the amendment was in order on the basis
that it was not in conflict with what Senate had previously examined
and defeated.
It was moved by K. Rieckhoff, seconded by J. Kenward, "That the
ruling of the Chair be challenged." In the vote taken on the Chairman's
ruling that the amendment was in order, the ruling of the Chair was
sustained by avote of 13 to 5.
Dr. Boland left the meeting at 10:05 p.m. after pointing out that
the Committee had spent considerable time examining the Terms of
Reference before Senate and that if Senate was not pleased with these
Terms of Reference then it should devise its own and submit them to the
Committee.
Moved by K. Burstein, seconded by J. Kenward,
"That the previous question be called."
Question was called on the previous question, and a vote taken.
PREVIOUS QUESTION CARRIED
- 11 -
?
S.M. 6/7/70
Question was called on the amendment to Sections 1 and 3 of the
Terms of Reference, and a vote taken.
AMENDMENT FAILED
3 in favor
Amendment moved by L. Freiman, seconded by K. Burstein,
"That in Section 1 of the Terms of Reference the
following words be deleted, 'and to ensure the
internal and external credibility of grades given
at Simon Fraser University."'
L. Freiman spoke to the amendment and stated that the responsibility
for credibility of grades did not belong to any one Committee but that it
belonged to Senate and the University as a whole.
Moved by D. Sullivan, seconded by K. Rieckhoff,
"That the previous question be called."
Question was called on the previous question, and a vote taken.
PREVIOUS QUESTION CARRIED
40
1 opposed
Question was called on the amendment to delete the final part of
Section 1 related to credibility of grades, and a vote taken.
AMENDMENT FAILED
3 in favor
Moved by D. Sullivan, seconded by R. Brown,
"That the previous question on the main motion as amended
be called."
Question was called on the previous question relating to the main
motion as amended, and a vote taken.
PREVIOUS QUESTION CARRIED
3 opposed
0
.- 12 -
?
S.M. 6/7/70
Question was called on the main motion to adopt Paper S.382 - Terms
of Reference of the Senate Committee on Examination and Grading Practices
- as amended, and a vote taken.
MOTION CARRIED
6 opposed
M. Campbell and K. Burstein requested that their negative votes be
recorded. M. Campbell stated that his negative vote was to be recorded
on the grounds that it was grossly improper for a Senate Committee to
establish its own Terms of Reference and that Senate itself should have
devised the Terms of Reference for the Committee.
It was pointed out by the Chairman of Senate that the note which
appeared at the bottom of the page on the Terms of Reference was included
in the motion passed.
6. REPORTS OF FACULTIES
a) Faculty of Arts
There was no report from the Faculty of Arts.
.
?
b) Faculty of Education
Paper S.383 - A Proposal to Offer Courses in Either or Both the First
and Second Two Month Pids of Each Summer Semester
Moved by S. Stratton, seconded by J. Ellis,
"That Senate authorize that a Department that so wishes,
offer Senate-approved courses for full credit in either
or both the first and second two-month periods of each
Summer semester commencing 1971, providing that the hours
of instruction and other requirements of the courses so
offered are equivalent to those in effect in the normal
four-month semester."
Dean Sullivan indicated that he wished to make a motion to refer the
matter to the Academic Planning Committee as he considered the item a new
program and that it should be considered under the Terms of Reference of
the Academic Planning Committee by that body. Dean Stratton felt that
time was important, that the proposal would have impact on the total
University, and that in the event decision was later made to refer the
matter to the Academic Planning Committee, it would be most helpful to
that body if there had been prior discussion at Senate with pertinent
comments transmitted to the reviewing body as an aid in its deliberations.
Moved by D. Sullivan, seconded by K. Rieckhoff,
"That this matter be referred to the Academic Planning
Committee, and that the Academic Planning Committee
report back to Senate on its deliberations in accordance
with previous instructions within 60 days."
- 13- ?
S.M. 6/7/70
D. Sullivan expressed the opinion that the matter fell clearly
under the Terms of Reference of the Academic Planning Committee and
that it represented a new program. He observed that it called for
reorganization of programs, had impact on space usage, and possibly
2
monetary implications. He emphasized that his comments in no way
should be considered prejudicial in the discussions as he considejed
the proposal worthy of full and careful review. He commented that
the proposal undoubtedly would involve all three Faculties.he
matter had been drawn to the attention of Chairmen of the Departments
of the Faculty of Arts with request that they consider it carëfully,
raise questions and offer comments. Questions had been raised as to
the nature of course load and organization which might be involved.
He considered that reasonable time was needed for discussion of such
an important matter and that clearly the Academic Planning Committee
should be considering it.
There was considerable discussion on how Senate would handle the
item before it with several Senators expressing the feeling that be-
cause of the profound implications for the entire University, the
proposal should be referred to the Academic Planning Committee or some
other body for a detailed examination, with the full report to be
brought back to Senate.
It was pointed out by S. Stratton, J. Ellis and G. Kirchner that
. ?
it was important to consider the matter as quickly as possible so that
the reorganized programs could be offered next Summer semester to many
teachers in the field and others in the community. Senate was reminded
that changes such as this had to be approved two semesters in advance
of the date changes were to be effected. Argument was made that this
was not a new program and that it involved primarily reorganization in
the areas of space, equipment, cost and faculty utilization. C. Kirchner,
a member of the Academic Planning Committee, gave his opinion that it was
not a new program.
R. Brown felt that to be effective the proposal would have to involve
all Faculties and that there needed to he full discussion within the
Faculties on these matters. He expressed strong concern on the possibility
of two additional registrations and questioned whether or not this was
feasible, and the nature of increased costs. He felt thorough investiga-
tion was needed.
Senator Ellis referred specifically to the paper and observed that
additional formal registration periods would not necessarily be needed,
that it was not the intent for students to take a full semester of study
during a two-month session, that it was not abandonment of the trimester
system, but that it was an attempt to make the present opportunities for
learning more readily available to the community at large. He also com-
mented that the number of individuals in the Summer semester who registered
L
.
- 14 -
?
S.M. 6/7/70
for less than 10 hours was significant and that these individuals
were required to study throughout the full semester, whereas under
the proposals made, the same amount of work could be completed in
the two-month proposal allowing greater flexibility for students.
It was observed that this was not a new type of venture as other
institutions in the province had offerings of the types proposed
and that these were not costly but rather cost-recovering programs.
K. Rieckhoff indicated support of the amendment and desirability
of referral both on necessity of investigating administrative impacts
as well as upon academic considerations. He indicated he did not
wish to prejudice full discussion of the proposal but noted that
already there had been some concern expressed on academic grounds on
the short-term periods even of semesters and that the proposal sug-
gested that the terms might be even shorter. He drew attention to
the fact that the paper proposed that there could be broadened course
offerings without increase of faculty by utilizing part of the faculty
members' research semesters for teaching in the shortened terms. He
seriously questioned whether any reduction in research opportunity
would be academically sound and raised the problem of teaching versus
research. He emphasized that proposals which had such broad and long-
term implications required thorough and careful consideration before
action is undertaken.
A. Lachlan opposed the motion to refer and felt that the original
motion could be passed with some constraints placed thereon. R. Rogow
supported the motion to refer, noting agreement with a number of points
raised by Senator Rieckhoff. He commended the Faculty of Education for
bringing the proposal forward but felt that very careful consideration
was required. He felt that the proposal had major impact and that its
relationship to the trimester system required careful review, including
the problems of program, faculty manning, sabbaticals, and research.
He desired greater clarification and elaboration and felt that the
Academic Planning Committee was the appropriate body to provide this.
K. Burstein was generally in favor of referral and expressed con-
cern on the budgetary implications of operating a Summer School and felt
that the report awaited on the operation of the trimester system would
have impact on decisions. Consideration by the various Faculties was
essential.
Amendment was moved by K. Burstein, seconded by K. Rieckhoff,
"That the following words be added to the present motion,
with recommendations and priorities based upon considera-
tion of all academic programs currently before the
Academic-Planning Committee. '"
- 15 -
?
S.M. 6/7/70
Considerable debate followed and the Chairman noted that the
assignment of
p
riorities was an item that could only be undertaken
by the Academic. Planning Committee at a much later stage. K.
Rieckhoff indicated that in his opinion in order to develop the
necessary critique report to come back to Senate from the Academic
Planning Committee, that Committee would have to take cognizance of
the various other items before it in relationship to the current
proposal. K. Strand considered that the original motion would auto-
matically involve that type of consideration, but that the amendment
currently being proposed was really calling for a critique report
within 60 days of all proposals before the Committee. On the under-
standing that the original motion implies that the Academic Planning
Committee would take cognizance of such other matters before it as
have bearing on the current proposal, the motion was withdrawn.
Moved by R. Bradley, seconded by R. brown,
'That the previous question be called.'
Vote on the call for the previous question was undertaken.
PREVIOUS QUESTION FAILED
. ?
14 in favor
9 opposed
(two-thirds required)
Amendment moved by J. Ellis, seconded by C. Basham,
"That the words '30 days' be substituted for
the words '60 days. '"
Considerable discussion followed as to whether or not 30 days was
sufficient for the Academic Planning Committee to examine the proposal
nd report to Senate, with considerable doubt that the time was sufficient
cr consideration of such important questions. A number of Senators
mphasiznd the time urgency. Vote was undertaken.
AMENDMENT CARRIED
16 in favor?
4 opposed
Question was asked if the Committee at the end of 30 days could
report back indicating it needed more time, and the Chairman responded
that it might bring in a partial report with indication of more time
needed, but that it was obvious that it was the desire of Senate to
have a full report if possible within 30 days. Debate continued on
. ?
whet-her or not it was appropriate for Senate to refer the matter to
the Academic Planning Committee with call for a critique report within
30 days. The Chairman noted that there was some question as to whether
the proposal was or was not a new program but that by the nature of the
motions presented, Senate had the opportunity to decide whether it did
or did not wish to have the matter considered at this juncture by the
- 16 -
? S.M. 6/7/70
.
.,
Academic Planning Committee. Dean Stratton indicated that there was
no intention to not have the proposal considered by the Academic
Planning Committee, but that he had wished for informal discussion
in order that the Committee could have as much information as possible
before it following a Senate discussion.
Moved by R. Harper, seconded by R. McAninch,
"That the previous question be called."
PREVIOUS QUESTION CARRIED
Vote was then undertaken on the amended motion to refer to the
Academic Planning Committee.
MOTION TO REFER CARRIED
18 in favor
?
6 opposed
M. Campbell asked that his negative vote be recorded.
Moved by K. Rieckhoff, seconded by K. Burstein,
"That Paper S.383 be referred to the Faculties
of Arts and Science for comments."
Vote on the motion to refer to the two Faculties was undertaken.
MOTION TO REFER CARRIED
12 in favor
?
2 opposed
c)
Faculty of Science
There was no report from the Faulty of Science.
7. OTHER BUSINESS
a)
Notices of Motion
There were no notices of motion.
b)
Date of Next Meeting
The Chairman of Senate stated that the date of the next meeting
would be Monday, August 3, 1970 at 7:30 p.m.
c)
Other Items
There were no other items.
d)
Confidential Items
The meeting adjourned at 11:35 p.m. to move into Closed Session.
H. N. Evans
Secretary
