DRAFT UNTIL APPROVED BY SENATE

MINUTES OF MEETING OF SENATE OF SIMON FRASER UNIVERSITY

HELD MONDAY, APRIL 5, 1971, EAST CONCOURSE CAFETERIA, 7:30 P.M.

OPEN SESSION

PRESENT:

Strand K. T.

Chairman

Baird, D. A.

Basham, G. D.

Birch, D. R.

Bradley, R. D.

Brown, R. C.

Burstein, K. R.

Donetz, C.

Drache, Mrs. S.

Ellis, J. F.

Freiman, Mrs. L.

Funt, B. L.

Hamilton, C. L.

Harper, R.J.C.

Hodge, F. D.

Lachlan, A. H..

McAninch, J. R.

Mugridge, I.

O'Connell, M. S.

Pate, B. D.

Reid, W. D.

Rogow, R.

Salter, J.

Stratton, S. T.

Sullivan, D. H.

Sutherland, C. A.

Turnbull, A. L.

Vidaver, W. E.

Webster, J. M.

Weinberg, H.

Wilson, B. G.

Evans, H. M.

Secretary

Kelsey, I. B.

Norsworthy, Mrs. R.

Recording Secretary

Campbell, M. J.

Caple, K. P.

Claridge, R. W.

Hamilton,

W. M.

McDougall, A. H.

R.ieckhoff, K. E.

D'Aoust, B. R.

To speak to

Hamm,

Mallinson,

C. M.,

T. J.)

Paper S.71-51

Roberts, S.

ABSENT:

IN ATTENDANCE:

- 2 -

S.M. 5/4/71

The Chairman drew to Senate's attention the fact that Senator

Vidaver, having been a member of Senate since its inception in 1965,

had not sought re-election and was now attending his last meeting

of Senate. He was thanked by the Chairman for his contributions

during his relatively long service on Senate.

APPROVAL OF AGENDA

The agenda was approved as circulated.

APPROVAL OF MINUTES

The minutes of the Open Session of March 1, 1971 were approved

as distributed.

BUSINESS ARISING FROM THE MINUTES

There was no business arising from the minutes.

REPORT OF CHAIRMAN

There was no report by the Chairman.

REPORTS OF COMMITTEES

1. Senate Nominating Committee

Paper S.71-49 - Election of Senators to Various Committees

The Chairman reported that there had been no additional names

submitted by individual Senators to those submitted by the Senate

Nominating Committee and that a motion to elect by acclamation the

individuals named would be in order.

Moved by J. Ellis, seconded by I. Mugridge,

"That the individuals nominated to the Senate

Agenda Committee, the Senate Undergraduate

Admissions Board (SUAE), the Senate Appeals

Board (SAB), the Senate Committee on Under-

graduate Studies and The Joint Board of

Teacher Education be elected by acclamation."

Question was called, and a vote taken..

MOTION CARRIED

Results of the elections are as follows:

i) SENATE AGENDA COMMITTEE

One Senator at large to replace W. E. Vidaver. No specified

term of office. Term to begin May 1, 1971.

ELECTED BY ACCLAMATION:

A. H. LACHLAN:

3 -

S.M. 5/4/71

ii)

SENATE UNDERGRADUATE ADMISSIONS BOARD (SUAB)

One Senator at large to replace W. E. Vidaver for the remainder

of his term of office to September 30, 1972. Term to begin May 1,

1971.

ELECTED BY ACCLAMATION:

R.J.C. HARPER

iii)

SENATE APPEALS BOARD (SAB)

One alternate faculty Senator for I. Mugridge, who is now

replacing R. C. Brown as faculty Senator and has agreed to continue

as the faculty Senator. No specified term of office. Term to begin

upon election.

ELECTED BY ACCLAMATION:

N. S. O'CONNELL

iv)

SENATE COMMITTEE ON UNDERGRADUATE STUDIES

Election of two student Senators, with one individual to serve

to September 30, 1971 and the second to serve to September 30, 1972.

ELECTED BY ACCLAMATION TO SERVE TO

SEPTEMBER 30, 1971:

C. DONETZ

ELECTED BY ACCLAMATION TO SERVE TO

SEPTEMBER 30, 1972:

J. R. McANINC1-1

THE JOINT BOARD OF TEACHER EDUCATION

One Senator at large to replace W. E. Vidaver. No specified

term of office. Term to begin May 1, 1971.

ELECTED BY ACCLAMATION:

A. L. TURNBULL

2. Academic Planning Committee

Paper S.71-50 - Program in Latin American Studies

Moved by B. Wilson, seconded by-R. Brown,

"That Senate approve the establishment of a

program in Latin American Studies.

That the program initially consist of a

minor in Latin American Studies requiring

15 credit hours in courses at the upper

division level and 9 credit hours at the

lower division level.

3. That responsibility for the program rest

in the Division of General Studies with

the organization and administration to be

-as set out in Section 3(a) of Senate paper

S.424 revised.

4. That the implementation date of the program

be no earlier than September, 1971."

- 4 -

S.M. 5/4/71

R. Brown explained that the program was being set up by a group

of faculty members interested in Latin America as a study area

through an interdepartmental approach involving the various Departments

currently offering Latin American courses. No "joint" courses had yet

been proposed by the Steering Committee.

Question was raised as to what in the program was interdisciplinary.

Senators Harper and Burstein emphasized that an interdisciplinary pro-

gram involves people from various disciplines examining a common problem

and offering solutions based on training and experience from these

various disciplines. They stated that the program as presently consti-

tuted only contained courses to be offered by separate Departments, and

that in no way could this be considered an interdisciplinary program.

It was pointed out that at no time had it been claimed that the program

was interdisciplinary. It was acknowledged that, in time, it could

possibly evolve to that point.

Several Senators felt also that there was insufficient detail pro-

vided in the paper in connection with the administrative and organiza-

tional structure of the program and the possible constraints involved.

Moved by C. Basham, seconded by R. Harper,

"That Paper S.71-50 - Program in Latin

5 - .

American Studies - be referred back to

the Academic Planning Committee for

further documentation."

Question was called on the motion to refer, and a vote taken.

MOTION TO REFER FAILED

favor

16 opposed

Discussion continued on pre-requisite requirements for courses,

and whether these could be waived, with argument that if this were not

possible, there would be little difference from that already available.

Comments were made on restrictions in utilizing the program for a major

field of study, and whether a course could be used by a student both

toward a major and a minor, with indication by B. Wilson that this would

not seem reasonable. An amendment was moved by R. Brown, "That in Motion

2 the words 'outside his major field of study' be added following the

word 'level," but the motion failed for lack of a seconder. There was

argument that the program was unclear.

B. Wilson stated that although he would like to see the establish-

ment of a program of this nature, it was obvious from the discussion

S.M. 5/4/71

that there were a number of items that needed clarification, and asked

that the paper be withdrawn.

As there was no objection from the members, the paper was with-

drawn.

PAPER S.71-50 WITHDRAWN

6. REPORTS OF FACULTIES

Paper S.71-51 - Reorganization of Educational Foundations Centre and

Approval of Courses

S. Stratton asked permission of the Chair to bring in Professors

B. R. D'Aoust, C. M. Hamm and T. J. Mallinson for the purpose of speak-

ing to this paper. Permission was granted and the representatives from

the Faculty of Education joined the meeting.

Motion 1 of Paper S.71-51 was moved by S. Stratton, seconded by

G. Donetz,

"That the Educational Foundations Centre

•

be organized into one administrative unit;

that this unit be recognized for University

purposes as a Department; and that there be

no sub-departments within the Educational

Foundations Centre."

S. Stratton outlined the history of events which had occurred

during the one year interim period of continued de facto departmental

recognition of the B.S.F., S.P.F. and C.S. components of the Educational

Foundations Centre, and stated that the organizational structure con-

tained in Paper S.71-51 was based on the program proposal contained in

the remainder of the paper. He said that the resource people would be

willing to answer any queries put to them by members of Senate. He

drew attention to the Faculty vote approving the proposal, the reasons

for so many abstentions and to the Faculty minutes which were available

to Senators (now labelled S.71-51, Appendix I). He stated that the

program proposal had much stronger support within Faculty than shown by

the vote on the proposed organizational structure.

S. Drache remarked that inasmuch as Dr. C. Eastwood, of the Social

and Philosophical Foundations, had circulated a report which seemed to

present a challenge to the motion, it would seem appropriate that he be

presented with the opportunity of taking part in the discussion. Dean

Stratton pointed out that Professor Hamm would represent Social and

Philosophical Foundations. (A paper from Dr. Eastwood had been distri-

buted to Senators - now labelled S.71-51, Appendix II.)

- 6 -

S.M. 5/4/71

C. Hamm said he represented the minority group and that he hoped

he would reflect the opinion of that group in stating that there was

opposition to amalgamation or elimination of the Departments. He

claimed that in the view of himself and several other persons within

the Faculty no good reasons had been given for eliminating the three

Departments of Behavioural Science Foundations, Social and Philosophical

Foundations and Communications Studies. He pointed Out the marked dif

ferences in specialization of faculty among these three Departments and

claimed that it would be extremely difficult for a number of them to

work together without Departmental boundaries. He pointed out that the

persons involved were anxious to work together with other groups but

not within a single structure or unit.

At this point D. Sullivan noted that the program proposal outlined

in Paper S.71-51 had been accepted by the Faculty of Education first and

with apparently stronger support, and that the organizational structure,

which Senate was dealing with now, had been developed on the basis of

the program. He stated that Senate should deal first of all with the

proposed programs and later with the organizational structure.

Moved by D. Sullivan, seconded by I. Mugridge,

"That Motion 1 of Paper S.71-51 be postponed

until Motions 2, 3 and 4 have been discussed

by Senate."

The propriety of postponement was argued at length. On general

agreement the meeting moved into Informal Discussion of Paper S.71-51

at 9:10 p.m. It was agreed that informal discussion would continue

for thirty minutes.

L. Funt stated that the issues, especially justification for the

organizational structure, were not clear and that a statement of

principle and rationale should be forthcoming from either the Vice-

President or the Dean of Education. He was supported by R. Rogow, and

by K. Burstein who felt that the rights of faculty members involved in

the reorganization proposal might be infringed upon. R. Bradley was

of the opinion that there was no justification shown in the document

for the organization proposed. G. Basham and A. Lachlan considered

that Senate should act on Motion 1.

S. Stratton suggested that members consider the full documentation

and the preamble and argued that the program rationale was based on the

co-operation of the group, and that there are financial, academic and

personal factors involved in the problems of organization. A number of

organizational models had been considered and this selected to provide

for individuals operating collectively in a single departmental struc-

ture with organization of courses by single committees with respect to

undergraduate and graduate programs, with the collective planning of

the programs through a single department chairman. B. Wilson supported

7 -

S.M. 5/4/71

the organization and expressed serious concern if there were to be

proliferation of very small departments as the number of faculty

members was such that there would be a good deal of difficulty in

securing membership for various important departmental, faculty and

Senate committees.

In response to a question on the criteria for Education Minors

as part of the requirement for the B.Ed. degree, T. Mallinson replied

that this was an attempt to make more coherent groupings of courses

in Education as part of the degree. He stated that the specific

minors proposed were an important part of the new program proposals

and an attempt to integrate the course offerings.

R. Harper spoke on the organizational aspects of the proposal,

stating that there were insufficient common interests to warrant the

proposed administrative structure. He favored a two department

structure for the Educational Foundations Centre consisting of the

Behavioural Sciences and Communications Studies, which had common

interests and backgrounds, and the Social and Philosophical Foundations.

He claimed that the structure under which the Educational Foundations

Centre had been operating during the past year, a structure approved

by Senate in March of 1970, had not proved workable, as one group was

concerned with a formalistic philosophy and the other more with a

social philosophy.

D. Sullivan noted that a number of courses proposed could have

significant impact in areas of the Faculty of Arts, and referred par-

ticularly to areas involving the Fine Arts.

R. Brown favored sending the paper to the Academic Planning

Committee and then to the Senate Committee on Undergraduate Studies

in order that the whole matter of the program could be sorted out.

He said that he was reluctant to make a decision in connection with

the organizational structure on behalf of the Educational Foundations

Centre when the concerned faculty members had indicated no consensus.

B. Wilson stated it would be inappropriate for Senate to address

itself to the motions contained in Paper S.71-51 until there is sig-

nificant comment from the Professional Development Centre.

The meeting moved out of informal discussion at 9:45 p.m., at

which point D. Sullivan requested that his motion be withdrawn. As

there was no objection from the seconder or the assembly the Chairman

declared the motion to postpone Motion 1 withdrawn.

MOTION TO POSTPONE

WITHDRAWN

-8-

S.M. 5/4/71

Moved by D. Sullivan, seconded by I. Mugr•idge,

"That the four motions contained in Paper

S.71-51 be referred to the Academic Planning

Committee for comment."

Concern was expressed by several Senators with regard to the

structure to be used until Senate approves a new organization for

the Educational Foundations Centre. It was pointed out that a

motion could be made later indicating precisely what that interim

organization should be.

S. Stratton and R. Harper expressed opposition to referral.

S. Stratton requested that if the motion on referral passed that

Senate give direction to the Faculty of Education on the type of

structure to be recognized in order that an immediate settlement of

the current problems could be made. B. D'AOUSt suggested that If

Senate is not going to give an immediate solution the Academic Plan-

ning Committee be given specific direction as to what Senate is

looking for in the reorganization of the Faculty of Education and

specifically of the Educational Foundations Centre. K. Burstein

suggested that if the motion were passed the Academic Planning

Committee should meet with representatives of the Faculty and en-

sure that whatever recommendation is brought before Senate will

represent a majority view of the faculty involved. R. Rogow felt

the Academic Planning Committee should obtain considerably greater

clarification of the rationale as in his view it was deficient both

as a central theme against which individual courses can be measured

for consistency and in justification of structure, and suggested;

that the Academic Planning Committee might wish to bring in outside

experts for consultation.

Moved by S. Stratton, seconded by G. Donetz,

"That the referral of Motion 1 be divided

from the referral of Motions 2, 3, and 4."

Question was called on the motion to divide, and a vote taken.

MOTION TO DIVIDE FAILED

6 in favor

13 opposed

Question was called on the motion to refer Motions 1, 2, 3, and

to the Academic Planning Committee, and a vote taken.

MOTION TO REFER CARRIED

16 in favor

9 opposed

9 -

S.M. 5/4/71

J. Webster requested that the Academic Planning Committee do

more than consider the matter solely within that body, and that it

extend its considerations broadly.

Moved by S. Stratton, seconded by G. Donetz,

"That until the question is finally resolved

by the University that Senate recognize the

Educational Foundations Centre as a single

administrative unit and a single department."

The Chairman pointed out that if the motion were passed by

Senate the recommendation would be made to the Board of Governors

and, if approved, the structure would exist on an interim basis

until such time as the question is resolved within the University,

and further approved by the Board. S. Stratton and T. Mallinson

$ indicated that for some months the Centre had been operating as a

single department and expressed concern with regard to the diffi-

culties which would arise if this motion were not approved.

Question was called, and a vote taken.

MOTION FAILED

Moved by S.'Cianell '

, seconded '

by C.

' Hamilton',

"That Senate extend for three months, to

the

July, 1971 meeting of Senate, the continued

de facto departmental ' recognition of B.S.F.,

S.P.F. and C.S., and continue to recognize

for this period the organization of the three

divisions into an Educational Foundations

Centre under the following constraints:

single undergraduate education committee

ii)

single graduate education committee

iii) a single spokesman for relations

external to the Centre."

S. Stratton asked that it be recorded in the minutes that the

interpretation of how the continued interim structure is to operate

be the responsibility of the Academic Vice-President. The Chairman

pointed out that according to the Universities Act the President, as

the Chief Executive Officer of the University, has that responsibility.

He may in turn delegate that responsibility, but that is his decision.

Question was called, and a vote taken.

' MOTION CARRIED

16 in favor

2 opposed

- ...

- 10 -

S.M. 5/4/71

7. OTHER BUSINESS

Notices of Motion

Paper S.71-52 - Request for Report from Senate Library Committee

(B. Wilson)

B. Wilson stated that he understood a paper had been prepared

by the Senate Library Committee which would be circulated very shortly

and he would therefore not make a motion requesting a statement on

loan practices. A. Lachlan, as Chairman of the Seflate Library

Committee, added that the paper had been drawn up carefully by the

Librarian and the Registrar and it should reflect what actually occurred

with regard to Library loan policies and practices.

Date of Next Meeting

It was noted that the date of the next meeting of Senate would

be Monday, May 10, 1971 at 7:30 p.m.

Other Items

.There were no other items.

Confidential Matters

The meeting recessed briefly at 11:25 p.m. prior to moving into

Closed Session.

H. M. Evans

Secretary