DRAFT UNTIL APPROVED BY SENATE
MINUTES OF A SPECIAL MEETING OF SENATE OF SIMON FRASER UNIVERSITY
HELD MONDAY, OCTOBER 25, 1971, EAST CONCOURSE CAFETERIA, 7:30 P.M.
OPEN SESSION
PRESENT: ?
Strand, K. T.
?
Chairman
Aronoff, S.
Baird, ?
D. ?
A.
Basham, G. ?
D.
Birch, ?
D.
?
R.
Bradley, R. D.
Brown, R. ?
C.
Campbell, M. J.
Carlson, R.
?
L.
Donetz, G.
Drache, Mrs.
?
S.
Freiman, Mrs. L.
Gilbert, K.
?
L.
Harper,
?
R.J.C.
Jennings, R.
?
E.
Lachlan, A. H.
Mallinson, T. J.
Mugridge, I.
Nair, K. K.
W
Rieckhoff, K.
?
E.
Sullivan, D. H.
Turnbull, A.
?
L.
Wagner, P. L.
Wheatley, J.
Williams, W. E.
Wilson, B. ?
C.
Evans, H. M. ? Secretary
Norsworthy, R. ? Recording Secretary
ABSENT:
? Caple, K. P.
Claridge, R. W.
Hamilton, W. M.
Hodge, F. D.
McDougall, A. H.
O'Connell, M. S.
Reid, W. D.
Salter, J. H.
Srivastava, L. M.
Sutherland, C. A.
IN ATTENDANCE: ?
Chase, J.
Meakin, D.
- 2 -
?
S.M. 25/10/71
1. REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS OF THE ACADEMIC PLANNING COMMITTEE RELATING
TO THE REORGANIZATION OF THE FACULTY OF EDUCATION, THE ROLE OF FINE
ARTS COURSES WITHIN THE UNIVERSITY, AND THE ADMINISTRATIVE PLACEMENT
OF KINESIOLOGY, PAPER S. 71-120.
The Chairman outlined the manner in which he proposed to approach
discussion of the paper and motions pertaining thereto. He indicated
that there would be informal discussion for a period of one hour with
the constraint that no one individual would be allowed to speak twice
if anyone who had not spoken once wished to speak. He indicated further
that the motions would be grouped in the following manner:
1.
Motions l,2,3,4,5
2.
Motions 7, 8
3.
Motions9, 10, 11, 12
4.
Motions 15, 16, 17, 18
5.
Motion 6
6.
Motion 14
7.
Motion 22
8.
Motions 23, 24
9.
Motion 27
10. Motion 28
He stated further that if anyone wished division with groupings
• ? that this could be considered, also if it appeared desirable there
could be informal discussion on the group for periods which he would
define as necessary.
Dr. Wilson, as Chairman of the Academic Planning Committee, was
asked to speak to the paper. He indicated that over a period of some
five months the Committee had held consultations, received briefs, had
interviews and interactions with other persons and groups. He suggested
that Senators note the various recommendations and the groupings sug-
gested, but that they should also keep in mind the whole paper although
Senate would not be concerned directly with some of the recommendations.
He reminded the assembly that it had been necessary to consider pro-
posals knowing that a number of members of faculty had already been
appointed and that there was not total freedom as though one were
beginning without constraints. He identified that a number of the
groups within the Faculty of Education had had difficulty in resolving
some of the problems in view of the Senate charges to them made some
nineteen months ago. He expressed the opinion that the proposals in
the paper presented an integrated approach.
K. Rieckhoff complimented the Academic Planning Committee on its
presentation although he had disagreement on some points. His two
primary concerns were (a) that de facto the paper dismantles the
Faculty of Education, leaving a group only of such size that it might
well be considered a department. He recognized that there were some
political problems in terms of retention as a Faculty, but in particular
?
.
?
? did not ?
feel that it should have the same number of representatives on
various bodies as had the other Faculties - referring particularly to
?
Senate,
?
Senate Committees, and others.
?
He wished to receive assurance
- 3 - ?
S.M. 25/10/71
that there would be controls to prevent reversion back to something
like the former system if and when there was growth of the Faculty.
(b) He was concerned about the Faculty of Interdisciplinary Studies
and felt that this represented a turn-around from the concept of the
Division of General Studies which had been earlier approved. In the
earlier concepts no persons would hold permanent appointments within
the Division, there would be no departments but Program Committees,
and there would be no departmental structure. The current proposal
now established departments and program committees and he wished to
know the overall intent.
B. Wilson responded noting that the Faculty of Education has a
large number of individuals as Associates and that from this stand-
point it was a large group. In addition, in terms of student regis-
trations there was
-
a large group that could be compared with the
Faculty of Science registrations. He indicated that all necessary
efforts would be made to try to ensure appropriate equity in repre-
sentation on bodies as suggested by K. Rieckhoff. He felt that it
would be necessary for some group to carefully go through the
composition of various Committees and groups to establish the
desirable representations and composition. He did not agree that
there had been a complete turn-around in the proposal for the Faculty
of Interdisciplinary Studies, but that there would indeed be some
departments as well as the Program Committees.
D. Sullivan wished further clarification as to the body which
would study representation and composition of Committees. K. Strand
indicated that he could give interim reactions only as the matter
had not been studied intensively, but that an ad hoc Committee of
Senate might consider the Senate Committees, that insofar as Senate
itself is concerned Faculties jointly might be involved in view of
the way representatives get on to Senate, that he could review the
Academic Planning Committee, and that the University Tenure Committee
could come under appropriate procedures.
R. Jennings felt that there could be considerable difficulties
in representation for the Faculty of Interdisciplinary Studies by the
nature of its structure and that care would have to be undertaken to
ensure there is not double representation. He was not satisfied that
it should indeed be a Faculty and said that the departments placed
there were there on the assumption they could not be placed elsewhere.
He presented extended explanation of his viewpoint.
K. Strand noted that half of the time for informal discussion had
now expired and all the discussion was on the first five motions. The
assembly might wish to consider some of the other aspects in the remain-
ing time.
R. Carlson referred to Kinesiology, to Fine Arts, and to Social
Relations, and indicated he had some difficulty in envisaging the
- 4 -
?
S.M. 25/10/71
degree which might be awarded. He felt that this problem was important
as programs had not been identified and it was difficult to see ahead.
B. Wilson felt that this was a point that could be well discussed when
programs were developed and considered by Senate, although the matter
might be discussed now. R. Carlson felt that if discussion was to
include formation of a Faculty then there should also be discussion on
the degrees, but that without programs such discussion would be pre-
mature.
R.Bradley said that Senator Carlson's comments would assume that
a given degree is associated with a given program, but that this would
not necessarily be true. He envisaged that the groups concerned would
recommend to Senate the degree to be given to a student and that this
cannot be identified.
M. Campbell felt that there was avoidance of a number of items of
concern, indicated that he disliked the paper and felt that it was
poorly thought out. He was of the opinion that many persons now dealing
with these matters had not been at the University at the beginning when
there was development of the Faculty of Education in its original concept,
that it had succeeded, and was recognized as having quite good programs,
and that the paper was now dismantling it. In earlier times it was a
principle that the University would not compete in areas educationally
given elsewhere and that Fine Arts, therefore, would not be a part of
• ?
the programs but that concentration would be in Arts, in Education, and
in Science. Under the reorganization proposed the Faculty of Education
would be only a teacher training group and he did not consider this
desirable.
R. Brown commented that the reason for the reorganization was
because the original models did not work. The fact that certain groups
had not been able to integrate well in one area did not indicate they
could not perform well in some other area.
A. Lachlan was concerned with the status of the new departments
in the Faculty of Interdisciplinary Studies, and wished to know if the
comments made by R. Bradley were correct as, if they were, they would
give advantage to departments in the new Faculty in terms of the recom-
mendations for degrees, and he did not consider that desirable. He was
not certain that it was desirable to create new departments and that no
data had been given showing that this was the most suitable approach.
He felt that if new departments were to be established then there should
be broader consideration of priorities to be applied in such establish-
ment.
D. Sullivan referred back to Senator Carlson's question on degrees
and felt that this area had not been well developed. He was not satis-
fied that if a group were to be moved into the Faculty of Interdisciplinary
Studies it could then opt to grant a Bachelor of Arts degree, an Education
• ? degree, or a Science degree. He was of the opinion that if this were
done great conflict would be created. He suggested the example of Social
Relations developing a program potentially using a large number of courses
from the Faculty of Arts and wanting to give a Bachelor of Arts degree but
5 ?
S.N. 25/10/71
with differing regulations, and that if this were to develop there
could be considerable conflict. He emphasized that it could not be
merely accepted that the degree question had been resolved but that
considerable work in this area was required. It would be highly un-
desirable to reach a situation where it would be possible to get a
Bachelor of Arts degree through easier requirements in one Faculty
than it would be to get a Bachelor of Arts degree in another Faculty.
He referred to some current difficulties in the development of Major
and Minor requirements and noted similarities to problems which could
be envisaged if the degree programs followed some of the suggestions
hinted at. He noted that the degree which had been developed for the
Division of General Studies was quite different from the degrees in
other Faculties and therefore did not present the same nature of dif-
ficulties, but that the new ideas could present serious problems.
B. Wilson felt that it would be fruitless to recommend the nature
of degrees in Fine Arts and Social Relations until programs have been
identified. At that time one could look at the kind of degree to be
considered. He did not think that the Faculty of Arts can determine
who gets a Bachelor of Arts degree in programs which it does not con-
trol. Senate would have responsibility in that matter.
D. Sullivan felt that if departments in the Faculty of Inter-
disciplinary Studies wish to develop programs to meet the Faculty of
. ?
Arts requirements for the Bachelor of Arts degree that this would be
appropriate, but that they had not been so instructed and meanwhile
Social Relations was developing programs.
G. Basham indicated that he had expressed some concern when the
Bachelor of General Studies degree was set up and had some feeling
that there was a proliferation of administration. The proposal for
the .Faculty: of Interdisciplinary Studies seemed to augment such
administrative proliferation. He suggested that Kinesiology might
well be a department in Science, that Computer Science might well be
a department in Science, that Fine Arts might well be placed in the
Faculty of Arts, and others in the Arts Faculty.
W. Williams felt that it was an administrative decision which
was being undertaken, and referred to statements on page 7 as com-
pared with statements on page 6 to identify his concern.
D. Birch stated that the Faculty of Education had started with
seven departments, it now had five departments, and if the proposal
passed the Faculty of Education would be a single unit and there
would be three departments in the Faculty of Interdisciplinary Studies,
making four. He did not believe that this showed proliferation of
administration. Insofar as the degree question was concerned, he
noted that Kinesiology already had a degree, that it would be some
time before Fine Arts could consider having a Major program, and that
•
?
the only unit then remaining was Social Relations which had not yet
suggested its program.
- 6 -
?
S.M. 25/10/71
K. Strand indicated that the period for informal consideration
was now completed and that he would be prepared to accept motions in
the method established at the beginning of the meeting.
MOTIONS ?
Moved by B. Wilson, seconded by R. Brown,
1,2,3,4,5
1.
"That a Faculty of Interdisciplinary Studies
be established with the administrative report-
ing and program routing structure as set out
in Charts 1 and 2."
2.
"That the present Division of General Studies
be dissolved and that its function and admini-
strative responsibilities be assimilated by
the Faculty of Interdisciplinary Studies."
3.
"That the position of Dean of the Division of
General Studies be abolished and that a new
position, Dean of the Faculty of Interdiscip-
linary Studies, be established."
4.
"That departments in the Faculty of Inter-
disciplinary Studies have the same status as
Departments elsewhere in the University."
5.
"That departments in the Faculty of Inter-
disciplinary Studies be administered as
follows:
a)
each department shall have a chairman re-
porting to the Dean of the Faculty;
b)
the chairman of each department
shall
be
chairman of a curriculum committee charged
with making recommendations as to the
curriculum of the department;
c)
membership of each curriculum committee
shall normally consist of:
the chairman of the department;
2 faculty members elected by and from the
department;
3 faculty members, one each from the
Faculties of Arts, Science and Education,
appointed by the Dean of Interdisciplinary
Studies on the recommendation of the Dean
of the appropriate faculty; and
3 students appointed by the Dean of Inter-
disciplinary Studies on the recommendation
of the Student Society."
A.
Lachlan enquired as
to why the Academic
Planning Committee
had, in
Motion 5, laid down
a structure
that was not there before.
- 7 -
?
S.N. 25/10/71
B. Wilson indicated that it was desirable to have input and contact,
and the Curriculum Committee was formerly the Steering Committee. He
suggested, however, that Motion 4 might be redundant. D. Birch said
that the Senate Committee on the Interdisciplinary Program in Kinesi-
ology had in part served as a guideline base, but K. Rieckhoff
indicated that it was hardly a good model, and gave background as to
how that Committee had come to be.
J. Wheatley expressed the view that Motion 4 was not redundant
as it referred to status which would include such things as having a
Department Tenure Committee and establish conditions under which it
would follow in a number of general regulations of the University,
but that Motion 5 refers to the organization as an interdisciplinary
group, hopefully with emphasis on the interdisciplinary idea. An
amendment was suggested by A. Lachlan for Motion 4, but as there was no
seconder it was not included. L. Freiman suggested that Motion 5 might
be deleted, but K. Strand identified some of the problems which would
arise were this done.
C. Basham indicated he was worried about the rationale for the
Faculty of Interdisciplinary Studies, that there was no clear ration-
ale given and no definition of what is meant by having a Faculty.
He still felt that rather than establishing a new Faculty the components
could be dealt with in existing structure.
.
?
?
K. Strand read to the assembly Sections 63, 64 and 65 from the
Universities Act pertaining to Faculties. He noted that to establish
a Faculty action was required by Senate and by the Board of Governors.
J. Wheatley expressed his personal point of view as to why it
was desirable to have a new Faculty. K. Rieckhoff indicated some
sympathy with the ideas expressed but disagreed with a number of the
comments. D. Sullivan indicated that he had spoken strongly at the
Academic Planning Committee for inclusion of Fine Arts in the Faculty
of Arts, but he was prepared to try the proposals as they would come
under review at later stages. He again expressed his concern about
the problem of degrees and hoped that this matter would be thoroughly
looked at.
G. Basham again indicated his disagreement with the establishment
of a Faculty and wished to see programs proposed before accepting that
the Faculty structure was appropriate.
R. Bradley spoke to C. Basham's questions on the rationale for a
new Faculty, referred to Chart 2 and the papers, and said that in
effect the new Faculty was an expanded and renamed Division of General.
Studies now including program committees as well as departments.
R. Carlson suggested that the Division of General Studies might
be retained, but R. Brown referred to the constraints that had been
•
? placed on the Division of General Studies which included no permanent?
faculty and that there would not be departments.
S
- 8 -
?
S.M. 25/10/71
R. Jennings indicated disagreement with the principle of a
Faculty of Interdisciplinary Studies and described his reasons,
suggesting it might better be named a Faculty of Extradisciplinary
Studies.
An amendment was moved by R. Jennings, seconded by L. Freiman,
"That 'Interdisciplinary' be changed to
'Extradisciplinary' throughout the docu-
ment, with appropriate editorial changes,
and that the first asterisk on the lead
page be removed."
Following further comments, moved by L. Freiman, seconded by
K. Gilbert,
"That the previous question now be put."
MOTION ON THE PREVIOUS
QUESTION CARRIED
Vote was then undertaken on the amendment.
S
NENDMENT FAILED
B. Wilson noted that M. Campbell had previously raised a number
of questions and possibly the papers before Senate had not given as
much information as they might. He noted that the Joint Board of
Teacher Education had endorsed the general principles of reorganization.
Moved by L. Freiman, seconded by M. Campbell,
"That the previous question now be put."
MOTION ON THE PREVIOUS
QUESTION CARRIED
17 in favor?
3 opposed
Vote was then undertaken on Motions 1, 2, 3, 4 and 5.
MOTIONS 1 - 5 CARRIED
15 in favor
10 opposed
MOTIONS
?
Moved by I. Mugridge, seconded by R. Brown,
S ?
7. "That the Physical Development Centre be
reconstituted as the Department of Kinesi-
ology in the Faculty of Interdisciplinary
Studies."
.
.
-9-
?
S.M. 25/10/71
8. "That the Senate Committee on Interdisciplinary
Studies (Kinesiology) be dissolved upon the
establishment of a curriculum committee for the
Department of Kinesiology."
K. Rieckhoff indicated that some considerable time ago the Faculty
of Science had indicated its willingness to incorporate the Kinesiology
program into its Faculty and that this was recorded in Faculty minutes.
A. Turnbull indicated that as members of the Academic Planning Committee,
he and Dean Funt had held discussions with many persons in the Faculty
of Science and that a number of reservations had been expressed in terms
of movement to that Faculty.
MOTION CARRIED
16 in favor?
6 opposed
MOTIONS ?
Moved by R. Brown, seconded by T. Mallinson,
9, 10, 11,
12 ?
9. "That within the Faculty of Interdisciplinary
Studies there be established an interim Depart-
ment of Social Relations comprising those
faculty members from within the present
Faculty of Education who wish to transfer to
such a Department."
10.
"That the faculty members transferred to the
Department of Social Relations continue, for
the present, to offer those courses which are
currently offered by Behavioural Science
Foundations and Communications Studies."
11.
"That the Academic Planning Committee establish
an Ad Hoc Steering Committee as an interim
curriculum committee for the Department of
Social Relations and that this committee be
responsible for submitting to the Academic
Planning Committee (no later than January 31,
1972), through the Dean of Interdisciplinary
Studies, a proposal for a coherent program in
Social Relations which would both have a con-
tent distinct from that of courses offered
elsewhere in the University and be well suited
to the qualifications and research interest of
faculty members in the department."
12.
"That within 30 days of receiving such a program
proposal the Academic Planning Committee recom-
mend its acceptance or otherwise to Senate."
K. Gilbert noted that in the context of the paper reference was
made to the Department of Social Relations,whereas the chart shows
Human Relations. B. Wilson indicated that the chart should show
Social Relations and appropriate change will be made.
- 10 -
?
S.M. 25/10/71
MOTION CARRIED
20 in favor
MOTIONS ?
Moved by B. Wilson, seconded by I. Mugridge,
15, 16,
17, 18
?
15. "That, within the Faculty of Interdisciplinary
Studies, a Department of Fine and Performing
Arts be established."
16. "That the Academic Planning Committee establish
an Ad Hoc Steering Committee for the Department
of Fine and Performing Arts and that this
Committee be responsible, through the Dean of
the Faculty of Interdisciplinary Studies, for
submitting to the Academic Planning Committee a
proposal for a program in Fine and Performing
Arts which:
a)
would include a number of those credit-
worthy but non-credit-carrying courses and
workshops currently offered by the Centre
. ?
S
?
for Communications and the Arts; and,
b)
would also include a range of new academic
credit courses in the Fine and Performing
Arts."
17. "That consideration of minor or major programs in
the Fine and Performing Arts be deferred until
these credit courses are established and the
nature of student demand is fully assessed."
18. "That appointments to the Department of Fine and
Performing Arts be made in accordance with the
normal universityprocedures, e.g., procedures
for regular appointments at the assistant,
associate and full professorial levels, and
visiting appointments."
T. Mallinson noted that the Kinesiology Department would not be
engaged in non credit courses, but it appeared that the Fine and
Performing Arts Department would be involved in both credit and non
credit courses, and asked for clarification. Discussion followed.
After it was noted that Motion 16. a) was intended to refer to
some of the credit-worthy but currently non—credit courses and work-
shops becoming credit carrying, amendment was moved by D. Birch,
• ?
seconded by T. Mallinson,
"To insert at the end of Motion 16.
'That the Ad Hoc Steering Committee
consider the desirability of offering
- 11 - ?
S.M. 25/10/71
non-credit courses within the Department
of Fine and Performing Arts or elsewhere
and make a recommendation to the Academic
Planning Committee.'"
AMENDMENT CARRIED
Vote was undertaken on Motions 15, 16 as amended, 17 and 18.
MOTIONS CARRIED
19 in favor?
2 opposed
MOTION 6
?
Moved by J. Wheatley, seconded by I. Mugridge,
"That the programs of the Department of
Fine and Performing Arts and the Depart-
ment of Social Relations, if approved,
be subject to review by the Academic
Planning Committee no later than three
years after the inception of each program,
and that the Academic Planning Committee
at that time make recommendations regarding
the continuation or discontinuation of each
program with due provision for the welfare
of students involved."
MOTION CARRIED
22 in favor?
2 opposed
MOTION 14 Moved by J. Wheatley, seconded by R. Brown,
"That the units known as 'Educational
Foundations Centre,' 'Behavioural
Science Foundations,' and 'Communications
Studies' be dissolved."
MOTION CARRIED
19 in favor
MOTION 22 Moved by J. Wheatley, seconded by R. Brown,
"That the Faculty of Education be newly
constituted so as to comprise the faculty
members currently in the Professional
Development Centre and members currently
. ?
in Social and Philosophical Foundations,
as designated by the Academic Vice-
President."
- 12 -, ?
S.M. 25/10/71
B. Wilson advised the assembly that a number of the persons in
the Social and Philosophical Foundations Centre were not happy with
this recommendation. K. Rieckhoff referred to page 10 of the paper
and to paragraph 2 on page 11, and expressed the feeling that one
group was being moved with the remaining group then being left to
develop foundations and he was not satisfied with the reasoning.
D. Birch said that the recommendations which had come forward were
not because of personality differences or clashes, but differences
in view of the nature of the Faculty of Education, with the view
presented following that of not wanting a large group of departments
but with the Faculty of Education able to draw on the University as
a whole. D. Sullivan felt that there was relationships between
Motions 22 and 27.
MOTION CARRIED
20 in favor
?
3 opposed
Request was made to now consider Motion 27 rather than Motions
23 and 24 as proposed at the beginning of the meeting. As there was
no objection the Chairman acceded to the request.
MOTION 27
?
Moved by J. Wheatley, seconded by R. Brown,
"That the faculty members transferred from
Social and Philosophical Foundations into
the newly constituted Faculty of Education
or the Philosophy Department continue for
the present to offer the courses for which
they have hitherto been responsible subject
to review by the curriculum committees of
the Faculty of Education and the Department
of Philosophy respectively."
K. Rieckhoff enquired as to whether the wishes of members were
being taken into consideration in terms of where they would be placed.
B. Wilson indicated that those involved had been asked to comment in
terms of an enquiry on order of preference and insofar as is possible,
considering also the interests of the groups, those preferences would
be met, but that to date there had been exploration only of possi-
bilities.
K. Rieckhoff noted that in Motion 27 review would be by the
Curriculum Committees of the. Faculty of Education for those in that
Faculty, but by the Department of Philosophy for those in Arts, and
felt that the Curriculum Committee of the Faculty of Arts should
also be involved.
- 13 -
?
S.M. 25/10/71
With the agreement of the assembly amendment was incorporated,
adding the words "and Faculty of Arts" in the last line of the
motion between "Philosophy" ... "respectively."
The motion reads,
"That the faculty members transferred from Social and
Philosophical Foundations into the newly constituted
Faculty of Education or the Philosophy Department
continue for the present to offer the courses for which
they have hitherto been responsible subject to review
by the curriculum committees of the Faculty of Education,
and the Department of Philosophy and the Faculty of Arts
respectively."
MOTION CARRIED
21 in favor?
2 opposed
MOTIONS ?
It was noted by S. Aronoff that the date, January 1, 1971,
23, 24 should read 'January 1, 1972" and this editorial change was incor-
porated.
• ?
Moved by D. Sullivan, seconded by R. Bradley,
23.
,
"That the Faculty of Education, as newly con-
stituted, be charged to submit (by January
31, 1972) a report to Senate through the
Academic Planning Committee, covering the
following points:
a)
detailed recommendations for undergraduate
and graduate program modification and
development;
b)
detailed recommendations regarding staffing
patterns and priorities; and
c)
steps to be taken relating to the organiza-
tional structure of the Faculty - specifically
its Faculty Coordinating Council, Graduate
Studies Committee, and Undergraduate Studies
Committee."
24. "That the recommendations made regarding programs
within the Faculty of Education satisfy the
following constraints:
a) courses should bear the designation 'Education';
• b) responsibility for Education courses currently
numbered 201 and 202 should be retained by the
newly constituted Faculty of Education; and
- 14 -
?
S.M. 25/10/71
c) additional work in the foundation areas of
education should be integrated as far as
is possible into the programs of the
Faculty of Education without provision for
majors in the foundational areas themselves
at the undergraduate level."
MOTION CARRIED
23 in favor
1 opposed
MOTION 28
?
Moved by B. Wilson, seconded by R. Bradley,
28. "That with the acceptance of the above recom-
mendations, the units known as 'The Profes-
sional Development Centre' and 'Social and
Philosophical Foundations' be dissolved."
MOTION CARRIED
22 in favor
2 opposed
2. DELEGATION OF RESPONSIBILITY TO SCUS, PAPER S. 71-121
0 ?
Moved by B. Wilson, seconded by K. Rieckhoff,
"That Senate's responsibility for review
and approval of changes in prerequisites
and other regulations for admission to
courses be delegated to the Senate Committee
on Undergraduate Studies, with such dele-
gation to apply to changes for entry to
courses for the forthcoming Spring Semester
72-1 only."
J. Wheatley suggested amendment to add at the end of the state-
ment "with such changes to be reported to Senate as soon as possible
thereafter." With the concurrence of the assembly the amendment was
included.
B. Wilson indicated that there had been some confusion in the
paper which he had distributed to Deans and Chairmen of Departments
but it was intended that copies of the Pre-registration form of indi-
vidual students would be sent to the Department of the student's Major,
where declared, to the Department of the student's intended Major,
where indicated, and where the Major is not identified to the Office
of the Dean of the Faculty concerned. He noted further that Depart-
ments can check the forms and advise students, particularly in those
• ?
instances where their proposed offerings would lead them into difficul-
ties, but that the Department would not have the right to prevent the
Pre-registration request unless the student indicated change, whilst Pre-
.
- 15 -
?
S.M. 25/10/71
40 ?
registration was in process. It was hoped that Departments would give
as much data as possible to help students adequately plan their programs.
Vote was then taken on the motion with the incorporated amendment.
"That Senate's responsibility for review and approval
of changes in prerequisites and other regulations for
admission to courses be delegated to the Senate Com-
mittee on Undergraduate Studies, with such delegation to
apply to changes for entry to courses for the forthcoming
Spring Semester 72-1 only, with such changes to be re-
ported to Senate as soon as possible thereafter."
MOTION CARRIED.
The meeting adjourned at 10.35 p.m.
H. M. Evans
Secretary
