.

.

DRAFT UNTIL APPROVED BY SENATE

MINUTES OF MEETING OF SENATE OF SIMON FRASER UNIVERSITY

HELD MONDAY, NOVEMBER

5, 1973, 3172

ADMINISTRATION BUILDING,

7:30

P.M.

OPEN SESSION

Present: ?

Strand, K.

?

Chairman

Aronoff, S.

Banister, E. W.

Beirne, B. P.

Birch, D. R.

Burkie, E.

Copes, P.

Cot -

E, P. T.

Daem, J. P.

D'Auria, J. M.

Dawson, A. J.

DeVoretz, D. J.

Doherty, P. N.

Eastwood, G. R.

Eliot Hurst, N. E.

Emmott, A. H.

Hollibaugh, A. L.

Jamieson, D. H.

Kissner, R. F.

Kitchen, J. M.

MacPherson, A.

Munro, J. N.

Nair, K. K.

Reid, W. D.

Rieckhoff, K. E.

Salter, J. H.

Seager, J. W.

Smith, W.A.S.

Wagner, P. L.

Wheatley, J.

Wilson, B. G.

Evans, H. N.

? Secretary

Nagel, H. D.

Norsworthy, R.

?

Recording

Secretary

Absent: Baird, D. A.

Brown, R. C.

Caple, K. P.

Ellis, J. F.

Sadleir, R.M.F.S.

Sterling, T. D.

Sutherland, G. A.

Swangard, E. N.

In attendance: ?

Mugridge, I.

---

- 2 -

?

S.M. 5/11/73

.

?

SEATING OF SENATOR

The Secretary announced the result of a recent student election

wherein Erich Burkie, having polled the highest number of votes, had

been elected to replace P. M. Doherty as student Senator for balance

term of office to May 31, 1975.

It was moved, seconded and carried that Erich Burkie be seated

on Senate.

1.

APPROVAL OF AGENDA

The agenda was approved as circulated.

2.

APPROVAL OF MINUTES

The minutes of the Open Session of October 1, 1973 were approved

as distributed.

3.

BUSINESS ARISING FROM THE MINUTES

There was no business arising from the minutes.

4.

REPORT OF CHAIRMAN

. ?

Paper S.73-119 - Financial Statement

The Chairman noted that, in accordance with Section 50 of the

Universities Act, the Financial Statement as at March 31, 1973 had been

'distributed for information.

5.

REPORTS OF CO

MM ITTEES

1. Senate Committee on Agenda and Rules

1. Paper S.73-120 (Former S.73-114) - Rules of Procedure of Senate

Moved by A. MacPherson, seconded by K. Rieckhoff,

"That Senate adopt the 'Rules of Procedure of

Senate,' as set forth in Paper S.73-120, to

supersede all previous Rules of Procedure of

Senate effective immediately."

A. MacPherson explained that this paper had been submitted in

response to instructions of Senate to recommend rules and procedures

for Senate and the submission represented a codification of the current

operating rules. A number of questions were raised. The Chairman

pointed out that the paper is not a recommendation from the Senate

Committee on Agenda and Rules, but what the rules are; that it is the

• ?

intention of this Committee to bring forward suggestions as to the

improvement of these rulesand the Committee will do this within the

format indicated. S. Aronoff felt that if the motion was to ratify

procedures that have been in practice, he questioned the necessity of

bringing forward such a motion.

---

- 3 -

?

S.M. 5/11/73

Moved by J. Munro, seconded by J. Wheatley,

"That the motion as set forth in Paper S.73-120

be tabled."

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

MOTION TO TABLE CARRIED

17 in favor

10 opposed

The Chairman urged individual Senators who are critical of the

rules of Senate to forward their criticisms to the Secretary of Senate

so that the Senate Committee on Agenda and Rules can give them considera-

tion prior to the Senate meeting.

2. Senate Committee on Non-Credit Instruction

1. Paper S.73-121 - Report on Committee Activities, Summer Semester

1973

Moved by B. Wilson, seconded by K. Rieckhoff,

"That Senate ratify the courses approved for

offering during the Fall

Semester 1973 by the

.

Senate Committee on Non-Credit Instruction,

as set forth in S.73-121,

as follows:

Offered by

Course Title

Continuing Education

The Photographer's Eye

Continuing Education

Let's Do Music

Geography Department

Canadian Landscape II

Department of Modern

Languages

Chinese (Mandarin) for Beginners

Kinesiology and Con-

tinuing Education

Introduction to Dance Therapy

Computing Center

Computer Programming for Paraplegics

Physics Department

Glassblowing

Chemistry Department

Seminar Series in Forensic Chemistry

Reading and Study Center

Reading and Study 001

Reading and Study Center

English Language Program

Reading and Study Center

Typing Course

Reading and Study Center

Rapid Reading for the Business and

Professional Community

Recreation Center

Aquatics

Recreation Center

Fitness

Recreation Center

Sports and Games

Recreation Center

Combatives

•

Recreation Center

Library

Outdoor Program

Access to Information

Arts Center

Elementary Dance - 733-W202

Arts Center

Intermediate/Advanced Dance - 733-W204

Arts Center

Choreographers Workshop - 733-W208

---

- ?

4 ?

- ?

S.M. 5/11/73

.

Arts Center

Super 8mm Film - 733-W301

Arts Center

Introduction to Video - 733-W351

Arts Center

Continuing Video - 733-W352

Arts Center

Madrigal Singers - 733-W401

Arts Center

Choir - 733-W402

Arts Center

Beginning Recorder - 733-W410

Arts Center

Intermediate Recorder - 733-W411

Arts Center

16mm Film - 733-14312

Arts Center

Advanced Recorder - 733-14413

Arts Center

Renaissance Ensemble - 733-W491

Arts Center

String-Wind Ensemble

Arts Center

Purcell String Quartet at Home

Arts Center

Rehearsal - 733-W499

Arts Center

Acting/Directing - 733-W501

Arts Center

Design/Technical - 733-W531

Arts Center

Voice Production and Sight Reading -

733-W403

English Department

English 001

Computing Center

Introduction to Job Control Language

Computing Center

Computer Center Orientation

Computing Center

Introduction to APL 1

Computing Center

Introduction to APL 2

Health Services

Industrial First Aid Course"

S. Aronoff requested that

a correction to the motion be noted in

•

that the course in Glassblowing was not offered by the Physics Department

but by the Glassblowing Shop.

?

As there was no objection, the Chairman

ruled that the motion would be

altered accordingly.

Question was called on the motion as amended, and a vote taken.

MOTION AS AMENDED CARRIED

3.

Senate Committee on Undergraduate Studies

1. Paper S.73-122 - New Course Proposal Form and Covering Memorandum

•

The Chairman noted that Paper S.73-122 had been distributed to Senate

for information.

2.

Paper S.73-123 - Faculty of Arts - Proposal for a Minor in English

Moved by S. Smith, seconded by K. Rieckhoff,

"That Senate approve the establishment of a

Minor in English, as set forth in S.73-123,

as follows: For a minor in English, a student

must obtain credit or standing in any two of

English 101, 102, and 103; credit or standing

in either of English 202 and 203; and 15 credits

in upper division English, of which 10 shall be

. ?

in

5-credit lecture and seminar combinations

drawn from any 2 of the 7 sets of alternatives

shown under Plan A in the English Majors and

Honors programs. The department recommends

---

- 5 -

?

S.M. 5/11/73

that the remaining 5 be made up of a similar

lecture and seminar combination from within

or without those sets, but will permit the

student to acquire them in any other manner,

with one exception: he may not register in

the seminar alone of any lecture and seminar

combination."

Moved by R. Kissner, seconded by J. P. Daem,

That discussion of Paper S.73-123 be postponed

until Senate directs the Senate Committee on

Undergraduate Studies to review the general require-

ments for minors as earlier established by Senate

and recommends a rational policy for all minor

programs.

R. Kissner was of the opinion that all minors should be submitted

on the basis of a uniform rationale policy which had not yet been speci-

fied in any calendar. K. Rieckhoff disagreed, stating that minors had

been approved for a number of departments and there was publication of

a number of coherent designs. Although S. Smith considered a review of

policies related to minor programs was desirable, he did not consider

Paper S.73-123 should be delayed until the completion of such a review.

Ia ?

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

MOTION TO POSTPONE FAILED

Moved by A. Hollibaugh, seconded by J. Seager,

"That the proposal for a Minor in English be

tabled."

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

MOTION TO TABLE FAILED

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

MAIN MOTION CARRIED

3. Paper S.73-124 - Faculty of Interdisciplinary Studies - New Course

Proposals - GS 102-3 - Music in History I; GS 103-3 - Music in

History II

Moved by B. Wilson, seconded by S. Smith,

"That Senate approve, as set forth in S.73-124,

the new course proposals for:

General Studies 102-3 - Music In History I

General Studies 103-3 - Music in History II."

---

- 6 - ? S.M. 5/11/73

Amendment was moved by K. Rieckhoff, seconded by A. MacPherson,

"That Cs 102-3 and GS 103-3 be limited to one

offering and subsequent review by Senate."

K. Rieckhoff stated that the reason for the amendment was that

courses of this type should be temporary offerings pending possible

establishment of a Fine Arts Department when they could later be

considered for permanent placement therein. B. Wilson agreed to in-

corporation of the amendment in the motion. There was no objection

from the floor.

Question was called on the motion as amended, and a vote taken.

MOTION AS AMENDED CARRIED

4. Paper S.73-125 - Report on Curricular Issues Relating to Under-

graduate Education

It was agreed that, as the Chairman of the Senate Committee on

Undergraduate Studies is not a member of Senate, the Vice-President,

Academic would be considered the mover of each of the motions contained

in Paper S.73-125, and J. P. Daem would be recorded as the seconder, and

that each motion would be considered sequentially.

i

sMotion 1 - Procedures for Reviewing and Approving Curriculum Changes

"That Senate approve, as set forth in S.73-125,

a)

That SCTJS normally will consider the Faculty Curriculum

Committees to be the major investigatory body in matters

relating to curriculum and review.

b)

That the recommendations of Faculty Curriculum Committees

be received by the Senate Committee on Undergraduate

Studies except under four conditions.

i)

The documentation of the course proposed or program

change is inadequate,-i.e. the answers on the course

proposal form and supporting memoranda where appro-

priate do not indicate how the course fits into the

program, is too vaguely worded, etc.

ii) There is a specific reason, such as course overlap

with another department which has not been adequately

dealt with by the Faculty Curriculum Committee. The

difference from the first condition is that SCTJS must

state specifically the reason for referral, whereas

under the first condition, it may simply refer by

indicating areas of insufficient documentation.

---

- 7 -

?

S.M. 5/11/73

iii) Where a Faculty Curriculum Committee is unable to

resolve an issue, it should clearly state the nature

?

• ?

of the problem and refer to SCUS for a recommendation

which must then be approved by the department(s) and

Faculty Curriculum Committee(s) concerned. If the

parties involved agree to disagree, then the issue

accompanied by the alternative solutions will be

forwarded to Senate for resolution.

iv)

Where Faculty Undergraduate Curriculum Committee

proposals do not conform to Senate policy or to the

department's previously stated policy."

K. Rieckhoff requested that it be noted in the minutes that the

motions contained in Paper S.73-125 apply specifically to undergraduate

studies. He also requested that section b) of Motion 1 be amended to

read:

"That the recommendation of Faculty curriculum committees after

appropriate approval by the respective Faculty be received by

the Senate Committee on Undergraduate Studies except under four

conditions."

As there was no objection, the Chairman ruled that the amendment

would be incorporated in the motion. In the following discussion ?

?

. ? several Semantic points were conceded, resulting in the following re-

vision of section b) of Motion 1:

"That the recommendations of Faculty curriculum committees as

approved by the relevant Faculty will be returned after con-

sideration by the Senate Committee on Undergrdduate Studies

if one or more of the following conditions pertain."

At this point J. Wheatley offered a procedural suggestion that

dis-

cussion continue in a committee of the whole for half an hour on the

entire document, and gave notice of motion to refer the matter back to

the Senate Committee on Undergraduate Studies for redrafting.

Moved by J. Wheatley, seconded by A. MacPherson,

"That Senate continue for the next half hour to

consider S.73-125 informally."

Question was called on the motion for informal consideration

limited to one-half hour, and a vote taken.

MOTION FOR INFORMAL

CONSIDERATION CARRIED

During consideration of the document the following points were

noted:

---

- 8 -

?

S.M. 5/11/73

Issue 1 - Procedures for Reviewing and Approving Curriculum Changes

J. P. Daem expressed concern regarding lack of student representation

on Faculty curriculum committees in the Faculty of Arts and the Faculty of

Interdisciplinary Studies when such committees were recommended to be con-

sidered the major investigatory bodies.

J. Wheatley felt there could be clearer documentation requested in

subsection iii) to provide an indication of reasons for disagreement on

issues in order that SCUS might refer such unresolved matters appropriately.

J.

Munro was of the opinion that approval of the Faculty was required

on any curriculum committee recommendation prior to furtherance and that

this should be incorporated in all subsections of section b). A. MacPherson

suggested that all reference to Faculty curriculum committees should be re-

placed with reference to Faculties. It was accepted that the reference to

committees recognizes the principle of approval by Faculty-throughout._..

Issue 2 - Overlap of Course Content Between Courses Offered Within a

- ?

Department, Within a Faculty Across Faculties

K.

Rieckhoff asked that the wording of Motion 2 and all other sections

of the document be such that it is clearly understood that the actions of

curriculum committees do not carry legal weight until approved by the Faculty

concerned. ?

d''' ?

, ?

4. ,

. ?

P.

4ALt(4z.,

Copes, recognizing

,& c

fl V

Vfl

that

A

4jN4

many courses

ji!I _ J

overlap

?

to some ext'ent

Jt1?11tt.J"k4

with other

?

"' N

courses offered throughout the University, suggested Senate's concern should

be the degree of overlap. J. Wheatley felt the section should be rewritten

to identify an investigatory body responsible for considering allegations of

serious overlap, whether across Faculties, within a Faculty, within a depart-

ment. J. Munro considered that, in addition to naming an investigatory body,

the duties and responsibilities should be clearly defined. K. Rieckhoff felt

that if there was concern on overlap some person or body would identify the

concern, and this would initiate any required investigation.

J. P. Daem was of the opinion that overlap was a concern in courses num-

bered in the 100 and 200 levels, but in the upper levels a variation of expertise

in the same field could afford considerable benefit.

P. Wagner referred to part a) of the motion and requested a clear reference

to the authority involved in joint approval and justification of course proposals.

Issue 3 - Proliferation of Course Offerings

E. Banister commented that a machanism was provided in Motion 3 for con-

?

sideration of any question of the overlap of courses during departmental review.

Issue 4 - Use of Directed Readings, Directed Studies and Directed Research

Courses

P. Doherty registered objection to section f) of Motion 4 as he was of

the opinion that lower level students should be admitted to Directed Research!

Reading/Study courses even if only a limited number were admitted.

---

- 9 -

?

S.M. 5/11/73

P. Copes felt Issue 4 did not recognize two

classes

of Directed Reading

.

?

courses and that regulations should be specified for both, that is for those

so-called and for special circumstances where a regular course could be given

this way.

A. Hollibaugh asserted that instructor, rather than student, justification

of need for courses in this category was more realistic. K. Rieckhoff coun-

tered that proposals as set forth in the paper were intended to avoid abuse of

the availability of alternatives to standard methods of instruction.

P. Doherty wondered about deadlines for submission of student statements

of justification for admission to these courses.

On the question of standardizing credit hour assignment, J. D'Auria

received information to the effect that the task would be the responsibility

within rather than between Faculties.

Issue 5 - Use of Special Topics Courses

S. Aronoff questioned the need of burdening Senate with the requirements

of section f) of Issue 5. K. Rieckhoff responded that Senate had a vital

interest in the content of all course offerings. J. Munro added that the con-

dition of Senate ratification of non-credit offerings was equally as pertinent

to credit offerings. The Chairman concurred with the same legal reasoning and

indicated he would bring It to the attention of the Chairman of the Senate

Committee on Undergraduate Studies. A. MacPherson commented that there had

been a recommendation at an earlier meeting of Senate that .areport be submitted

on Special Topics courses but this had not been received. The Chairman res-

ponded that he had asked the Vice-President, Academic to check the Senate

reference and discuss the matter further with him. J. P. Daem noted that 5 i)

was in conflict with Issue 6.

Issue 6 - Course/Contact Hour Relationship (For regularly Scheduled Courses Only

J. Munro commented that the motion would be improved if it took the form of

• direction to departmental undergraduate curriculum committees that they Initiate

• review of credit or contact credit hour relationship in departments.

Issue 7 - Use of Vector Patterns (For Regularly Scheduled Courses)

There were no comments on this issue.

Issue 8 - Relationship between Contact Hours and Out-of-Class Graduation

Requirements

J. P. Daem said there were discrepancies between Faculties on this issue

and calendar guidelines were essential for student edification. He felt a

review in the Faculty of Science was required to establish an equitable work-

load in course offerings in relation to other Faculties. P. Wagner cautioned

that averages were difficult to establish because of individual differences

in relation to learning capabilities.

Issue 9 - Retroactivity of Calendar Changes as they Affect Graduation Requirements

.

?

?

R. Kissner commented that a student should be entitled to graduate under

the conditions of any calendar, which would permit him to apply for graduation

under the most advantageous regulations.

---

- 10 -

?

S.M. 5111/73

Issue 10 - Moratorium on Calendar Changes

J.

Munro expressed disappointment in the fact that the Senate Committee

on Undergraduate Studies had not submitted recommendations an this issue,

and suggested that further consideration be given to the matter with a view

to publishing a policy statement.

Issue 11 - Criteria for Numbering Courses

B. Wilson suggested a'revision was required by adjusting and correcting

the use of level and division in the wording of this issue. J. Munro was

interested in the volume of renumbering that would be required to meet the

criteria and wondered if it was practical or necessary.

Issue 12 - Operating Procedures for Waiving Course, Department and Faculty

Requirements

K. Rieckhoff noted that a report to Senate from the Registrar on waivers

granted during a semester appeared to be desirable.

S. Aronoff referred to section b) 2, and suggested that credit by exam-

ination was preferable to waiver by the departmental chairman.

Senate moved out of Informal discussion at 9:00 p.m. to give formal

• ?

consideration to Paper S.73-125.

Moved by J. Wheatley, seconded by P. Wagner,

"That Paper S.73-125 be referred back to the Senate

Committee on Undergraduate Studies for redrafting

in the light of the informal discussion."

B. Wilson spoke in opposition to referral, noting that substantive changes

had been requested only regarding Issues 1 and 11.

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

MOTION TO REFER FAILED

11 in favor

15 opposed

The assembly then returned to consideration of Motion 1 on Procedures

for Reviewing and Approving Curriculum Changes.

Moved by J. Munro, seconded by B. Wilson,

"That Motion 1 be referred back to the Senate

Committee on Undergraduate Studies."

0 ?

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

MOTION TO REFER CARRIED

---

- 11 -

?

S.M. 5/11/73

Motion 2 - Overlap of Course Content Between Courses Offered Within a

?

Department, Within a Faculty, Across Faculties

"That Senate approve, as set forth in S.73-125,

a)

That, in all cases where overlap in course content

exists, Faculty Curriculum Committees be charged

with requiring jointly approved and justified course

proposals to be submitted by the departments involved.

Such charge to apply to both departments within a

single Faculty and across Faculties.

b)

That, where a jointly approved course proposal is not

forthcoming from the departments involved, the issue

be referred by the departments involved, to the

Faculty Curriculum Committee(s) for resolution.

c)

That, where an overlap in course content cannot be

resolved at either the department or Faculty level,

the issue be resolved by Senate upon the recommenda-

tion of the Senate Committee on Undergraduate Studies."

B. Wilson commented that the main objection appeared to be concern

relating to identification of overlap in the same department, but Issue

• ?

3 had been designed to resolve any problem.

Question was called on Motion 2, and a vote taken.

MOTION 2 CARRIED

Motion 3 - Proliferation of Course Offerings

"That Senate approve, as set forth in S.73-125,

a)

At the time of internal or external departmental

review, departments be required to review all of their

course offerings with a view to eliminating those no

longer appropriate to the department's objectives.

b)

That justification for the continuance of any specific

course offering may be requested, at any time, by the

Faculty Undergraduate Curriculum Committee, the Senate

Committee on Undergraduate Studies or Senate.

c)

That any course not offered within a six semester period

be deleted from the Calendar unless adequate justification

for retaining the course is presented to the Senate

Committee on Undergraduate Studies and Senate. The Senate

Committee on Undergraduate Studies to be charged each

semester with reviewing course offerings under this ruling

and making appropriate recommendations to Senate."

---

. ?

- 12 - ? S.M. 5/11/73

In reply to a question by J. Munro on the proposed timing of departmental

reviews in the Faculty of Arts, S. Smith stated that an attempt was being made

to complete the entire series within three years, and to complete the review

of four departments this year. B. Wilson commented that internal or external

reviews provided an opportunity for review of courses, but curriculum committees

could address the question at any time.

Question was called on-Motion 3, and a vote taken.

MOTION 3 CARRIED

Motion 4 - Use of Directed Readings, Directed Studies and Directed Research

Courses

"That Senate approve, as set forth in S.73-125,

a) That the offering of all directed reading, directed study

and directed research courses offered within a department

be approved by the Departmental Chairman.

b)

?

That the chairman's approval be based upon a submission by

the instructor covering each of the following:-

1)

a statement of how the course is to be conducted

2)

a statement of how the student's performance will be

assessed for grading purposes

3)

a written statement by the student justifying his need

to take this particular course in lieu of one of the

regular courses offered by the department.

c)

?

That the present practice of having Senate approve the estab-

lishment of directed research/readings/and study courses for

departments but not the content of such courses be continued.

d)

?

As a general principle, that an instructor in a directed re-

search/readings/or study course should expect to meet' with

his students singly or together for weekly consultation.

e)

?

That departmental and Faculty curriculum committees be charged

with the task of standardizing the credit hours assigned to

their directed research/readings/and study wurses.

f) ?

That only upper level students (those who have completed at

least 60 semester credit hours) be eligible to enrol in directed

research/readings/and study courses.

g)

?

That all Faculties be required to recommend to Senate policies

. ?

regarding the maximum number of such courses (or credit hours)

a student must take for credit toward the degrees of that Faculty.

---

- 13 -

?

S.M. 5/11/73

h) That vector numbers for all directed research/readings or

study courses be deleted from both the University's Calendar

and Course Guide.

1) That directed research/readings/or study courses not be

permitted as substitutes for either required courses or

special topics courses."

An amendment was proposed by B. Wilson which would result in section e)

of Motion 4 reading as follows:

e)

?

"That departmental and Faculty curriculumicommittees,

subject to the approval of the Faculty, be charged

with the task of standardizing the credit hours assigned

to their directed research/readings/and study courses."

K. Rieckhoff questioned the need for such a motion, stating that the

inclusion of this fact in the minutes should be sufficient. The Chairman

concurred.

It was moved by A. Hollibaugh, seconded by P. Doherty, that section h) 3)

be deleted from Motion 4, but following discussion it was agreed by the mover

and seconder that rather than deletion the section could be amended to read

as follows:

. ?

b) ?

3) ?

"a written statement justifying the need to take

this particular course in lieu of one of the regular

courses offered by the department."

Question was called on the amendment, and a vote taken.

AMENDMENT CARRIED

Moved by P. Doherty, seconded by R. Kissner,

"That section f) of Motion 4 be deleted."

P. Doherty contended that lower level students could also gain con-

siderable advantage in academic experience by being eligible to take courses

of this nature. A. Hollibaugh concurred. K. Rieckhoff noted that consider-

able material is involved in directed readings and a restriction on enrolment

is preferable. He noted that Motion 12 provided flexibility to accommodate

unique situations. ?

-

Question was called on the motion to delete section f), and a vote taken.

MOTION TO DELETE FAILED

13 in favor

13 opposed

Considerable discussion ensued regarding section i) of Motion 4 and its

possible effect of precluding students from graduating on time or resulting:

in a longwàlting period to meet requirements for graduation.

---

- 14 -

?

S.M. 5/11/73

Amendment was moved by A. Hollibaugh, seconded by P. Wagner, "That

the word 'not' be deleted from section 1) of Motion 4, but on further

consideration the amendment was altered to read:

i) ?

"That directed research/readings/or study courses

may be permitted as substitutes for either required

courses or special topics courses."

It was noted that Issue 12 of Paper S.73-125 had relationship to the

motion under consideration.

Moved by J. P. Daem, seconded by A. Hollibaugh,

"That Motion 12 be considered now prior to con-

tinuing with consideration of Motion 4 and the

amendment to section i)."

Question was called on postponement of consideration of Motion 4 and

the amendment on the floor and for consideration of Motion 12, and a vote

taken.

MOTION TO POSTPONE CARRIED

Motion 12 - Operating Procedures for Waiving Course, Department and Faculty

• ? Requirements

"That Senate approve, as set forth in S.73-125,

a)

That departmental chairmen be empbwered in special

cases to waive departmental regulations on the

recommendation of the departmental undergraduate

curriculum committee; that Deans of Faculties be

empowered in special cases to waive Faculty regula-

tions on the recommendation of Faculty undergraduate

curriculum committees.

b)

That the primary criteria under which waivers may be

granted be established as follows:

1)

where a student has been misadvised and can provide

substantive evidence

2)

where a student can demonstrate to a department that

he has formal training or background for which he did

not receive direct course academic transfer credit.

(The waiver does not include the granting of additional

formal semester hours credit, but may remove the neces-

sity of undertaking certain prescribed courses.)

3)

where departmental programs have changed and eliminated

.

?

courses or otherwise substantially changed the gradua-

tion requirements affecting the student

4)

where a student has satisfied the spirit but not the

---

- 15 -

?

S.M. 5/11/73

letter of University, Faculty or departmental

regulations.

c)

That departmental offices, in the case of departmental

waivers, and the dean's office, in the case of Faculty

waivers, maintain documentation on all waivers granted

and advise in writing the department concerned, the

student and the Registrar where affirmative action has

been taken on a waiver request."

B. Wilson requested that a further section be added to Motion 12,

stating:

d)

"That the Registrar report to Senate all cases of

departmental waivers and faculty waivers on a semester

basis."

As there was no objection from the assembly, the addition to the

motion was accepted.

Moved by J. Seager, seconded by R. Kissner,

"That the words 'special cases' wherever they appear

in section a) of Motion 12 be deleted."

B. Wilson opposed the amendment, stating that departmental regulations

were Senate regulations and the reference was to the academic content of a

program which has some integrity, and it should only be waived in special

cases.

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

MOTION FAILED

10 in favor

17 opposed

Amendment was moved by R. Kissner, seconded by A. Hollibaugh,

"That section a) of Motion 12 be amended to read,

'That departmental chairmen be empowered in special

cases to waive departmental regulations, preferably

on the recommendation of the departmental under-

graduate curriculum committees; that Deans of

Faculties be empowered in special cases to waive

Faculty regulations, preferably on the recommendation

of the Faculty undergraduate curriculum committees."

R. Kissner commented that there were instances when a reply to a

petition for waiver was urgently required to permit graduation.

---

- 16 -

?

S.M. 5/11/73

0 ?

Question was called on the amendment, and a vote taken.

AMENDMENT FAILED

9 in favor

14 opposed

Amendment was moved by J. P. Daem, seconded by A. Hollibaugh,

"To add under section b), subsection 5) 'where

students may suffer undue hardships as a result

of prevailing regulations."

J. P. Daem was of the opinion that where a student can demonstrate

that not waiving a regulation would constitute a hardship, the regulation

should be waived and primary criteria stipulated in the paper to permit

such action. S. Aronoff agreed it was necessary to provide avenues to

permit graduation, but asked that the amendment be revised to indicate a

more direct

intent.

Several Senators suggested alternate phrasing.

Question was called on the amendment as moved, and a vote taken.

AMENDMENT FAILED

S. Aronoff then proposed a modification to section b) 2 to establish

.

?

?

the notion of credit by examination as an example of a waiver: "Where a?

student can demonstrate to a department by means of an examination that he

has formal training or background. (The waiver would include the

granting

of additional formal semester hours credit and would remove the necessity

of undertaking certain prescribed courses.)"

J. Munro proposed the following as an addition to section a):- Departmental

regulations are considered to be those contained in departmental sections of the

calendar and faculty regulations are those contained in the Faculty sections of

the calendar - but this wording currently could not operate.

Amendment was moved by J. P. Daem, seconded by A. Hollibaugh,

"That a new section c) be inserted in the motion

which would state 'where the lack of offerings of

a degree requirement would delay a student's

graduation unduly, the Chairman be permitted to

substitute a directed study/research/reading course,'

and the balance of the motion following be relettered

as required."

B. Wilson offered substitute wording to provide grammatical requirements,

"That departmental chairmen be empowered in cases where the unavailability of

required course offerings might cause undue delay to graduation to allow sub-

stitution of directed study/research/reading courses," and the substitution

was allowed.

---

- 17 -

?

S.M. 5/11/73

Moved by A. Emmott, seconded by K. Rièckhoff,

"That the previous question be put."

The Chairman noted that the motion was undebatable, and required two-

thirds majority vote to carry.

Question was called on the motion for the previous question, and a

vote taken.

MOTION CARRIED

24 in favor

Question was called on the amendment, and a vote taken.

AMENDMENT CARRIED

19 in favor?

3 opposed

Id

response to a request by J. Seager, the Chairman outlined Motion 12

as amended:

• ?

"That Senate approve, as set forth in S.73-125,

a)

That departmental chairmen be empowered in special cases to

waive departmental regulations on the recommendation of the

departmental undergraduate curriculum committee; that Deans

of Faculties be empowered in special cases to waive Faculty

regulations on the recommendation of Faculty undergraduate

curriculum committees.

b)

That the primary criteria under which waivers may be granted

be established as follows:

1)

where a student has been misadvised and can provide sub-

stantive evidence

2)

where a student can demonstrate to a department that he

has formal training or background for which he did not

receive direct course academic transfer credit. (The

waiver does not include the granting ot additional formal

semester hours credit, but may remove the necessity of

undertaking certain prescribed courses.)

3)

where departmental programs have changed and eliminated

courses or otherwise substantially changed the graduation

requirements affecting the student

.

?

4) where a student has satisfied the spirit but not the letter

of University, Faculty or departmental regulations.

---

- 18 -

?

S.M. 5/11/73

• c) That departmental chairmen be empowered in cases where

the unavailability of required course offerings might

cause undue delay to graduation to allow substitution

of directed study/research/reading courses.

d)

That departmental offices, in the case of departmental

waivers, and dean's offices, in the case of Faculty

waivers, maintain documentation on all waivers granted

and advise in writing the department concerned, the

student and the Registrar where affirmative action has

been taken on a waiver request.

e)

That the Registrar report to Senate all cases of depart-

mental waivers and faculty waivers on a semester basis."

Question was called on Motion 12 as amended, and a vote taken.

MOTION 12 CARRIED

UNANIMOUSLY

Motion 4 - Use of Directed Readings, Directed Studies and Directed

Research Courses

The Chairman drew attention to the amendment on the floor relating

to section 1) of Motion 4, but A. Hollibaugh stated that it was now

redundant and requested permission to withdraw his amendment. As there

was no objection, the amendment was withdrawn.

AMENDMENT WITHDRAWN

Amendment was moved by R. Kissner, seconded by A. Hollibaugh,

"That the title of the directed research/reading/

study courses reflecting course content be sub-

mitted by the instructor and the student to the

Registrar and be included on the student's trans-

cript."

R. Kissner stated that the logic of the amendment was that courses in

this category were in the same area as the student's program and should be

recorded on the permanent record. S. Aronoff was of the opinion that such

a proposal should not be entertained unless it has the approval of the cur-

riculum committee. B. Wilson said the content of any course should not

appear on the transcript unless it is approved by Senate. D. DeVoretz

commented that there were mechanisms to provide information on the content

of directed reading courses other than the transcript.

Question was called on the amendment, and a vote taken.

AMENDMENT FAILED

---

- 19 -

?

S.M. 5/11/73

0 ?

Moved by A. Dawson, seconded by J. P. Daem,

"That Motion 4 be referred back to the Senate

Committee on Undergraduate Studies."

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

MOTION TO REFER CARRIED

P. Doherty expressed the opinion that referral should be accompanied

by instructions to the Committee, but the Chairman responded that the Deans

attend the meetings of the Senate Committee on Undergraduate Studies and

they would be guided by the minutes of this meeting of Senate.

Motion 5 - Use of Special Topics Courses

"That Senate approve, as set forth in S.73-125,

a) That departments include in the University's

Calendar and Course Guide a general statement to

the effect that special topics courses are offered

and that students should obtain further information

from the department prior to registration. (Note:

this initial contact would give departments an op-

portunity to learn what special topics students want

.

?

to see initiated and thus facilitate the introduc-

tion of special topics courses.)

b) ?

That, as general University guidelines, special

topics courses should be utilized to:

1)

fill a particular gap In a department's curriculum

2)

respond to student/faculty interests which are

worthwhile at the moment but not necessarily of

continuing relevance to a department's program

3)

experiment with a particular subject matter area

before considering it for introduction into the

regular curriculum.

c) That all Faculties recommend policies to Senate re-

garding the maximum number of such courses (or credit

hours) a student may include for credit toward the

degrees of that Faculty.

d) That the present practice of having Senate approve the

establishment of special topics courses for departments

but not the contents of such courses be continued.

e) That the Chairman, on the advice of the Departmental

Undergraduate Curriculum Committee, be charged with

approving the content of all special topics courses

offered.

---

- 20 - ?

S.M. 5/11/73

f) ?

That once each semester, Deans of Faculties report to

Senate on topics covered under special topics, such

report to include:

1)

the calendar description of each course offered,

including the course number, credit hours, vector

description, course description.

2)

a detailed description of the specific courses

offered including the name of the responsible

faculty member, a course outline and/or syllabus,

a reading list, and method of instruction.

3)

the number of students enrolled in each course.

g) ?

That special topics courses be regarded as regularly

scheduled courses, i.e. that class meetings are held on

a regular basis.

h)

?

That vector patterns for special topics courses be

deleted from the University Calendar and incorporated

into the Course Guide.

i) ?

As a guiding principle for special topics courses, that

one contact hour be set equal to one credit hour.

J)

?

That where a department wishes to deviate from principle

i) above, a justification for the variance must be pro-

vided to the Faculty and Senate Undergraduate Curriculum

Committees and to Senate."

Amendment was moved by J. P. Daem, seconded by A. Hollibaugh,

"To delete sections i) and j) of Motion 5, and

substitute the following, as in Issue 6: 'That

the determination of the appropriate relationship

between credit and contact hours rest with depart-

mental undergraduate curriculum committees subject

to the approval of Faculty Curriculum Committees,

the Senate Committee on Undergraduate Studies and

Senate. "'

J. P. Daem was of the opinion that consistency of guidelines for special

topics and regularly scheduled courses was essential. I. Mugridge agreed

that some kind of guiding principle was considered desirable and possible

for special topics courses.

Question was called on the amendment, and a vote taken.

AMENDMENT FAILED

10 in favor

12 opposed

---

- 21 -

?

S.M. 5/11/73

0 ?

Question was called on Motion 5, and a vote taken.

MOTION 5 CARRIED

19 in favor

Motion 6 - Course/Contact Hour Relationship (For Regularly Scheduled

Courses* Only

* A regularly scheduled course is defined as a semester length course

expected to be meeting for a predetermined total number of contact hours

per week in lecture, tutorial, seminar or laboratory as approved by Senate.

"That Senate approve, as set forth in S.73-125,

That the determination of the appropriate relation-

ship between credit and contact hours rest with

departmental undergraduate curricilum committees

subject to the approval of Faculty Curriculum Com-

mittees, the Senate Committee on Undergraduate

Studies and Senate."

Moved by A. Dawson, seconded by A. MacPherson,

"That Motion 6 be referred back to the Senate

Committee on Undergraduate Studies."

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

MOTION TO REFER MOTION 6

CARRIED

17 in favor?

7 opposed

I. Mugridge asked that Senate provide instructions to the Committee.

A. Hollibaugh commented that he hoped it would be recommended to the.

Committee that sections 1) and j) of Motion 5 be incorporated with Motion

6 to achieve some degree of uniformity. J. Wheatley suggested that contra-

dictory statements be eliminated and that guidelines be developed in relation

to established limits.

Motion 7 - Use of Vector Patterns (For Regularly Scheduled Courses)

?

"That Senate approve, as set forth in S.73-125,

a)

That all vector patterns be eliminated from

University Calendars.

b) That each course description contained in

. ?

University calendars be accompanied by an

indication of the nature of the course, e.g.

lecture/tutorial, lecture/tutorial/laboratory,

seminar, etc.

---

- 22 -

?

.M. 5/11173

•

?

c) That within the total number of contact hours

assigned to a course, and subject to the approval

of the departmental undergraduate curriculum

committee, the Chairman be permitted to vary the

vector pattern. Such vector patterns to reflect

only the in-class requirements and the calendar

description of the course.

d)

That vector patterns for all regularly scheduled

courses be included in Course Guides.

e)

That only departmental approval be required for

all course vector patterns to be included in the

Course Guide; departmental approval to be in

writing and submitted to the Registrar."

Moved by A. Hollibaugh, seconded by J. Seager,

"That Motion 7 be referred until Motion 6 is

resolved."

A. Hollibaugh stated that the motion to refer was based on the wording

of section c).

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

40 ?

CARRIEDTO REFER MOTION 7

CARRIED

14 in favor

11 opposed

It was noted that there was no motion attached to Issue 8 - Relationship

between Contact Hours and Out-of-Class Preparation Time.

Motion 9 - Retroactivity of Calendar Changes as they Affect Graduation

Requirements

"That Senate approve, as set forth in S.73-125,

Before or upon entering the final 60 credit hours

(72 credit hours for the Honors program) students

must make a formal Declaration of Major (or Honors)

with this formal 'declaration to establish the re-

quirements for graduation as indicated in the

published Calendar in effect at the time of the

declaration. A change of major or honors field

will be deemed a new declaration."

The Secretary explained that the clause was applicable to the first

declaration, but a new declaration involving a change in field would be

. ?

under the regulations of the calendar in effect at the time of the subsequent

declaration.

---

- 23 -

?

S.M. 5/11/73

Amendment was moved by R. Kissner, seconded by J. P. Daem,

"That the words 'or future calendars at the

student's discretion,' be added at the end of

the first sentence of the motion."

R. Kissner said that rules change and the student should be governed

by his choice of calendars. B. Wilson was agreeable to the amendment.

Question was called on the amendment, and a vote taken.

AMENDMENT CARRIED

Question was called on the motion as amended, and a vote taken.

MOTION 9 AS AMENDED

CARRIED

18 in favor

It was noted that there was no motion attached to Issue 10 - Moratorium

on Calendar Changes.

Motion 11 - Criteria for Numbering Courses

40

?

"That Senate approve, as set forth in S.73-125,

That the following criteria be established as

guidelines for departments in determining the

number levels to be assigned individual courses:

1)

000 level courses

2)

100 level courses - are designed to introduce

students to a discipline at the University level;

students will normally be expected to enrol in

such courses during their first and second levels

of University; such courses will not demand pre-

requisites at the University level although previous

learning experiences in the discipline or related

disciplines at the secondary school level may be

recommended or required.

3)

200 level courses - assume either previous learning

experiences in the discipline or related disciplines;

both content and teaching level will be more advanced

than courses offered at the 100 level; students will

normally be expected to enrol in such courses during

their third and fourth levels of University; pre- and

la

?

co- requisites may be identified.

---

- 24 - ?

S.M. 5/11/73

4)

300 level courses - assume a substantive amount of

previous learning experiences in either the discipline

or related disciplines; both content and teaching level

will be more advanced than courses offered at the 200

level; students will normally be expected to enrol in

such courses during their fifth and sixth levels of

University; only in exceptional circumstances will

courses offered at this level not have pre- and/or

co- requisites associated with them.

5)

400 level courses - assume a substantive amount of

previous learning experiences in either the discipline

or related disciplines; both content and teaching level

will be more advanced than courses offered at the 300

level; students will normally be expected to enrol in

such courses during their seventh and eighth levels of

University; prerequisites will always be demanded for

courses offered at this level."

B. Wilson pointed out that the use of the words "level" and "division"

in a number of instances was incorrect, but the necessary adjustments could

be left to the Registrar.

Moved by B. Wilson, seconded by D. DeVoretz,

"That the motion be divided between Item 1 and Items 2, 3,

4, and 5."

Question was called, and a vote taken.

MOTION TO DIVIDE CARRIED

Moved by B. Wilson, seconded by D. DeVoretz,

"That Item 1 of Motion 11 be referred to the Senate

Committee on Undergraduate Studies for definition."

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

MOTION TO REFER ITEM 1

OF MOTION 11 CARRIER

Discussion continued on the remaining part of the divided question,

Items 2 - 5 inclusive.

Amendment was moved by J. Munro, seconded by D. DeVoretz,

"That there be added, after item 5, the last sentence

of the rationale on page 21, 'deviations from these

•

?

recommendations should be permitted provided they

are acceptable to the Faculty curriculum committee,

the Senate Committee on Undergraduate Studies and

Senate.

---

- 25 -

?

S.M.5/11/73

Question was called on the amendment, and a vote taken.

AMENDMENT FAILED

Amendment was moved by R. Kissner, seconded by J. P. Daem,

"That the last clause in Item 5 be deleted and

the last clause of Item 4 be substituted therefor,

i.e. replace 'prerequisites will always be demanded

for courses at this level' with 'only in exceptional

circumstances will courses offered at this level not

have pre- and/or co- requisites associated with them.'"

It was generally agreed that a full prerequisite scheme is impractical,

although S. Aronoff was of the opinion that the question involved the degree

of sophistication of the course. P. Copes considered that not all 400 level

courses require a prerequisite course; that the degree of maturity of the

student is often the prerequisite.

Question was called on the amendment, and a vote taken.

AMENDMENT CARRIED

Item 5 then read as follows:

"400 level courses - assume a substantive amount of

previous learning experiences in either the discipline

or related disciplines; both content and teaching level

will be more advanced than courses offered at the 300

level; students will normally be expected to enrol in

such courses during their seventh and eighth levels of

University; only in exceptional circumstances will

courses offered at this level not have pre- and/or co-

requisites associated with them.

Question was called on the main motion as amended.

MAIN MOTION ON THE

DIVIDED QUESTION

CARRIED

(Editorial changes to

be made)

6. REPORTS OF FACULTIES

There were no reports from Faculties

7. OTHER BUSINESS

1. Notice of Motion

1. Paper S.73-126 - Senate Rule - Reports of Committees (Senate

Committee on Agenda and Rules

The Chairman noted that this paper was subject to debate at the next

meeting.

---

- 26 -

?

S.M. 5/11/73

2. Date of Next Meeting

It was noted that the next meeting of Senate is scheduled for Monday,

December 3, 1973, at 7:30 p.m.

3. Other Items

1. Paper S.73-127 - Motion to Establish a Committee to Consider Expected

Paper on University-Government Relationships

Moved by J. D'Auria, seconded by A. Dawson,

1. "That an ad hoc committee be established by the

Senate of this University to consider the paper

from the task force on higher education established

by the Minister of Education of British Columbia

relating to the relationship between universities

and government and possible changes to the Universities

Act, - the SFU Senate committee to be charged with

preparing an assessment of such report and recommenda-

tions pertaining thereto for consideration by this

Senate; i.e. a report on the task force report by the

January meeting of Senate."

J. D'Auria commented that he had made a few editorial changes to the

motion set forth in Paper S.73-127, and that the task force intends to hold

open hearings on January 17. The Chairman added that he had received a

letter from the Commissioner of Education advising that the working papers

will be forthcoming for distribution.

Question was called, and a vote taken.

MOTION CARRIED

Moved by J. D'Auria, seconded by A. Dawson,

2.

"That this committee consist of three members of

Senate."

Amendment was moved by J. P. Daem, seconded by A. MacPherson,

"That the Committee consist of five members of

Senate, two members of faculty, two students, and

one academic administrator."

J. P. Daem said that if the committee is going to look at the recom-

mendations all bodies should be represented. J. D'Auria felt a smaller

committee would be more effective in working rapidly on a specific document.

Question was called on the amendment, and a vote taken.

0 ?

AMENDMENT FAILED

6 in favor

20 opposed

---

- 27 -

?

S.M. 5/11/73

0 ?

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

MOTION CARRIED

Moved by J. D'Auria, seconded by A. Dawson,

3.

?

"That Senate

for

tonight's meeting suspend its

rules on nominations and voting to now nominate

and elect the members to this committee."

Question was called, and a vote taken.

MOTION CARRIED

Moved by J. D'Auria, seconded by K. Rieckhoff,

"That R. Kissner, B. Beirne, and S. Smith be

nominated to the Committee."

The Chairman declared that it was usual to enquire if those nominated

were willing to stand for election. K. Rieckhoff then nominated J. Wheatley

to the committee. As all nominees were willing to stand for election,

ballots were distributed, and the Secretary reminded Senators that under

Senate election rules, in order to be valid, ballots must contain three votes.

Results of the election were announced as follows:

Elected: ?

B. P. BEIRNE

R. F. KISSNER

W.A.S.SMITH

4. Confidential Matters

The assembly moved into Closed Session at 11:58 p.m.

H. M. Evans

Secretary

0