DRAFT UNTIL APPROVED BY SENATE
MINUTES OF A SPECIAL MEETING OF THE SENATE OF SIMON FRASER UNIVERSITY
?
MONDAY, NOVEMBER 29, 1976, 3172 ADMINISTRATION BUILDING, 7:00 P.M.
.
Present: Jewett, P., Chairman
?
Absent:
Birch, D. R.
Bitle, D. E.
Blaney, J. P.
Brown, R. C.
Buitenhuis, P.
Calvert, T. W.
Carlson, R. L.
Catalano, J. A.
Curzon, A. E.
Davison, A. J.
—Debo, R. K.
Dobb, T. C., representing D. A. Baird
Ellis, J. F.
Emery, B. E.
Erickson, D. A.
Fattah, E. A.
Glas, T.
Hindley, M. P.
Hutchinson, J. F.
Ironside, R. A.
Johl, R.
Jones, C.H.W.
Knight, D. E.
Latham, L.
MacDonald, B. L.
Mackauer, J.P.M.
McClaren, M.
McGuire, G. T.
Munro, J. M.
Okuda, K.
Overholt, M. J.
Severy, L.
Thomas, S.
Walker, R. E.
Walkley, J.
Webster, J. M.
Wemyss, I. D.
Wheatley, J.
Wilson, B. G.
Evans, H. M., Secretary
Nagel, H. D.
Norsworthy, R., Recording Secretary
Arrott, A. S.
Barlow, J. S.
Cunningham, A. B.
Cunningham, F.
Diamond, J.
Doherty, P. M.
Finlayson, T.
Hindle, L.
Martel, A. G.
Sterling, T. D.
0 ?
-
2 -
?
S.M. 29/11/76
In a recent by-election by and from students of two students to
replace N. G. Hall and R. Schiffer for balance terms of office to
May 31, 1977, undernoted are the returns:
?
I
Ballots Cast
?
1119
Ballots Spoiled
?
16
Individual Totals: Bitle, Gale
?
547
Glas, Ted ?
671
Lloyd, Clifford ?
293
McGuire, Gerald
?
583
The Chairman congratulated Senators Glas and McGuire and welcomed
them to Senate. Observers were also welcomed to the meeting and these
included some members of the Board of Governors, Dr. B. P. Beirne, and
individuals from NDU.
1. REPORT OF THE SENATE COMMITTEE ON ACADEMIC PLANNING RELATING TO THE
QUESTION OF THE PROVISION OF UNIVERSITY PROGRAMS IN NON-METROPOLITAN
AREAS, PAPER S.76-152
The Chairman commented that only one item was on the agenda, for the
• Special Meeting of Senate and that the Senate Committee on Agenda and
Rules had drawn up a series of procedures to facilitate consideration
of the Report of the Senate Committee on Academic Planning, which were
contained in Paper S.76-152a.
Moved by R. Brown, seconded by D. Birch,
"That the recommendations for the procedures,
as set forth in Paper S.76-152a, be approved."
Following discussion and clarification of some points, question was
called, and a vote taken.
MOTION CARRIED
P. Buitenhuis opened informal discussion of the Report, stating
that political pressure had led to the Winegard Committee to provide
recommendations to improve post-secondary education in non-metropolitan
areas of the province, but the Commission's report had been quickly
prepared, inadequately researched, and the projections of required
funding were grossly underestimated. He referred to Dr. Beirne's review
of the Winegard Report and drew attention to a number of the consequences
outlined therein with respect to acceptance of a responsible role in the
development of higher education in other areas of the province. He
favored offering assistance in the establishment of a new independent
• ?
university and avoiding involvement in its operation, and indicated that
from his discussions with persons in the interior he was firmly convinced
that this was their desire - Motion D. J. Blaney did not consider the
Winegard Report to be a political solution to a political prob1eti but a
response to a need for improved post-secondary educational opportunities
in the interior. Both Bu:Ltenhuis and Blaney offered their comments as
members of the Winegard advisory committee.
.
3 -
?
S.M. 29/11/76
J. Wheatley believed that there was an opportunity for new money
and that funds provided via SFU would be more effective than if given
to a new independent university which he feared could be fourth rate.
He believed this institution has a moral responsibility to help, and
that it would do a good job with challenges to be faced but excitement
to overcome these.
R. Walker supported Motion D and opposed involvement beyond co-
operation in the development of university programs in non-metropolitan
areas on the grounds that the desires of the people living in the
interior have not been clearly established. Limited involvement would
minimize the risk to people in the interior and would force the
,
govern-
ment to proceed with the establishment of an autonomous university.
M. McClaren rejected Motion D and spoke strongly for B, as did
J. Blaney, T. Calvert, J. Walkley, J. Webster, D. Birch and A. Davison.
J. Munro argued for C and K. Okuda for D. S. Dawson supported 13 and
noted the experience of the Faculty of Education in its programs in the
interior. J. Hutchinson spoke strongly for D. R. Brown expressed his
concern that the information presently available to Simon Fraser did
not provide an adequate basis on which to determine a final decision.
He considered it essential that further discussion take place between
this university and the government and that opportunities for additional
research be made possible.
B. Wilson rejected the argument that there was an undue gamble. He
noted that no speakers had spoken for either A or E. T. Dobb indicated
his support for A, with B. MacDonald and R. Ironside speaking for D,
R. Carlson for C, and J. Ellis for B.
D. Knight gave notice of motion, "Simon Fraser University is pre-
pared to cooperate in the development of an independent provincial
university which would offer programs in non-metropolitan areas and is
willing, in principle, to offer such expertise in academic and
administrative resources as may be required. But any program implemented
by Simon Fraser University would require prior approval by the University's
Senate and Board of Governors together with assurance of an appropriate
level of funding." He later withdrew this motion.
During the debate the assembly approved extensions to the period
established for informal discussion. The informal consideration of the
SCAP report terminated at 9:10 p.m. Following a brief recess, Senate
entered formal discussion at 9:34 p.m.
Considerable further debate took place on perceived advantages and
disadvantages of the various motions and attempts were made to delineate
and clarify the options contained in the report from the Senate Committee
•
?
on Academic Planning.
Motion was made by J. Blaney, seconded by J. Walkley, 'That Question
A be isolated and that Question 3 become the first question." The effect
of this motion would be to change
- 4 -
?
S.M. 29/ll/76
from: ?
1.
Question: ?
Should there be any formal SFU participation
in the projected university development in non-metropolitan
areas?
Motions: ?
Yes
?
(A,B,C,D) ?
No
?
(E)
2.
Question: ?
Should SFU participation be limited to
support of an independent university?
Motions: ?
Yes (D)
?
No ?
(A,B,C)
3.
Question:
?
Should SFU commit itself at this time to
accept total responsibility?
Motions:
?
Yes (A)
?
No (B,C)
4.
Question: ?
Should any decision on implementation be
deferred until a detailed planning report be available?
Motions: ?
Yes (C)
?
No (B)
to: ?
1.
Question: ?
Should SFU commit itself at this time to accept
total responsibility?
Motions: ?
Yes (A)
?
No (B,C,D,E)
2.
Question:
?
Should there be any formal SFU participation in
•
the projected university development in non-metropolitan
areas?
Motions: ?
(Yes (B,C,D)
?
No (E)
3.
Question: ?
Should SFU participation be limited to support
of an independent university?
Motions:
?
Yes (D)
?
No ?
(B,C)
4.
Question:
?
Should any decision on implementation b
?
deferred
until a detailed planning report be available?
Motions:
?
Yes (C)
?
No (B)
A vote was taken on this motion to reorder and there was approval.
(Later actions
cancelled this.)
Amendments to the wording of some questions were proposed. B. Wilson
noted that
,
changes made to the questions would not change the motions.
Subsequently there was general agreement that amendments to the questions
would not be permitted.
Motion was made by J. Munro, seconded by R. Walkler, "That Question
4
follow the new question 1, and that the No vote in Question
4
refer to
Motions B, D, 'E. This to be followed by Question 1, which would have Yes
B and No E,etc."
.
?
?
Because the full impact of the motion could not be clearly dentified,
consideration was given to activating the advisory committee which would
consist of some of the members of the Senate Committee on Academic Planning
and to having a recess to enable the advisory committee to determine all
of the changes that would need to be made to the decision tree. The
- 5 -.
?
S.M.. 29/11/76,
Secretary noted that to restructure the decision tree to coincide with
the motion would necessitate amendments to the wording of some of the
questions and it had been decided by Senate that amendments of this type
would not be made. He also referred to Paper S.76-152a, Item 2 iv) c),
"that changes proposed be handed in writing to the Secretary."
I
P. Jewett named the members of SCAP who would form the advisory
committee and suggested that Senate recess. J. Hutchinson spoke against
the propriety of restructuring the original decision tree.
It was moved by J. Wheatley, seconded by T. Calvert, "ThatSenate
revert to the original decision tree, as set forth on page 5 ofPaper
S.76-152," and on the taking of the vote there was strong support for
the decision.
Votes were then taken on each of the questions on page 5 of S.76-152,
with results as follow:
Question 1: ?
Should there be any formal SFU participation in t4e projected
university development in non-metropolitan areas?
Yes (A,B,C,D) ?
36
No (E)
?
2
.
Question 2: ?
Should SFU participation be limited to support of an
independent university?
Yes (D)
?
19
No (A,B,C) ?
21
Question 3:
?
Should SFU commit itself at this time to accept total
responsibility?
Yes (A). ?
6
No
?
(B,C)
?
29
Question 4:
?
Should any decision on implementation be deferred until?
a detailed planning report be available?
Yes (C)
?
9
No ?
(B) ?
23
Abstentions ?
8
The Chairman confirmed that Alternative B had received Senate's
majority approval and the following decision was adopted:
"Simon Fraser University is willing to accept in principle
. ?
responsibility for offering university programs in non-
metropolitan areas and is prepared toappoint a director ana
appropriate staff to develop, specific plans by December 1977,
S
•
?
- 6 -
?
S.M. 29/11/76
provided that funds for such development will be made avail-
able by the government. Any program Implementation by Simon
Fraser University would require prior approval by the Univer-
sity's Senate and Board of Governors, together with assurance
of an appropriate level of funding."
The Special Meeting of Senate was declared adjourned at 10:42
p.m.
H. M. Evans
Secretary ?
I
