fl

DRAFT UNTIL APPROVED BY SENATE

MINUTES OF A MEETING OF THE SENATE OF SIMON FRASER UNIVERSITY HELD

?

ON MONDAY, NOVEMBER 7, 1988 KLAUS RIECKHOFF HALL, 7:00 P.M.

OPEN SESSION

I

S

Present: ?

Saywell, W., Chair

Bains, H.

Barrow, R.

Beedie, R.

Berggren, J.L.

Cercone, N.

Clayman, B.

Covell, M.

Di Fonzo, R.

Djwa, S.

Freedman, A.

George, D.

Goodman, D.

Hoegg, J.L.

Horn, C.

Ivany, G.

Jones, C.

Kazepides, A.C.

Kennedy, P.

Maaske, R.

MacDonald, C. (representing T. Dobb)

Mathewes, R.

McGivern, R.

Nicol, I.

Nielsen,. V.

Nyvik, S.

Palmer, L.

Pinfield, L.

Reilly, N.

Rieckhoff, K.

Shannon, D.

Shapiro, S.

Strate, G.

Swartz, N.

Tjosvold, D.

Warsh, M.

Weinberg, H.

Winne, P.

Wotherspoon, A.

W.R. Heath, Secretary

Grant, B., Recording Secretary

Absent: ?

Bralic, V.

Cleveland, W.

D'Auria, J.

Fitzsimmons, C.

Mauser, G.

Rae, B.

Rashed, S.

Salter, L.

Saunders, R.

Shickele, J.

Tuinman, J.

Verdun-Jones, S.

In attendance

?

Heath, N.

El

---

3

4

1.

APPROVAL OF THE AGENDA

The Agenda was approved as distributed.

2.

APPROVAL OF THE MINUTES OF THE OPEN SESSION OF OCTOBER 3. 1988

The Minutes were approved as distributed.

3.

BUSINESS ARISING FROM THE MINUTES

Referring to Page 3 of the Minutes under the report of the Vice-President of

Finance, inquiry was made as to how a separate financial statement with

regard to the financial impact of Harbour Centre could be brought before

Senate. The Chair felt that it probably was possible for a separate statement

to be presented at the same time of year as the Financial Statement for the

University was presented to Senate but he would like to consult with P. Boyle,

4.

REPORT OF THE CHAIR

The Chair introduced and welcomed on behalf of Seflate, newly elected

Convocation Senator, D. Shannon and newly elected Student Senator R. Di

Fonzo

the

The

$32

Chair

million

reported

dollar

that

goal

the

of

University

its fundraising

had passed

campaign.

the

He

half

went

.way

on

mark

towards

his

S

energies would continue to be devoted to the campaign until sometime in the

new year and expressed opinion that the benefits of this exercise were not

only limited to actual donations but could be viewed as a public relations

process as it provided a good opportunity to promote the University to the

external community.

i) ?

Paper S.88-34 - Membership on Senate - Vice-President Research and

Moved by G. Ivany, seconded by H. Weinberg

"that, pursuant to the provisions of Section 34(1)(1) of the

University Act, the Vice-President, Research and

Information Systems hold membership on Senate, with

such membership adding two faculty members to be

elected under Section 34(1)(g), and one student member

to be elected under Section 34(1)(h),

Fraser

?

5

with such membership adding two faculty members to be

elected under Section 34(1)(g), and one student member

---

S.M. 07/11/88

Page

to be elected under Section 34(1)(h).

The membership is to be effective November 1, 1988"

The Chair briefly introduced the paper by stating that he felt it was very

important that the two areas represented by the offices of the two Vice-

Presidents be part of the main legislative body of the University, and he felt

the addition of these two positions would not change the personality of

Senate.

In opposition to the motion, concerns were expressed that the areas of

responsibility of these particular Vice-Presidents do not fall within 'the

jurisdiction of Senate as specified under the University Act and that the

addition of these two senior administrators would add to the perception held

by some faculty members that there has been an increase in centralization in

the decision-making process at the University. It was also noted that by

virtue of the University Act, the addition of two administrators required the

addition of four faculty members and two students thus increasing Senate's

size by approximately fifteen percent and suggestion was made that debate

might become cumbersome by the increase in numbers.

In favour of the motion, opinions were expressed that the addition of these

two senior administrators provided a good opportunity for individuals on

Senate to have their views heard, would assist in improved communication

between Senate and the administration, and in fact would provide the Vice-

Presidents with an enriched perspective about the University and its various

academic prograns.

It was stressed that, while the academic responsibility for programs and

courses remains with the Deans, Departments and Faculties, the Vice-

President of Harbour Centre is totally responsible for the development of the

Downtown Centre and the academic planning activities of the Downtown

Planning Committee will be influenced by the Vice-President- of Harbour

Centre as Chair of that Committee. It was also pointed out that in addition to

having responsibility for the Library, the Vice-President Research and

Development also. has a mandate with regard to the establishment of Research

Centres and Institutes under Policy AC

35

which involves academic decisions

as to whether such proposals should or should not come to Senate. In that

sense, it was very important that these two offices should be accountable and

part of Senate.

Question was called, and

a vote taken.

'

10 ?

ii) ?

Paper S.88-41

- Report

G. Ivany introduced

the

paper by providing

brief background information. ?

He

---

Page 4

explained that what started out as a ten-year planning exercise of the

Premier's Office involved setting up a number of committees in the Province,

including the creation of the Joint Planning and Articulation Committee (JPAC)

as an advisory committee to the Minister. An Access Committee was also set

up to provide a special report to JPAC and the Ministry on access. The Access

Committee was further broken down into subcommittees created in each of

the eight regional Ministries of State with the intent that each regional

committee should provide a subcommittee report to be melded into one

document called Access to Advanced Education and Job Training in British

Columbia. The document on Access is now before each post-secondary

institution for input of views and concerns. This input will then be

considered by the Joint Planning and Articulation Committee for presentation

to the Ministry. An open forum scheduled for November 9th will provide

opportunity for the University community to participate in the feedback

process.

The Chair expressed opinion that the question of how we are going to improve

access to post-secondary education at the degree granting level in particular

will be one of the most important issues and concerns of higher education in

the province over the next five to ten years. It is his belief that the Province

ought to do everything within its power to increase the opportunities for

post-secondary education for all individuals regardless of their age or where

they live. However, he did not believe the solutions or ideas currently under

consideration an necessarily the right ones or that they have been given

correct priority. He went on to explain that the creation of a university

college component or the creation of a degree granting university must be

done in collaboration with the existing universities to ensure that a

perception that there are two classes of degree granting institutions does not

become a reality. He went on to say he would fully support such

opportunities but believed, if it is to be done properly, it is absolutely critical

that the current university system is appropriately funded and their financial

resources fully restored.

Brief discussion followed with regard to the background of some of the

recommendations in the Report.

5.

a) ?

Senate Nominating Committee

?

Paper

S.88-35 -

Elections

following

are the results of elections to fill vacancies on the undernoted

Si

---

S.M. 07/11/88

Page

5

SENATE COMMHTEb ON CONTINUING STUDIES (SCCS

•

?

One Faculty Senator to replace J. Osborne for two-year term of office, from

date of election to September 30, 1990.

No nominations received:

?

VACANT

One Student Senator Alternate to fill an existing vacancy for two-year

term of office, from date of election to September 30, 1990.

Elected by acclamation: ?

R. DI FONZO

SENATE LIBRARY COMMITTEE (SLC)/LIBRARY PENALTIES APPEAL

COMMITTEE (LPAO

One Student Senator Alternate to fill an existing vacancy for two-year

term of office, from date of election to September 30, 1990.

Elected by acclamation: ?

R.DIFONZO

SENATE UNDERGRADUATE ADMISSIONS BOARD (SUAB)

One Student Senator Alternate to fill an existing vacancy for one-year

terms of office, from date of election to September 30, 1989.

Elected by acclamation:

?

R. DI FONZO

ELECTORAL STANDING COMMITTEE (ESC)

?

-

10

?

One Senator at-large to replace A. Vining for no specified term of

office.

No nominations received:

?

VACANT

SENATE UNDERGRADUATE AWARDS ADJUDICATION COMMITTEE (SUAAC)

One student at-large to replace S. Carr whose term of office expired on

September 30, 1988 for term of office from date of election to September 30,

1989.

Elected by acclamation:

?

R. MAASKE

SENATE GRADUATE AWARDS ADJUDICATION COMMITTEE (SGAAO

One student at-large to replace R. McGivern whose term of office expired

on September 30, 1988 for term of office from date of election to September

30, 1989.

Elected by acclamation: ?

L. BUTT

b) SENATE COMMITTEE ON ACADEMIC PLANNING

i) ?

Paper S.88-36 - Change of name of the Extended Studies Diploma

to Post Baccalaureate Diploma

Moved by B. Clayman, seconded by J.L. Hoegg,

. "that Senate approve and recommend approval to the

Board of Governors, as set forth in S.88-36 the proposal

to change the name of the Extended Studies Diploma to

---

Post Baccalaureate Diploma"

J.L. Hoegg introduced the paper by stating that the proposed name change

would more clearly reflect the post baccalaureate nature of the extended

studies diploma, would carry a stronger recognition of the type of study

involved, and would be more effective in improving the marketing of these

programs in the downtown community.

In response to an inquiry, Senate was assured that recognition of the status of

the Extended Studies Diploma will be carried on in the Calendar for existing

and prior students who have received that credential. A suggestion that

students be offered the opportunity to opt for the new Diploma was be taken

under advisement.

Question

was called, and a

vote taken.

ii)

?

Paper

S.88-37 - Enrolment

Limitation for ?

1989-1

Moved by B. Clayman, seconded by R. Brown,

"that Senate approve and recommend approval to the

Board of Governors, as set forth in S.88-37 that the

Registrar set targets of 950 new undergraduate

registrants -for 1989-1 and 600 for 1989-2. Any

resulting reductions will be accomplished following the

methodology employed in September 1988"

G. ?

Ivany

introduced

?

the ?

paper

?

by ?

informing ?

Senate ?

that ?

the

represents

the

need to register students in January and April prior to

the full

debate of

the

report from the Task Force on University Size and

that ?

the

methodology

previously ?

employed

?

would

?

again ?

be ?

used ?

for ?

Spring

?

and

Summer 1989.

The draft report on enrolment from the Task Force

will ?

be

distributed

to

the University community for feedback within the next few

days with

intent to have a full debate and action by Senate at the

January

meeting.

In opposition to the motion, the premise that the University does not have the

resources for the current number of students represented was questioned.

Question was called, and a vote taken.

?

c)i)

??

S.88-38

Report

Studies

?

-10

In response to an inquiry as to why Senate received such a Report, it was

---

Page 7

. name of the University that do not necessarily go through individual

academic departments and faculties. In response to an inquiry as to why

regular undergraduate extension credit courses taught in the evening were

labelled as continuing studies, it was noted that extension was not meant in

the context of the more restricted view at some other institutions but rather

was intended to provide Senate with an overall view of all offerings whether

they be credit or non-credit, day or evening courses.

?

discussion, the Annual Report was received by Senate for information.

d) ?

Senate Undergraduate Admissions Board

i) ?

Moved by G. Ivany, seconded by K. Rieckhoff,

"that Senate approve the changes described in document

SUAB 184 (revised) namely:

a)

elimination of the standing 'On Academic Warning'

and its replacement by the standing 'On Academic

Probation'; and

b)

appeals for readmission by students who had been

withdrawn for .

etc.) would normally be considered only for the Summer

Semester; and

c)

requests for transfer credit for students who had

been withdrawn for academic reasons will be reviewed

only after a student has been readmitted and will be

granted, subject to the approval of the student's major

department or faculty, only if the grades achieved at the

transferring institution are well above average and the

course content does not overlap with credit previously

earned; and

d)

that these changes be shown in the forthcoming

Calendar for implementation in the Fall semester 1989"

N. Heath, Director of Admissions introduced the paper by providing back-

• In response to a concern expressed about good students who have had to

withdraw because of health or financial reasons and then end up with a low

GPA, and whether or not there would be some way to distinguish between

---

Page 8

this type of student who applies for readmission and the student who can not

perform academically, it was pointed out that the category of withdrawal WE,

WD would apply to such students and would not effect the GPA. It was

suggested that the regulations for withdrawal under extenuating

circumstances be brought more clearly to the attention of faculty and

Moved by I. Nicol, seconded by A. Wotherspoon,

"that the motion be divided to allow Senate to consider

Section a) separately from the rest of the document"

Question was called on the motion to divide,

and a vote taken.

?

MOTION TO DIVIDE CARRIED

Opinions expressed in opposition to the motion advanced that removal of

academic warning was detrimental to students and of no great benefit to

those students coming up from high schools or colleges.

Those

?

speaking ?

in

favour

of ?

the

?

motion

?

felt ?

that

given ?

the ?

enrolment

pressures, ?

it was ?

of

greater

benefit to provide spaces

to ?

students

?

with ?

likelihood of success

than to

retain marginal students for

one semester longer.

In response to an -inquiry as to whether or not the Task Force on University

Size had considered this issue, G. Ivany indicated that the motion actually

arises out of considerations by the Task Force, but since it was felt to be an

item which could stand alone it was decided to present it to Senate prior to

the full report. Inquiry was also made as to the status of a proposal to change

the regulation regarding duplication of courses and the continuance standard

of 2.0. R. Heath explained the recommendation made by SUAB was referred

to the Senate Committee on Undergraduate Studies. The proposal has been

circulated to individual Faculty Curriculum Committees and the Student

Society for input prior to being placed on a SCUS agenda.

Question was called on Section a) of the Motion,

and a vote taken.

"approval of Section d)"

Question was called, and a vote taken.

SECTION D) CARRIED ?

.10

---

Page 9

.

0

"approval of Section b) and c)"

It was suggested that the phrase ?

"well

above average" was too vague and

would be open to interpretation.

?

N.

Heath ?

pointed ?

out ?

that

?

the ?

support

papers

specify that

Moved by R. Brown, seconded by A. Wotherspoon,

"that Section c) be amended as follows: requests for

transfer credit for students who had been withdrawn for

academic reasons will be reviewed only after a student

has been readmitted and will be granted, subject to the

approval of the student's major department or faculty, if

the grades achieved at the transferring institution are B-

or better and the course content does not overlap with

credit previously earned"

Question was called on the amendment,

and a vote taken. ?

Moved by A. Wotherspoon, seconded by I. Nicol,

"that motion be divided to allow Senate to consider

Sections b) and c) separately"

Question was called on the motion to divide,

and a vote was taken. ?

MOTION TO DIVIDE CARRIED

Discussion turned to Section b) and concerns were expressed about the

limitation of course offerings in the Summer and the extra burden placed on

many students who work during the summer which is traditionally the period

student jobs are available. Suggestion was made that rather than regulate

this practice, students could be informed that their chances of readmission

would be greater in the summer than in other semester.

Question was called on Section b) of the motion,

and a vote was taken.

?

SECTION B) FAILED

Question was called on Section c) as amended,

and a vote was taken.

?

SECTION C) AS AMENDED

?

CARRIED

---

I

S

Page 10

e) ?

Senate Committee on Agenda and Rules

i)

?

Moved by G. Ivany, seconded by P. Kennedy

"that the memberships of the Senate Policy Committee on

Scholarships, Awards and Bursaries, the Senate

Undergraduate Awards Adjudication Committee, and the

Senate Graduate Awards Adjudication Committee be

Senate Policy Committee on Scholarships. Awards and

Members

?

Conditions ?

One Undergraduate ?

Named by Student

?

Student and One

?

Senate Undergraduate Awards Adjudication Committee

Members ?

Conditions ?

Undergraduate ?

As on the SPCSAB ?

Student ?

Named by Student

?

Senate Graduate Awards Adjudication Committee

Members ?

Conditions ?

Graduate Student

?

As on the SPCSAB

?

Student ?

Names by the

?

Student Society

As a result of a brief discussion the following changes were accepted as

Senate Undergraduate Awards Adjudication Committee

Members ?

Conditions ?

Undergraduate ?

As on the SPCSAB

?

Undergraduate ?

Named by Student

?

Student

?

Society

---

Senate Graduate Awards Adjudication Committee

Members ?

Conditions ?

Graduate Student

?

As on the SPCSAB

?

Graduate ?

Named by the

?

Student

?

Student Society

Question was called on the amended motion,

and a vote taken.

?

MOTION AS AMENDED

6.

OTHER BUSINESS

7.

8.

INFORMATION

The date of the next regular meeting of Senate is scheduled for Monday,

Secretary of the Senate