DRAFT UNTIL APPROVED BY SENATE
MINUTES OF A MEETING OF THE SENATE OF SIMON FRASER UNIVERSITY HELD ?
ON MONDAY, JANUARY 9, 1989 KLAUS RIECKHOFF HALL, 7:00
P.M. ?
OPEN SESSION
r-
L
1
Present: ?
Saywell, W.G., Chair
.
Bains, H.
Barrow, R.
Beedie, R.
Berggren, J.L.
Blaney, J.
Brown, R.
Calvert, T.
Carlson, R.
Clayman, B.
Covell, M.
D'Auria, J.
Dickinson, J.
Di Fonzo, R.
Dobb, T.
Fitzsimmons, C.
Freedman, A.
George, D.
Gill, P.
Goodman, D.
Hoegg, J.L.
Ivany, G.
Jones, C.
Kazepides, A.C.
Kennedy, P.
Maaske, R.
Mauser, G.
Nicol, I.
Nyvik, S.
Palmer, L.H.
Pinfield, L.
Rae, B.
Rashed, S.
Reilly, N.
Rieckhoff, K.
Rudrum, A.
Salter, L.
Saunders, R.
Shannon, D.
Shickele, J.
Strate, G.
Swartz, N.
Tuinman, J.
Verdun-Jones, S.
Warsh, M.
Weldon, L.
Winne, P.
Wotherspoon, A.
W.R. Heath, Secretary
Grant, B., Recording Secretary
Absent
?
Bedford, B.
Bralic, V.
Cercone, N.
Cleveland, W.
Djwa, S.
Horn, C.
McGivern, R.
Nielsen, V.
Shapiro, S.
Tjosvold, D.
Weinberg, H.
L
S.M. 09/01/89
Page 2
1.
APPROVAL OF THE AGENDA
Senate had no objection to a request to place Item 5-b after Item
5-e
to
accommodate the late arrival of a senator wishing to participate in the
discussion of the Task Force Report. Following this amendment, the Agenda
was approved.
1)ICCMbQI'5
qp
2.
APPROVAL OF THE MINUTES OF THE OPEN SESSION OF NOVEMDEW 19P
The Minutes were approved as distributed.
3.
BUSINESS ARISING FROM THE MINUTES
In a follow-up report from Business Arising at the last meeting, the Chair
informed Senate that the Vice-President Financial Services proposed to
submit a separate report concerning expenditure categories and revenue
sources for SFU Harbour Centre at the time the University's Annual Financial
Statement is presented to Senate for information.
4.
REPORT OF THE CHAIR
a)
?
Senate was informed that a recommendation to increase tuition fees by
six percent was scheduled for consideration by the Board of Governors on
January ?
19th.
An
?
increase
?
of ?
tuition
fees
?
of
?
ten
percent
?
has ?
been
recommended by
UBC,
?
and there was
?
a concern ?
that
the
?
Ministry
?
might
interpret the higher
increase at UBC to mean that they are
in greater financial
need
?
than
?
SFU.
Representation
?
to
?
the
contrary ?
had
been
?
made, to
?
the
Ministry. ?
Even
with ?
the risk of misinterpretation by the
Ministry, ?
given ?
the
significant tuition
increases in recent years
at SFU, it was
felt fees could not
be increased any
higher than the proposed
six percent.
b)
The Chair reported that the University has actively been educating the
public about the critical enrolment pressures facing the University and its
willingness to respond to the demands of the community provided adequate
funding is made available. Discussions with colleges who share similar
problems are also underway in an attempt to show Government there is a
spirit of cooperation to work together towards a common answer.
c)
Senate was informed that the Chair is currently scheduling meetings
with all Departments/Faculties/Schools in the University to address issues of
size and growth and how the University community sees itself in ten years
time.
d)
The Chair reported that SFU Harbour Centre opened its doors and
offered approximately fifteen courses to students. Only about twenty-five
percent of the actual space was available at the present time. The Chair felt
the architects and designers, along with the staff of J. Blaney and W. de Vries,
S.M. 09/01/89
Page 3
had done a splendid job with the facility.
?
Senators were encouraged to visit
?
.
?
the Centre should they be in the area.
5.
REPORTS OF COMMITTEES
a) ?
Senate Nominating Committee
i)
?
S.89-1 - Elections
The following are the results of elections to fill vacancies on the undernoted
Senate Committees:
Electoral Standing Committee (ESC)
One Senator at-large to replace A. Vining for no specified term of office.
No nominations received:
?
Vacant
Senate Committee on Continuing Studies (SCCS)
One Faculty Senator to fill an existing vacancy for term of office from date of
election to September 30, 1990.
Elected by acclamation:
?
J. Dickinson
c) ?
Senate Graduate Studies Committee
i)
?
?
S.89-3 - Change to General Regulations 1.3.11 - English Language
Competence
Moved by B. Clayman, seconded by K. Rieckhoff,
"that Senate approve and recommend approval to the Board of
Governors, as set forth in S.89-3, the following addition to the
General Regulations:
Section 1.3.11
?
English Language Competence
English is the language of instruction and communication in the
University. Accordingly, an applicant whose primary language
is not English or whose previous education has been conducted
in another language must demonstrate command of English
sufficient to pursue graduate studies in the chosen field.
Applicants normally will be required to achieve a satisfactory
score on a standardized English test acceptable to the
University. This test must include a writing component. The
Test of English as a Foreign Language (TOEFL) combined with
. the Test of Written English (TWE) are acceptable for this
purpose. The minimum University requirements for scores on
these tests is TOEFL =
570
and TWE =
5;
some graduate
S.M. 09/01/89
Page 4
programs have higher requirements, as described elsewhere in
this Calendar.
?
0
Further details about the above tests may be obtained from:
TOEFL and TWE:
?
Educational Testing Service
CN
6151,
Princeton, N.J.
08541-6151
YSA
English Language Proficiency Test:
Director of Admissions
Office of the Registrar, SFU
Other acceptable English tests:
Director of Admissions
Office of the Registrar, SFU"
B. Clayman explained that many departments already have informal TOEFL
requirements in place and this would send out a signal to potential graduate
students by formalizing and publicizing this regulation. Senate was also
informed that the intent of using the word 'normally' was to handle
exceptions where departments felt the requirement could be waived, and
situations where other means of measuring the student's competence in
English could be used. It was also indicated that the Dean of Graduate Studies
office intended to monitor the requirement and include such information in
the annual report to Senate.
Question was called, and a vote taken.
? MOTION CARRIED
ii) ?
Paper S.89-4 - Graduate Appeal Procedure
Moved by B. Clayman, seconded by K. Rieckhoff
"that Senate approve and recommend approval to the Board of
Governors, as set forth in S.89-4, the following Graduate Appeal
Procedure:
1.
Appeals of decisions involving grades in graduate courses
are made through the same mechanism as in undergraduate
courses. This mechanism is described in S.F.U. Policy AC-39.
2.
Appeals of decisions involving evaluations of progress are
made through the mechanism described in graduate
regulation 1.8.2.
3.
Appeals of other decisions, including the outcomes of thesis
defences, are initiated at the level at which the decision was
made originally.
?
II'
4.
If satisfactory resolution cannot be reached at a particular
level, the appeal may proceed to the level to which a
S.M. 09/01/89
Page
5
favourable recommendation would have proceeded. If
necessary, this process may be repeated until the level of
the Senate Graduate Studies Committee (S.G.S.C.) is reached.
5.
Appeals to the S.G.S.C. are directed to the Dean of Graduate
Studies, in writing. They must include clear, concise
statements of the reasons for the appeal and of the remedy
sought. The Dean brings the appeal to the S.G.S.C., only after
it is established that all avenues for resolution at the
departmental and Faculty levels have been exhausted.
6.
The S.G.S.C., in each case, forms a small subcommittee, with
appropriate membership, including at least one student
member, to hear the appeal.
7.
The subcommittee would decide on the appropriate
remedial action where it finds that the decision had been
arrived at through improper or unfair procedures. The
Committee would have no jurisdiction where the sole
question raised is an appeal which is based on the exercise
of academic judgement.
8.
Decisions of the subcommittee are final, with Senate
conferring on the subcommittee the authority of making
final decisions pursuant to Section 36(b) of the University
Act, although the Committee may refer to Senate an
L
?
?
unsettled question of policy or procedure of general
?
importance to the University.
B. Clayman introduced the paper by explaining that the proposed regulations
incorporate some existing appeal procedures for grades and satisfactory
progress, and provide a framework for students to seek reconsideration of
decisions that affect their academic lives with a minimum amount of
legislation.
Concern was expressed that the vagueness of the composition of the
subcommittee might be regarded by an appellant as an opportunity to
randomly form a committee prejudicial to the appeal. B. Clayman advised
that the intent was to match the membership of the committee as closely as
possible to the nature of the appeal in order to bring expertise to bear on the
subject area covered by an appeal.
Moved by L. Palmer, seconded by J. Shickele
"that the document be referred back to the Senate Graduate
Studies Committee for remedy"
It was suggested that the concerns expressed be forwarded to the SGSC for
their consideration and that it might be in order to seek the advice of counsel
S.M. 09/01/89
Page
on the matter. It was pointed out that the proposed procedure is consistent
deal
with
with
existing
appeals
procedures
referred
of
to
Senate
Senate
in
by
which
the President.
ad hoc committees are set up to
?
•
Question was called on the motion to refer,
and a vote was taken.
?
MOTION TO REFER FAILED
A lengthy discussion followed with regard to the types of appeals to be
covered by this legislation and the mechanisms to be followed in the appeal
process. B. Clayman advised that the intent of procedure #7 was to handle
appeals based on unfair or prejudiced proceedings; appeals regarding
academic judgement would be handled at levels below the SGSC.
In
reply to
an inquiry with regard to who decides whether an appeal is to be considered
one of prejudicial and unfair judgement or one of academic judgement, B.
Clayman explained that all appeals that students perceive as being unfair will
be referred to the appropriate subcommittee who will decide the issue of
whether it is based on academic judgement or unfairness.
The following suggestion by R. Brown to change #6 of the procedure was
accepted as a friendly amendment:
6. The S.G.S.C., in each case, forms a subcommittee, including at
least one student member, to hear the appeal.
?
0
Question was called on the motion as amended,
and a vote taken.
?
MOTION AS AMENDED CARRIED
iii) Paper
S.89-5 -
Enrolment in Graduate Courses
Moved by B. Clayman, seconded by K. Rieckhoff
"that Senate approve and recommend approval to the Board of
Governors, as set forth in
S.89-5,
the following:
Special graduate students, Qualifying students and
undergraduate students (including Post-Baccalaureate Diploma
students) normally may enrol in graduate courses only if their
cumulative grade point averages are at least 3.00.
In addition,
the permission of the instructor is required in each case."
In reply to
concerns about requiring permission
of the instructor, B.
Clayman
pointed out
that ?
initial
?
responsibility
?
rests
with
the University with regard to
the GPA requirement
after which it is the
instructors
?
responsibility to ensure
that ?
both the ?
quality
?
and
?
quantity
?
of
the
students ?
in ?
the ?
course ?
is
appropriate. In
?
response ?
to
?
a
?
worry that
requiring
?
students
to ?
seek
S.M. 09/01/89
Page 7
permission of the instructor causes hardship on the part of students with
respect to the availability of the instructor, B. Clayman noted that this did not
apply since course registration at the graduate level is much less formal than
at the •undergraduate level and students typically enrol in a course at the first
• ?
meeting of the course with the instructor.
Concern was expressed that qualifying students would be prevented from
taking a graduate course in their first semester because they would not have
a GPA at that point. B. Clayman noted that GPAs from the previous work of
incoming graduate students would be used to meet this requirement.
Opinion was strongly expressed that the motion defeats faculty control over
admission to graduate programs and courses, gives too much bureaucratic
control to the Dean of Graduate Studies office, and such decisions were best
made at the department or faculty level. It was pointed out that the word
'normally' provides freedom to individual departments and faculties and that
the requirement of a 3.0 grade point average is not an unreasonable
expectation of scholarship.
A further concern was raised that this regulation would eliminate the
opportunities for special graduate students and qualifying students who may
• have something other than a GPA to offer as qualifications to establish
themselves; B. Clayman provided definitions of these two categories and
indicated the intent of the regulation was to prevent students whose GPAs
were not high enough from taking graduate courses until they have proven,
they can cope with the work.
Question was called, and a vote taken.
?
MOTION FAILED
b)
?
Senate Committee on Academic Planning
i) ?
Paper S.89-2 - Task Force on University Size:
?
A Report on
?
Undergraduate Enrolment
Moved by G. Ivany, seconded by K. Rieckhoff
"that Senate approve and recommend approval to the Board of
Governors, the set of recommendations contained in S.89-2"
G. Ivany introduced the paper by providing background information about
Simon Fraser University with respect to its curriculum, access to education
and student composition. He stressed that the recommendations are a crisis
response to the present situation facing SFU with regard to an increasing
demand by students and insufficient financial and space resources to meet
these demands. He drew Senate's attention to the fact that this semester
5,000 students in the Faculty of Arts were unable to get the third and four
S.M. 09/01/89
Page 8
year courses of first choice needed to graduate with the degree for which
they registered four years ago; that many students in the Faculty of Science
were unable to get courses because enrolments were controlled by laboratory
space; and departments such as Economics are no longer willing to teach 180
students in a third year seminar course. He felt students would lose respect
for the University if efforts to remedy the situation were not made and that
the proposals of the Task Force were an attempt to relieve the current
situation by controlling enrolments and ensuring the quality of academic
programs and degrees at SFU.
Speaking as a member of the Task Force, L. Salter felt it was important to
point out that the report did not address the question of what the ideal size of
the University ought to be. She indicated that the document attempts to tie
growth to resources and therefore is a limited and pragmatic document rather
than a philosophical document; its purpose is also to introduce some
predictability into the system so students in major programs will be able to
get the courses they need in their third and fourth year. She felt the
document left two problems which would have to be addressed in the future;
the first being the notion of a competitive major, and the second being the
need for Harbour Centre and Distance Education to grow without having
enrolment restrictions imposed on them.
Referring to recommendation C-3-a, inquiry was made as to how this
regulation would affect Faculties who only admit students at their 45th
semester hour of study. R. Brown indicated that intent was to follow historic
precedent with respect to the Faculties of Business Administration and the
Education by admitting students to the Faculty of Arts in the first two years
with transfer at the third year level into the appropriate Faculty, and that
process would be built into the complement of students that would be
admitted into the Faculty of Arts in the first year.
Concerns were expressed about D-1-a as
to how decisions would be made in
terms of allocating resources,
especially
in areas of high demand, and D-2 as
to how the university
would respond under
this regulation if student demand
for one
program was
much larger than
for another. ?
It was
?
noted that the
decision-making which
decides allocation
of resources is
?
already
?
operationally
in place
but
?
that
?
this regulation would
make it a little more systematic and
public in
seeing where
those limits are.
Serious concerns were voiced by N. Reilly that the document lacked good
supporting arguments for its conclusions and he felt it would not convince a
new reader of the need for this action. Since it would become part of the
record for future reference and would perhaps be viewed by outside bodies,
he felt a stronger rationale and support statement was needed. A close
scrutiny of the document ensued in which areas were pointed out that he felt
S.M. 09/01/89
Page 9
required clarification or further detail and resulted in the following
discussion.
It
?
was
?
noted
?
that the
?
report
?
proposed
reduction
of ?
enrolment
?
by
approximately
?
1,200 students and inquiry was
made as to
the impact of this
reduced revenue.
?
G.
Ivany explained that the
proposal represented about a
ten ?
percent ?
reduction of student income and
equated ?
to
approximately ?
1.6
million ?
dollars.
?
Intent
was
?
to
?
spread
?
this
?
reduction
over
?
a ?
period ?
of
approximately
?
six
?
years
?
with
?
a
?
maximum reduction
in any
?
given year of
about $100,000 which was
?
acceptable to
?
the
the ?
administration. ?
However,
since ?
financial ?
matters
were not normally the
concern of
Senate,
?
a detailed
financial statement was not included with the
report.
In
reply to a suggestion of capping enrolment at the present level rather than
reducing it and creating a potential shortfall in fees, R. Brown made reference
to the Faculty of Arts where at the present time between thirty to sixty
percent of teaching is carried out with non-tenure track faculty consequently
jeopardizing the quality of the education provided by SFU. He explained that
expectations that the budget will inflate at no less than five percent over the
next six years, that the costs of the deficit which would accrue from the loss
of tutition could be built into inflation in the budget, and combined with the
• fact that the Faculty of Arts has a 'soft-money' budget of two million dollars
to hire sessionals and limited term people, would balance out and
accommodate the loss of tuition. Senate was informed that students in the
Faculty of Arts were lining up on Thursday to get into courses on Friday
which they could not get into during the normal registration process, and R.
Brown expressed opinion that he was willing to pay whatever necessary to
maintain the quality of SFU's academic programs and, in fact, needed this
legislation to protect the quality of departments and programs within the
Faculty of Arts.
In reply to an inquiry as to why specially funded off-campus programs, SFU
Downtown and the DISC program were included in the enrolment quotas, G.
Ivany explained that students can currently transfer to campus from any of
these programs, and given the current enrolment distribution the proposed
figure of 11,500 would generate approximately 10,000 students on campus
which the Task Force felt was the limit given current resources. As
circumstances change and Harbour Centre and other programs expand,
further evaluations and recommendations will be made by the Task Force
with report back to Senate.
Reference was made to the complications and treatment of students
transferring from faculty to faculty and concern was expressed that students
out of high school might not be aware of certain disciplines and what various
faculties had to offer and therefore might not make a correct, initial decision.
S.M. 09/01/89
Page 10
G.
Ivany
explained that the Registrar's Office currently assigns students
arbitrarily to a faculty depending on their interests and the intent of the
proposal was to encourage students to make this choice early in their
program in order to provide more opportunities for other students who may
otherwise be denied access. Senate was assured that the intent of the
proposal was not to place any new boundaries on the transfer of student from
one faculty to another, other than what currently exists. It was pointed out
that the document is permissive in that it allows faculties the possibility of
structuring their own entrance requirements which would have to be
approved by Senate before implementation.
Opinion was expressed about implications of delegated authority with respect
to recommendations which may require changes to the mandates of some of
the Senate committees, including SCAP. Reference was made to the paragraph
on page 13 and concern expressed that any such required changes will be
tabled to Senate for information rather than approval. G. Ivany explained
that certain reviews by SCAP were suggested in the document which were not
included in its previous purview but SCAP continues to be a committee of
Senate, reportable to Senate, and intent of this paragraph was to acknowledge
that. A suggestion to change the last sentence to read - It is understood that
in light of Senate actions any required changes will be made and tabled in
Senate for information or approval as appropriate in the near future - was
accepted as a friendly amendment.
Clarification was requested with reference. to Section 3-b on page 4 as to what
was meant by 'other evidence of potential success'. G. Ivany explained that it
allows departments and faculties to set appropriate criteria for admission to
their programs. He pointed out that this is not a change from current
University policy and referred to the PDP program as an example.
M. Cove!l expressed opinion that the recommendations in the report are a
significant departure of the principles and ideals of Simon Fraser, they inhibit
and restrict more and more the choices of students, and she felt faculties
establishing their own enrolment requirements could result in not necessarily
well co-ordinated regulations. She therefore wished to state for the record
her intent to abstain.
Referring to page 4, Section D-1 question was raised as to whether the
Registrar's Office or the Vice-President. Academic's Office could over-ride
decisions or veto increases at the departmental level due to differences of
interpretation. G.
Ivany
pointed out that approval by Senate was required in
each case, and that the whole of Section D was incorporated from Senate
documentation previously
approved.
A worry was
expressed
that
?
because ?
the
?
University
?
had ?
in
?
fact
?
designed
S
S.M.
?
09/01/89
Page 11
procedures ?
to ?
handle ?
the
crisis
?
situation
facing
SFU,
?
this
might give
?
the
Provincial Government the impression that
we had
solved the
problem. ?
The
Chair expressed his opinion
that this ?
action
would in fact put
pressure on the
Government to provide adequate resources
so such
drastic measures were not
required and better access
to ?
university-level
education would
be ?
available.
In reply to an inquiry as to what the implications of this action would be
should funding be forthcoming now or in the future, the Chair indicated that
the University would do its best to accommodate students in such a way as to
provide them with adequate opportunities to get the courses they require. He
went on to say that there is a supplementary budget request currently before
Government for 4.6 million dollars which is judged to be the amount of
additional resources required to properly accommodate the present number
of students. Senate's attention was also drawn to fact that page 3 states that
an annual target shall be recommended to Senate by SCAP in light of
available resources.
N. Reilly reiterated his feeling that such a major document should clearly set
out all the information and arguments justifying the need for such
recommendations especially to outside readers and moved a motion to table
the document. There was no seconder for this motion.
. is ?
Moved by N. Reilly, seconded by T. Kazepides
"that the document be referred back to the Senate Committee
on Academic Planning for revision"
Speaking in opposition to the motion, it was pointed out that many of the
concerns expressed related to the rationale and support documentation rather
than the recommendations themselves and could be dealt with editorially. It
was also noted that the document had been before Senators in draft form
with opportunity for input, and presumably any such input had already been
incorporated in the document; referral back to the Task Force would serve no
useful purpose. It was also noted that although it may be useful to augment
the report for an outside audience, further information for Senate would be of
no further benefit.
Question was called on the motion to refer,
and a vote taken.
?
MOTION TO REFER FAILED
Turning to the main motion, inquiry was made as to when the
recommendations would become effective. R. Heath indicated that since
many of the procedures had yet to be developed and would have to come
back for Senate approval, implementation would be phased in within the
advice of TFUS and SCAP.
4
S.M. 09/01/89
Page 12
Moved by R. Brown, seconded by B. Clayman
"that the open session of Senate be extended past the
normal closure time of 10:00 pm"
Question was called, and a vote taken.
?
MOTION TO EXTEND CARRIED
Particular reference was made as to how recommendation #3 would effect
students with two minors going into the elementary education program in the
Faculty of Education. R. Brown indicated that the legislation coming forward
from departments within the Faculty of Arts will include majors, honors, and
minors ensuring that minors will have the same GPA requirements for entry
into courses as majors/honors.
Question was called on the main motion,
and a vote taken.
?
MOTION (AS AMENDED) CARRIED
(M. Covell and J.L. Berggren wished
to have their abstention recorded)
d)
Senate Library
Committee
i)
Paper
S.89-6 ?
- Annual Report
Referring to the statement that the Library was purchasing FAX equipment to
ensure quick access to material in journals that must be cancelled, concern
was expressed that copyright would be infringed. T. Dobb indicated that the
vendors have already obtained copyright from the publishers. Reference was
made to the million dollar donation received by the University part of which
was to go towards the development of a Library at Harbour Centre. It was
pointed out that the proposed procedures for servicing students at Harbour
Centre from the main Library through use of zerox and/or FAX would involve
a substantial amount of effort and work on the part of the campus Library. T.
Dobb assured Senate that part of the million dollars will be used to defray
some of these central expenses. He also went on to provide additional details
for the information of Senate with respect to items 2-a-b-c of the report and
announced the appointment of Karen Marotz, a graduate of Simon Fraser
University, as the Head Librarian of the Library at Harbour Centre.
e)
Senate Committee on Agenda and Rules
i) ?
Paper S.89-7 - Revision to Terms of Reference - Senate Committee on
Academic Discipline, Policy AC 51
Moved by G. Ivany, seconded by K. Rieckhoff
"that Senate approve the following amendment to Policy AC
51,
S.M. 09/01/89
Page 13
10
?
Discipline:
Terms of Reference for the Senate Committee on Academic
Discipline:
Section B:
2. The Committee is established:
a)
to hear appeals from penalties imposed under 'Procedures
for Dealing with Incidents of Intellectural Dishonesty', and
b)
to hear an appeal by a student from a penalty imposed
under the 'University Harassment Policy',
and
c)
to hear such other appeals and deal with such other matters
as Senate or the Chair of Senate so directs"
Question was called, and a vote taken.
?
MOTION CARRIED
6.
OTHER BUSINESS
There was no other business.
7.
NOTICES OF MOTION
There were no notices of motion.
8.
INFORMATION
The date of the next regular meeting of Senate is scheduled for Monday,
February 13, 1989. Senate's attention was drawn to the change of date from
of the regularly scheduled meeting on February 6th.
The Assembly moved directly into Closed Session at 10:15 p.m.
W. Ronald Heath,
Secretary of the Senate
0
