DRAFT UNTIL
APPROVED BY
SENATE
. ?
MINUTES OF A MEETING OF THE SENATE OF SIMON FRASER UNIVERSITY HELD
ON MONDAY, MARCH
5,
1990 KLAUS RIECKHOFF HALL, 4:30 P.M
OPEN SESSION
Present: ?
Salter, L., Acting Chair
Absent: ?
Addison, G.
Bedford, B.
Barrow, R.
Blaney, ?
J.
Blackman, R.
Bowman, M.
Cercone, N.
Brown, R.
Dahl, H.
Calvert, T.
D'Auria, J.
Carlson, R.
Deigrande, ?
J.
Clayman, B.
Falcon, K.
Cleveland, W.
Freedman, A.
Covell, M.
Kazepides, A.C.
Dickinson,
?
J.
Luk,
W.S.
Dill, L.
Nielsen, V.
Djwa, S.
Partridge,
?
J.
Dobb, T.
Rae, B.
Faith, K.
Reilly, N.
George, D.
Rudrum, A.
Giffen, K.
Saywell, W.
Gill, J.
Shannon,
?
D.
Gray, P.
Winne, P.
Green, C.
Wotherspoon, ?
A.
. ?
Hendrickson, T.
Hoechsmann, ?
M.
Hoegg, J.L.
In ?
attendance:
Jones, C.
N. Heath
Munro, D.
Palmer, E.
Palmer, L.H.
Pinfield, L.
Rieckhoff,
?
K.
Saunders,
?
R.
Shapiro, ?
S.
Sicking, C.
Stewart, M.L.
Swartz, N.
Tjosvold, D.
Tuinman,
?
J.
Verdun-Jones, ?
S.
Vining,
?
A.
Wade, S.
Warsh, M.
Heath, W.R., Secretary
Grant, B., Recording Secretary
S.M. 05/03/90 &
Page 2
?
1.
?
APPROVAL OF THE AGENDA
The Agenda was approved as distributed.
?
2.
?
APPROVAL OF THE MINUTES OF THE OPEN SESSION OF FEBRUARY 5. 1990
?
.
Concern was expressed that the past two meetings had been scheduled in the afternoon
despite previous Senate discussions with regard to holding Senate meetings in the
evening rather than the afternoon. Senate was informed that
SCAR had decided that the
potential length of the agenda warranted an
early start time for this particular meeting.
Senate was also informed that an ad hoc committee of
SCAR
was being formed to
investigate current policy with regard to the scheduling of Senate meetings as well as
new issues which have been raised since this matter was discussed by Senate. It was
hoped that
a
report from the ad hoc committee' would be available for the May meeting of
Senate.
Following this discussion, the Minutes were approved.
?
3.
?
BUSINESS ARISING FROM THE MINUTES
Referring to item number two on page 3, inquiry was made if Senate could expect follow-
up with regard to the question of security issues. Senate was informed that a report
from Security will be presented to Senate at its next meeting.
4.
1)
Although definitive information with regard to the University's budget for
1990/91 was not yet available at the moment, the Chair felt there was no reason to be
discouraged about the catch-up component of the proposed budget.
ii) ?
Senate ?
was ?
informed ?
that meetings-had ?
taken ?
place ?
with Ministry ?
officials ?
with
respect to Fraser
Valley ?
initiatives. ?
The University
had made it
very clear that if SFU
were ?
to become involved, ?
resources ?
in ?
addition
?
to
?
those ?
of the ?
University's ?
normal
operating
budget
and ?
catch-up ?
growth
?
were ?
required. ?
The
?
Ministry ?
indicated ?
their
intent to
clarify
their position with regard to this matter within
the next month.
iii)
Senate was informed that a thorough investigation with regard to the question of
scheduling around statutory holidays had taken place. A number of proposals and
suggestions had been discussed but
each potential solution had significant problems
associated with it so it was decided to retain current practice. Departments/Schools will
be encouraged to shift from Monday, whenever possible, seminar classes which meet for
extended periods. Brief discussion followed in which concern was expressed that
administrative problems associated with changing current policy were being given
priority over academic problems. Senate was assured that the problems associated with
proposed resolutions were not just administrative.
5.
fl ?
IiI(,JU.,14iII
,I. ,:g.JrTTh,j
Moved by R.
Saunders, seconded by B. Clayman
"that Senate approve, and recommend approval to the
Board of Governors, that the targets for admission to Simon
Fraser University in 1990/91 be set as follows:
Fall Semester, 1990
Spring Semester, 1991
Summer Semester, 1991
Total
3100 new
students
1100 new
students
600 new
students
4800
new
students
.
S.M. 05/03/90
Page 3
.1
.
and, further,
urther
*
that for Fall Semester, 1990, the admission
targets for the major admission groups be as
follows:
B.C. Grade XII
?
1400
new students
B.C. College Transfer
?
1100 new students
'Other' Admission Groups
600 new students
Total
?
3100 new students"
N. Heath, Director of Admissions, was in attendance as a resource person.
Reference was made to the fact that past practice has been to retain the historical mix
for the three distinct groups and concern was expressed over the proposed decrease
from previous years in the 'Other' Admission category.
R. Saunders explained that although last year's targets were reasonably accurate in
terms of predicting new FTEs, the retention rate had increased considerably, generating
300 additional FTEs which had not been anticipated. These additional FTEs were unfunded
for the 1989/90 fiscal year and, with the approval of the Ministry, were carried over into
this year's target. As a result, this year's target, which had been set at 495, would have to
be reduced to 195. SCEMP felt that the point of admission was the only place control over
numbers could be exercised and a variety of alternatives had been considered. SCEMP
decided that should the historical prop&tions be adhered to a considerable number of
high school and transfer students would be disenfranchised and SCEMP chose to
recommend a decrease in the 'other' admission category on a one-year basis only.
Serious reservations were expressed with regard to the proportional shift in categories,
viewed by some to be a change in admission policy.
It was noted that Simon Fraser
University has had a reputation for being more open than other institutions to students
who fall in the 'Other' category, such as mature students, and opinion was expressed that
the proposed shift will send
a
message that Simon Fraser University is no longer
interested in community education. It was suggested that the motion should be sent back
to Committee for further consideration. It was pointed Out that admission offers had to
reach students by mid-May and, should this matter be referred until the next meeting,
the University would not be in a position to make timely offers of admission. Opinion
was expressed that it was
unfortunate something this important had been delayed to
such a late date that Senate had no choice but to act on it.
In
reply to an inquiry as to how applicants were prioritized in the 'Other' category, N.
Heath explained that specific grade point averages will be used to determine the
majority of applicants coming from technical colleges and transfers from other
universities and other provinces, and that mature students would be screened more
carefully than in the past. He went on to explain that practice has been to divide the
mature student into two groups, those who have never attended a post-secondary
institution, and those who have a limited amount of post-secondary experience. Priority
has been given to those with limited experience and those who have never attended a
post-secondary institution have been advised to begin their studies at the colleges.
Moved by B. Bedford, seconded by P. Gray
"that the motion be referred back to the Senate Committee on
Question was called on the motion to refer,
and a vote taken.
MOTION TO REFER FARM
.
S.M. 05/03/90
Page 4
Enrolment Management and Planning
to elaborate on, and
provide a more detailed rationale for the proposed changes"
In reply to an inquiry as to whether or not it was the University's goal to acquire
younger students with higher GPAs, R. Saunders advised that the higher GPAs are a
consequence of enrolment constraints which are a result of inadequate resources, and
that the University has not enunciated such a goal.
The Chair informed Senate that the motion was not intended to set out a new policy
direction for the University. The intention of the motion was to deal with what was
perceived to be a one year problem. However, since serious concerns and issues had
been raised during the discussion, the Chair directed SCEMP to review current polices to
see whether they should be reaffirmed, fine-tuned or changed, and to report back to
Senate.
Opinion was expressed that cutting the intake of
B.C.
Grade 12 and B.C. College Transfer
students would have had a much more serious and direct impact on the community and
in turn would possibly have sent a message to the Government about the current lack of
adequate resources. A suggestion to include a statement that it is the intention of Senate
to return the levels of other student admission categories to their historical levels in the
Fall of 1991 was accepted as a friendly amendment.
Reference was made to previous discussions with regard to enrolment limitations when
Senate had gone on record as explicitly stating that the historical proportions of the
various categories should be maintained _and serious concerns were expressed that the
proposed motion changed this policy direction.
Opinion was expressed that the diversity of students was a unique benefit to the learning
process at SFU and it was felt that it was unfortunate that the 'Other' category of
admission was being singled out.
Moved by D. Munroe, seconded by P. Gray
"that the admission targets be amended so that the number of
mature students admitted for 90/91 not be less than were admitted
in the previous year"
R. Saunders provided clarification with respect to the impact of the proposed amendment
on enrolments.
It was pointed out that the amendment does not deal with the problem; it only transfers
the problem on to another group of students.
Speaking as a member of the Task Force on University Size, B. Clayman reminded Senate
that the intent of enrolment limitations on admission categories was not to keep the
absolute numbers the same'but to retain the evolving proportions in subsequent
development. K. Rieckhoff reiterated that while that may have been the intent of the
Task Force on University Size, it was his understanding that Senate has specifically
directed that the historical proportions of the various categories remain the same.
SCEMP
was requested by the Chair to determine current policies and to report back to
Senate with or without reconmendations for any change.
Question was called on the amendment,
and a vote taken.
?
I
?
AMENDMENT FAILED
h
.,
??
S.M. 05/03/90 ?
Page 5
Discussion continued with regard to the main motion. The proposal was criticized
because it protected one category of students from the effects of inadequate funding at
the expense of another group.
R. Brown expressed a deeply felt concern that in terms of meeting student demand and
providing a quality education, the Faculty of Arts could not handle any more students
without additional resources. He noted that the Access program is providing additional
revenue and the University was taking in new students on that basis. However, if the
proposed admission targets were approved by Senate and, at the same time, the
Government decreased the base operating budget, resulting in the University not being
able to adequately service these students, he inquired as to the legal position of the
University. The Chair expressed her belief that it was not the Government's intent to
trade off one budget against another and she felt the Government was genuinely
committed to providing catch-up resources.
Question was called on the main motion, as amended
and a vote was taken.
?
?
MAIN MOTION AS AMENDED CARRIED
?
P. Gray and B. Bedford requested their opposition be recorded.
ii) ?
Senate Graduate Studies Committee
Paper S.90-23 - Annual Report - FoE Information
Following a brief discussion, the Annual Report was received by Senate for information.
.
6.
?
OTHER
1.
In
BUSINESS
reply to an inquiry concerning the status of departmental reviews which had
taken place over the past year, the Chair informed Senate that several
departmental reviews will be presented to Senate at its next meeting.
2.
Referring to the recent "freeze the fees" campaign and the current ongoing
discussions between the University and the Government concerning funding, T.
Hendrickson wondered if it would be appropriate for Senate to pass a motion, or
direct the President on behalf of Senate to formally write a letter to the
Government, expressing concern about the consequences resulting from a lack of
resources and funding. Although it was noted that such matters generally fall
outside the normal business of Senate, it was suggested that Senate had the right
to comment on whatever it deemed appropriate. The Chair informed Senate that
SCAR would take this suggestion under consideration and report back to Senate.
3.
K. Giffen suggested that new. professors arriving from other universities be given
a one-semester period of adjustment rather than having to teach immediately
upon their arrival. He felt this might be helpful to both new professors and
students.
('9ILI]JKIi1(IJ11
1. The following notice of motion was presented by C. Green: "that Senate request,
for the 1991/92 year, FFE funding adequate to allow for admission GPA of 2.5 for
Grade XII students, and 2.0 for College transfer, with no limitation on the 'Other'
category of admission".
It was suggested that it would be more appropriate for the motion to be considered
by the Senate Committee on Enrolment Management and Planning prior to Senate
consideration. ?
The Chair indicated that as soon as the motion was received in
S.M. 05/03/90
?
?
Page 6
?
c
writing, the faster it would proceed through the appropriate committees.
2. The following notice of motion was presented by B. Bedford: "that the Senate
Committee on Academic Planning be directed to establish a sub-committee to
review the academic effect of differential fees on the University"
It was noted that the question of fees was not within the purview of Senate but
that Senate can comment and advise the Board of Governors on such issues if it so
desires. The Chair indicated that as soon as the motion was received in writing,
the sooner it would be given appropriate review and consideration.
9. ?
INFORMATION
The date of the next regularly scheduled meeting of Senate is Monday, April 2, 1990.
The Assembly moved directly into Closed Session at 6:00 p.m.
W. R. Heath
Secretary of Senate
El
