DRAFT UNTIL APPROVED BY SENATE

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

ON MONDAY, MARCH 4, 1991 KLAUS RIECKHOFF HALL, 7:00 P.M.

171

OPEN SESSION

Present: ?

Saywell, W.G., Chair

Barrow, A.

Bedford, B.

Blackman, R.

Blaney, J.

Bowman, M.

Brown, A.

Bukovac, S.

Carlson, R.

Cercone, N.

Clayman, B.

Covell, M.

D'Auria, J.

Delgrande, J.

Di Fonzo, A.

Dill, L.

Djwa,S.

Dobb, T.

Duguid, S.

Evenden, L.

Giffen, K.

Gunton, T. (replacing D. George)

Heinrich, K.

Hendrickson, T.

Hoechsmann, M.

Hoegg, J.L.

Jones, C.

Luk, W.S.

Menzies, A.

Mauser, G.

Munro, J.

Nielsen, V.

Palmer, E.

Palmer, L.

Percival, P.

Reilly, N.

Rieckhoff, K.

Saunders, R.

Shannon, D.

Shapiro, S.

Stewart, M.L.

Swartz, N.

Verdun-Jones, S.

Wade, S.

Walker, R.

Warsh, M.

Winne, P.

Wotherspoon, A.

Heath, R., Secretary

Grant, B., Recording Secretary

Absent

Gibbons, N.

Gray, P.

Leiss, W.

Maaske, R.

Munro, D.

Myers, T.

Pinfield, L.

Rae, B.

Strate, G.

Tjosvold, D.

Tuinman, J:

S.M. 04/03/91

Page 2

APPROVAL OF THE AGENDA

The Agenda was approved as distributed.

APPROVAL OF THE MINUTES OF THE OPEN SESSION OF tt14. 1991

Referring to the fourth paragraph on page 4, request was made to change the reference

from Departmental Curriculum Committees to Faculty Curriculum Committees. Following

this amendment, the Minutes were approved.

BUSINESS ARISING FROM THE MINUTES

There was no business arising from the Minutes.

REPORT OF THE CHAIR

The Chair reported that honorary degrees will be presented at the June Convocation

ceremonies as follows: June 6, 1991 - Liona Boyd, Pauline Jewett, Mary Filer and Harold

Spence-Sales; June 7, 1991 (am) - Sherwood Rowland; June 7, 1991 (pm) - Irwin Cutler,

and David and Dorothy Lam.

Senate Committee on Academic Planning

a) ?

Paper S.91-12 - Challenge 2001 - The President's Strategic Plan

Moved by J. Munro, seconded by S. Wade

"that Senate endorse the general directions for the University's

development as contained in Challenge 2001: The President's

Strategic Plan"

Senate had no objection to the President remaining in the Chair to speak to and address

questions about the Challenge 2001 paper.

The Chair introduced the paper by providing brief background information with regard to

the history of the document . He drew Senate's attention to several areas which he felt

were some of the key issues contained in the paper. Firstly, although not specifically

outlined in the paper, the Chair wished to stress the fact that he did not feel overly

optimistic about receiving significant new developmental funding in the next few years.

Secondly, the Chair indicated that the basic outline of the document was based on

financial and demographic assumptions, and SFU's tradition of trying to be as accessible

to as many students as possible. Referring to the problems and tensions associated with

growth, the Chair expressed opinion that had Simon Fraser not absorbed these problems

over the past few years, many students in the Province, particularly those in this specific

area, would not have had the opportunity to receive a university education and therefore

he felt the policy was socially acceptable. The Chair went on to point out what he felt the

major advantages associated with growth would be. Firstly, he believed that Access

funding would be the only funding available to reallocate and readdress some of the

difficulties currently facing the University. Secondly, he believed SFU would benefit from

the revitalization that new faculty colleagues bring to any university, and finally, he felt

growth would provide an opportunity for the University to improve the balance between

undergraduate and graduate studies.

While he supported the emphasis placed on the development of graduate work, there

S.M. 04/03/91

Page

were some fundamental aspects of the report about which K. Rieckhoff wished to express

• concern. His major objection was the assumption that through growth the University can

resolve its current difficulties which , in his opinion, were caused by the growth

experienced to date. He went on to say that in terms of its reponsibilities for accessibility,

Simon Fraser has done more than its share in the Province but it has been done at the

expense of the quality of the undergraduate instructional environment and he could not

see any realistic way that further growth would ever catch up. He also felt the report

places too much emphasis on the development of professional, trendy programs rather

than on the key core disciplines in the University. Finally, he was concerned about the

reference to the internationalization of the University because he felt the University was

already heavily involved in the international scholarly community and did not need to do

anything special to internationalize itself. He felt the document should remain a personal

report from the President and was opposed to its support by Senate.

The Chair responded to two points. Firstly, he did not believe the report downplayed the

core disciplines and pointed out that Simon Fraser has been innovative and exemplary in

terms of developing new program initiatives from its strong core areas, some of which

have developed into new disciplines themselves. Secondly, he felt the University could

become more internationalized in some areas and referred to co-op placements overseas

as one specific example.

Referring to section 4.3 on page 9 with regard to program mix and program growth, R.

Blackman expressed concern that if the intent is to provide differential growth plans for the

University, this document does not adequately convey that planning. However, he did

realize that as a public relations document it might be strategically more appropriate to

. have the report worded the way it was. On page 12 which refers to planning strategies in

terms of enrolment growth, R. Blackman questioned the match between the proposed

growth patterns and the pattern of new buildings becoming available and wondered

whether a growth pattern that optimized support for the University's argument that

additional -space is required would be more appropriate.

J. Munro advised that it was not possible to optimize the effect of the document in this way

but pointed out that this had been discussed at previous committee levels and that some

adjustments had already been made in this area. He also wished to point out that the

document is predicated on the assumption that the Access Program will continue and

suggested that the level of access funding will leave some flexibility to address some of

the difficulties currently facing the University. He felt the document would have more

impact in Victoria if it had the general support of Senate and the Board of Governors and

reminded Senate that the Ministry may use the document in determining the operating

funding for the University.

Speaking in opposition to the motion, L. Palmer strongly objected to the premise that the

University must adopt growth in order to get funding and that money was required in order

to improve the University. He also expressed opinion that the incremental costs of

excessive growth associated with the Access Program have exceeded the incremental

benefits to undergraduate students and referred to the current problems of overcrowding

in classes, cafeterias and parking. He felt the increased demand for university education

should be accommodated in ways other than growth at Simon Fraser and suggested the

. development of a new university in the Fraser Valley along with reinforcement and

encouragement of the community colleges with respect to transfer students at a higher

level.

S.M. 04/03/91

Page 4

B. Bedford expressed surprise that a document concerned with accessiblity and quality of

education did not deal with the recent issue of the Province not having access to federal

transfer money. He suggested this will have a considerable impact on the future of post-

secondary education in the province.

Bowman felt there were significant advantages related to growth such as program

diversity, program intensity and specialization, and the intellectual richness more faculty

and students bring to the academic community and, rather than retreating from growth,

she felt the nature of the growth should be directed with more precsion and more serious

attempts should be made at acquiring additional resources.

E. Palmer objected to the proposal because the large growth in the undergraduate

population appeared to be desired in order to support the graduate population and

research programs. Such growth would be at the expense of the undergraduate body.

R. Carlson expressed opinion that universities must be programmed for growth and

change and he felt that the report in a general sense provided for these changes as

needed.

A. Brown reminded Senate that the report was predicated on convincing the Government

to make resources available that would be commensurate with the desired growth and

that the University is not willing to undertake this growth unless those resources are

forthcoming. He also stressed that governments respond to pressure and they are

currently under pressure to provide better access to post-secondary education. This

report is a responsible and reasonable approach to take to government as it will provide

a venue to assist them in addressing public concerns in this area.

Referring to the letter of transmittal, P. Winne noted that in fundamental ways item two

through nine were independent of growth and worthy of pursuit in their own right. He

expressed preference for a re-ordering of these items so that two through nine appeared

first with number one which deals with the issue of growth appearing last. The Chair

indicated that he would take this suggestion under advisement.

Reilly expressed opinion that Simon Fraser University, being a strong component of

higher education in British Columbia and being a publicly funded institution, has an

obligation to do the best it can to provide improved access to students in British Columbia.

He felt the report provided a plan which would improve and increase accessibility to

higher education and the University was obligated to accept this responsibility.

Following clarification, a suggestion to change the third sentence of item two on the

second page of the covering letter to Continuing efforts will also be made to encourage

the commercial

development

of university research discovery was accepted as a friendly.

amendment.

S. Shapiro suggested that the University should focus on the future rather than the past

and pointed out that the document provides opportunities to achieve exciting things while

meeting the needs of the community and preserving academic value.

Question was called, and a vote taken.

MOTION CARRIED

S.M. 04/03/91

Page 5

Moved by J. Munro, seconded by B. Bedford

"That Senate approve and recommend approval to the Board of Governors,

as set forth in S.91-13, the change in status of the Natural Resources

Management Program to the School of Resource and Environmental

Management"

Question was called and a vote taken

MOTION CARRIED

ii) ?

Senate Committee on Academic Planning/Senate Committee on Enrolment

Management and Planning

a) ?

Paper S.91-14 - Undergraduate Enrolment Targets, 1991/92

Moved by J. Munro, seconded by D. Shannon

Motion #1:

"that Senate approve and recommend to the Board the 1991/92

Access Program undergraduate enrolment target of 450 FTE

(which requires a further 316 FTE in 1991/92) as outlined in Dr.

Wattamaniuk's memo of 31 January 1991. If the funded Access

enrolment is less than 450 FTE, the admission targets specified in

motions 2 and 3 shall be reduced accordingly"

J. Munro advised that the original intent was to consider each motion individually but he

wished to point out that understanding of the first motion would be aided by consideration

of motions 2 and 3.

A motion moved by B. Bedford, seconded by A. Wotherspoon to consider an three motions

together was accepted as a friendly amendment.

Motion #2:

"that Senate approve and recommend to the Board the admission

targets for 1991/92 as outlined in Dr. Wattamaniuk's memo of 31

January 1991"

Motion #3:

"that Senate approve and recommend to the Board the following

admission targets by admission category for Fall 1991 and Spring

1992:

B.C. Grade XII

B.C. College Transfer

"Other

Total intake

Question was called, and a vote taken

on all three motions

Fall 1991 ?

Spring 1992,

1,250 ?

100

1,000

525

950

3,200 ?

1,350"

MOTION CARRIED

S.M. 04/03/91

Page 6

!IJ*1fflutIliUI I

Nii1HE!h1t1[.Ji ?

1j1tntjM1 1ffi11llMi

Moved by J. Munro, seconded by R. Blackman

"that Senate approve and recommend approval to the

Board of Governors, as set forth in S.91-15, the mechanism

for enrolment limitation proposed for the Department of

Communication in Dr. Laba's memorandum of 16 January

1991"

M. Laba, Chair of the Department of Communication was in attendance as a resource

person.

In response to an inquiry about the impact of the proposed enrolment limitations, M. Laba

advised that it is estimated that approximately 16-18% of the currently declared majors

and minors would be affected. He went on to provide a brief background of the details

leading up to the proposal.

B. Bedford suggested that the criteria for entry to courses might need to be revisited if

telephone registration is introduced.

Question was called, and a vote taken.

MOTION CARRIED

iii)

Senate Committee on Academic Planning/Senate Committee on Undergraduate

Studies

Moved by S. Shapiro, seconded by K. Rieckhoft

"that Senate approve and recommend approval to the Board of

Governors, as set forth in S.91-16, the change in the degree

designation for the program at Cariboo College from Bachelor of

Business Studies (BBS) to Bachelor of Business Administration

(BBA)"

S. Shapiro advised Senate that this change was requested by the students enrolled in the

Cariboo program because the BBS designation was less clearly understood or

recognized by potential employers and others. The request was strongly supported by

both Cariboo College and the Faculty of Business Administration at Simon Fraser.

Question was called, and a vote taken.

MOTION CARRIED

MIRIM

Paper S.91-17 - Annual Report (FOR INFORMATION)

Concern was expressed about the average degree completion time and inquiry was

made as to whether or not any studies have been done within SFU's graduate programs

to see what causes the lengthy completion time and also if there were any comparable

statistics available from other universities that would indicate how Simon Fraser was

situated in this regard.

S.M. 04/03/91

Page 7

• B. Clayman referred Senate to page 2 of the coverning memo which deals with this issue

and informed Senate that a study is in progress at the present time with respect to

withdrawal rates and this is closely related to student degree completion time. Although

there are no comparable studies in Canada at the present time, the Western Canadian

Deans of Graduate Studies group is in the process of collecting data from their respective

instittuions which will be complied in the Dean's office at Simon Fraser University. B.

Clayman indicated once these studies are completed, he would be pleased to provide

Senate with the information. Brief discussion followed which included clarification of how

the withdrawal rates are calculated.

Following this discussion, the Annual Report of the Senate Graduate Studies Committee

was received by Senate.

Senate Committee on Agenda and Rules

Paper S.91-18 - Proposed changes to the Rules of Senate. Section VA.6 and

V.A.7

Moved

by N. Swartz, seconded by M.L. Stewart

"that Senate approve a change to sections V.A.6 and V.A.7 of the

Rules of Senate as follows:

From: V.A.6 Meetings will be called to order at 7:00 p.m.

V.A.7 The open session of any, regular meeting normally

. shall terminate not later than 10:00 p.m. The time may

be extended at any meeting by successful motion for

extension, such motion requiring only a simple

affirmative majority of those who vote.

To:

V.A.6 Meetings will be called to order at 3:00 p.m.

V.A.7 The open and closed sessions of any regular

meeting normally shall terminate not later than 5:15

p.m. The time may be extended at any meeting by

successful motion for extension, such motion

requiring only a simple affirmative majority of those

who vote"

Concern was expressed that the evidence on which the report was based had a self-

selection bias and therefore could not be relied upon to provide a realistic view of what

the University community as a whole felt. It was also pointed out that the rationale

concerning the safety of the campus and the surrounding areas at night, if taken to its

logical conclusion, would imply that it was not safe to schedule classes in the evening.

The report was also criticized on the basis that the Committee did not conduct an

adequate survey to find out if in fact there was an underrepresentation on Senate of

persons who are principal care-givers in their family. The report was also unclear as to

whether or not a change in meeting time would help this particular group of people or be

of benefit to the University community as a whole.

It was noted that an earlier meeting time would effectively eliminate Senate dinners which

were felt to be beneficial and a valuable part of the Senate process.

S.M. 04/03/91

Page 8

As a member of the Ad Hoc Committee, M. L. Stewart informed Senate of some of the

concerns the Committee had received regarding late night travel, particularly for women

travelling on the transit system. With regard to the evidence on which the report was

based, she pointed out that there will always be some bias involved in such a report

because the input received by the committee is submitted from groups who have a self-

selected interest in representing their point of view. However, the Committee did hear

from several sides and tried to take all arguments and comments into consideration.

Opinion was expressed that the report placed greater emphasis on one particular

segment of the population but failed to determine if this group would in fact be better off

with an earlier meeting time. It was also pointed out that no matter what time Senate met,

some people will be disenfranchised but the evening time is more likely to minimize this.

Objection was raised that the change in the Rules would potentially limit Senate's ability

to debate substantial issues since the time allowed for open and closed sessions has

been compacted into a shorter time frame.

From the students' point of view, it was noted that the majority of students have classes

during the day and therefore find it easier to attend Senate in the evening. This is

especially true for students in the Faculty of Science who have block scheduling for labs

and would find it almost impossible to attend afternoon meetings. It was noted that the

student constituency consistently had vacancies and it was suggested that this was due

primarily to the heavy workload of becoming involved in Senate and also because of the

timetables of students changing from semester to semester. An evening meeting time

minimized this to some extent.

N. Swartz, as Chair of the Ad Hoc Committee responded to some of the concerns. He

pointed out that Senate's first obligation was to find a time most convenient for people to

attend meetings rather than attend dinner, and he reminded Senate that those who prefer

an earlier meeting time were not present to voice their opinions and he hoped Senate

would take this into consideration. With regard to scheduling classes in the evening

versus holding Senate meetings in the evening, he pointed out that the University had no

choice but to schedule evening classes. However, the University did have a choice with

regard to scheduling Senate meetings in the evening. He also noted that the same

provision about extending the meeting time is in place under the proposed changes to the

Rules of Senate. Since there were more faculty and students on campus during the day,

it was felt that an afternoon session of Senate would provide better opportunity for

members of the University community to drop in and observe Senate meetings.

K. Rieckhoff moved that the question be called and a vote was taken.

Motion Carried.

Question was called on the main motion, and

a vote was taken.

MOTION FAILED

8 in favour

25 opposed

9 abstentions

S.M. 04/03/91

Page 9

Other Business

. Referring to the concerns expressed about evening travel, M. Hoechsmann suggested

that, as a regular practice, at the end of each meeting the Chair make an announcement

to determine if anyone needed a ride with other members going in the same direction.

Senate was also reminded of the security escort service that was available on campus to

accompany individuals to the parking lots or bus stops.

Notices of Motion

There was no notices of motion.

Information

The date of the next regularly scheduled meeting of Senate is Monday, April 8, 1991.

The Assembly moved directly into Closed Session at 9:25 p.m.

W. R. Heath

Secretary of Senate

.j.