IS
a me,,-,deot
by
JO1)
/prf9
.
?
DRAFT UNTIL APPROVED BY SENATE
Minutes of a meeting of the Senate of Simon Fraser University held on
?
Monday, March 2, 1998 at 7:00 pm in Room 3210 WMC
?
Open Session
Present: ?
Blaney, Jack, President and Chair
.
Barrow, Robin
Absent: ?
Baert, Jessica
Bawa, Parveen
Berggren, J. Len
Beattie, Suzan
Blazenko, George
Boland, Larry
Cleveland, William
Bowman, Marilyn
D'Auria, John
Chan, Albert
Dobb, Ted
Clayman, Bruce
Giffen, Ken
Coleman, Peter
Hassan, Nany
Dunsterville, Valerie
Lewis, Brian
Emmott, Alan
Mauser, Gary
Etherington, Lois
Nip, Harry
Gagan, David
Ogloff, James
Gillies, Mary Ann
Osborne, Judith
Jones, Colin
Oven ngton, Jennifer
Jones, John
Parmar, Neelam
Kanevsky, Lann ie
Sanghera, Baiwant
Kirczenow, George
Segal, Joseph
Marteniuk, Ron
Wickstrom, Norman
Mathewes, Rolf
McInnes, Dina
Morris, Joy
Naef, Barbara
In attendance:
Percival, Paul
Collinge, Joan
Peterson, Louis
French, Charlotte
Pierce, John
Knockaert, Joe
Reed, Clyde
Yerbury, Cohn
Russell, Robert
Selman, Mark
Tam, Lawrence
Warsh, Michael
Waterhouse, John
Winne, Phil
Wong, Tim
Wortis, Michael
Yagi, Ian
Heath, Ron, Dean of Student Services and Registrar
Watt, Alison, Director, Secretariat Services
Grant, Bobbie, Recording Secretary
0
S.M. 02/03/98
Page 2
Approval of the Agenda
The Agenda was approved as distributed.
2.
Approval of the Minutes of the Open Session of February 5, 1998
The Minutes were approved as distributed.
3.
Business Arising from the Minutes
With the exception of a report concerning a meeting between the Chair of
Senate and the Chair of SUB which is dealt with under 'Other Business', there
was no further business ariing from the Minutes.
4.
Report of the Chair
The Chair presented a brief video of the SFU Pipe Band's trip to New York city to
play at Carnegie Hall. He reported that the Band played to an audience that was
almost a full house and they had received a standing ovation for their
performance.
5.
Reports of Committees
a) ?
Senate Committee on Academic Planning/Senate Committee on
Continuing Studies
Paper S.98-22 - Non-Credit Certificate Program: Certificate in Distance
Learning ?
0
Moved by D. Gagan, seconded by M. Selman
"that Senate approve and recommend approval to the Board of
Governors, as set forth in S.98-22, the proposed Non-Credit
Certificate Program: Certificate in Distance Learning"
Cohn Yerbury, Director of the Centre for Distance Education, and Joan Cohhinge,
Program Director of the Centre were in attendance in order to respond to
questions.
Concern was expressed that the program would add a considerable number of
new students to an already over crowded campus stretching the University's
limited resources even further. Senate was advised that the Centre, which has a
very well established international reputation in this area, regularly receives
requests from individuals and delegations to tour SFU's facilities and learn about
how SFU delivers distance education internationally. Since the Centre is already
dealing with this on a regular basis it was felt that it would be very helpful to
develop a programmatic approach to the orientation and a cost recovery program
was designed.
Question was called, and a vote taken. ?
MOTION CARRIED
.
0
S.M.
02/03/98
Page 3
0 ?
b) ?
Senate Committee on International Activities
Paper
S.98-23 -
Annual Report (For Information)
Joe Knockaert, Director of the Office of International Cooperation, was in
attendance in order to respond to questions.
It was noted that Senate had previously been advised that the Eastern Indonesia
University Development Project was to be completed in
1998,
and an inquiry was
made as to why this report showed the end date as being
2000.
Senators were
reminded that the report last year indicated that the project would not be
extended beyond
1998
but would be phased out slowly with some activities
continuing to the year
2000.
This has not changed and it is expected that most of
the activities after
1998
will be managed from the project office in Burnaby rather
than in Indonesia. It was also pointed out that PhD and Masters-programs for a
few Indonesian Fellows would take until the year
2001
to be completed.
In response to an inquiry for further information about the President's Advisory
Committee on International Activities, Senate was informed that the correct title
for this body was Presidential Task Force on International Strategy and its specific
task was to examine the operation of the Office of International Cooperation,
review the university policy on international activities, and to review the role of
the Senate Committee on International Activities. A report was produced which
. recommended that the Office of International Cooperation be made a central
clearing house for information about international activities in the University, and
changes were recommended to the university policy on international activities
and the role of SCIA. These will be brought to Senate for discussion likely in May.
Concern was expressed about the lack of information in the report with respect to
the rationale for decisions being made about projects. Senate was advised that
SCIA currently is advisory to the President and receives full documentation of
projects prior to providing its advice to the President. There will be a change in
this process once the new policy recommendations are brought to Senate and it
will be easier for people to access more detailed information once the role of the
Office of International Cooperation has been changed.
Reference was made to a recent news release about a joint project between
Malaysia, Nortel and Simon Fraser University and inquiry was made as to why this
project did not appear in the annual report before Senate. Senate was advised
that the project is at the discussion stage among Nortel, the Faculty of Applied
Sciences and the Multimedia University in Malaysia. If a Memorandum of
Agreement can be reached, SCIA would consider it at that time.
The following Notice of Motion was submitted by R. Russell for the next meeting
of Senate:
.
?
"that Senate recommend to the Board of Governors that an
external review of the Eastern Indonesia University Development
S.M. 02/03/98
Page 4
Project be undertaken. Senate further recommends that this
review be completed by March 1, 1999" ?
0
Pa p
er S.98-24 - IUSEC Revisions (For Information
Following a brief discussion about the number of students participating in
exchange programs, and the membership of IUSEC in relation to SCIA, the report
with respect to revisions to membership and terms of reference was received by
Senate.
c)
Senate Policy Committee on Scholarships, Awards & Bursaries
i) ?
Paper S.98-25 - Annual Report (For Information)
I
d4
+ ?
$odcø
'4
W
uc md b"I
John Pierce, member of Senate and Chair of SPCSAB' and Charlotte French,
Director, Student Academic Resources were in attendance in order to respond
to questions. .3
1'Yur;,
Ctivve ?
CJ,tc
of
* PCA3
W
ClIs a t
Reference was made to the Graduate Scholarship Program and concern was
expressed about students who hold scholarships being allowed to work part-time.
Senate was advised that students were originally prohibited from working while
they held scholarships on the theory that they should concentrate full-time on
their studies. However, the value of the award has not been able to provide
students with the assurance of full time support and allowing part-time
employment was a suitable compromise.
Concern was expressed about the scholarship funds being reduced by an amount
equal to donations and it was suggested that the scholarship fund should remain
fixed. The Chair advised that he had agreed to a request from SPCSAB that there
be a moratorium on such reductions for five years.
In response to an inquiry about the relationship between offers accepted and
offers declined on page 7 of the report, and whether these have changed over
time, Senate was advised that the numbers are very consistent with past statistics.
d)
Senate Committee on Academic Planning/Senate Committee on
Undergraduate Studies
i)
?
Paper S.98-26 - Undergraduate Curriculum Revisions - Faculty of Science
(For Information)
Senate received information that SCUS, acting under delegated authority,
approved minor changes to the Environmental Science Program, changes to
existing courses in Biological Sciences and Earth Sciences; and vectors in various
Chemistry and Physics courses were re-written so that the nominal hour of open
workshop is designated as tutorial rather than laboratory.
.
0
S.M. 02/03/98
Page 5
e)
?
Senate Committee on Academic Planning/Senate Committee on
Enrolment Management/Senate Committee on Undergraduate Studies
i) ?
Paper S.98-27 - Admission to Faculty
Moved by D. Gagan, seconded by P. Bawa
"that Senate approve, and recommend approval to the Board of
Governors, as set forth in S.98-27, the principle of admitting
students directly to Faculties for 98-3 and subsequent semesters"
D. Gagan provided Senate with a brief introduction in which he pointed out that
the proposal does not preclude students from the opportunity to experiment with
and investigate various disciplines and subjects before deciding on a specialization
or program. Faculties will be unable to assign all available spaces in specializations
to new entries and consequently students will be able to apply to move into those
specializations when they are qualified to do so. Similarly, students will not be
restricted from applying to transfer to another program (if qualified) should their
aspirations change. From an academic perspective, the establishment of specific
admission requirements germane to a program's requirements will allow students
to be better prepared for entry - and for faculties to select new students on the
basis of appropriate academic preparation. From an administrative perspective,
having defined enrolment targets and quotas for programs and Faculties will assist
inthe planning of course spaces and the corresponding assignment of teaching
resources.
L. Boland read a prepared statement to Senate strongly opposing the proposal
because he felt it would not solve any of the problems that are alleged to exist
and it would have an adverse affect on the long standing and successful liberal
pedagogy traditional to SFU. SFU students have been given the opportunity to
shop around the university before committing to a specific major or Faculty in
order to learn what kind of education they might be most interested in pursuing.
Opinion was expressed that direct admission will have a negative impact on these
students and will constrain their choices.
Concern was expressed by several Senators that barriers would result in transfers
between Faculties. It was pointed out that spaces would always be kept available
for transfers and it should not be difficult for Faculties to handle students wishing
to transfer in. Concern was also expressed that priority for course registration will
be extended to the first and second year courses thus restricting opportunities for
students to get into courses needed to qualify for transfer to another Faculty.
Opinion was expressed that should barriers start to arise, Senate should be
consulted about the problem as opposed to setting up an administrative
procedure to handle the issue without Senate's input/approval. Inquiry was made
about whether or not there would be enrolment space for students not admitted
to the Faculty in a course offered at the 100-level which was a requirement for
. ?
the major program. Senate was assured that sufficient space would be left
available for students who may wish to transfer and need the course to qualify.
S.M. 02/03/98
Page 6
Inquiry was made about the impact of this proposal on academic advising and the
existing admission procedure which is now centrally handled by the Registrar's
Office. Senate was informed that students who are admitted directly to a Faculty
or program will generally be advised by that Faculty/Department, students who
are still considering a number of options will continue to get assistance from the
Academic Resource office. With respect to admissions, the Registrar's Office
(Admissions) will work cooperatively with departments on selecting students but
admission decisions will rest with the Faculty. Approval of majors now rests with
each Faculty and this proposal just moves the process back a step and spreads out
the workload.
In response to an inquiry as to what would happen if a Faculty did not meet their
admission target, Senate was informed that SFU currently has more applications
than can be admitted so this not expected to be a problem. However, if it should
occur then the relationship between a Faculty's enrolment pattern and its
resources would have to be addressed over a period of time.
Opinions expressed in favour of the proposal included the ability to better
balance workload and resources, the ability to attract high quality students,
especially into highly competitive programs, stability for students in the planning
of their course of study, and the ability to better inform students as to their
chances of gaining acceptance into programs of their choice.
Discussion turned to the issue of managing the direct admission process, and
inquiry was made as to how specific Faculty targets would be set and how growth
for each Faculty determined. It was pointed out that growth now is the result of
either competitive planning through the Academic Enhancement Fund or new
funding being received from the Ministry which, at the present time, is not
forthcoming. At some point, universities might not only be given enrolment
targets but they might be required to admit specific numbers of students into
specific programs/faculties. However, expectations are that universities will
continue to have what are now called productivity FTEs and if there is no funding
for them, direct admission provides some control so that the burden is shared
equitably across all Faculties. It was also noted that the Senate Committee on
Enrolment Management and Planning which has representatives from all
Faculties, sets and recommends enrolment targets to SCAP and Senate.
Brief discussion continued in which the issue of transferability was again raised and
suggestion was made that the model in Business Administration be followed so
that a smaller fraction of students could be admitted directly while leaving a
much greater space for other students.
Question was called, and a vote taken.
?
MOTION CARRIED
Senate Committee on Academic Planning/Senate Committee on
Enrolment Management and Planning
0
S.M. 02/03/98
Page 7
S
?
i) ?
Paper S.98-28 - Undergraduate Admission Targets for 1998/99
Motion #1:
Moved by D. Gagan, seconded by B. Clayman
"that Senate approve and recommend approval to the Board of Governors the
undergraduate admission targets for each basis-of-admission group and for each
semester in 1998/99 as set out below and that SCAP be delegated authority to
make adjustments based on changes to the overall enrolment targets and based
on actual enrolment experience in 1998-2 and 1998-3.
B.C. Gr. XII
B.C. College
Other
Total Intake
Admission Targets for New
1998-2
1998-3
50
1,650
375
675
250
775
675
3,100
Students
1999-1
Total
50
1,750
350
1,400
325
1,350
725
4,500°
[IJ
In order to match the provincially funded FTE target, the intake of new students
would have to be reduced from 5,072 admitted last year to 4,250. The Senate
Committee on Enrolment Management and Planning felt that this reduction in
the number of new students was too step and would significantly raise admission
averages and would induce an enrolment perturbation that would take several
years to move through the year levels. The Committee therefore moved to raise
intake targets to 4,500 students. The 250 additional students would be admitted
in 1998-3 and would be allocated to the Faculties by the Vice-President
Academic in consultation with the Deans.
Question was called, and a vote taken.
?
MOTION CARRIED
Motion #2
Moved by D. Gagan, seconded by P. Percival
"that Senate approve and recommend approval to the Board of Governors the
undergraduate admission targets to each Faculty as set out in the table below and
that SCAP be delegated authority to make adjustments based on changes to the
overall enrolment targets and based on actual enrolment experience in 1998-2
and 1998-3.
Faculty/BOA ?
1998-2 ?
1998-3 ?
1999-1 ?
Total
ADolied Science
B.C. Gr.Xll
5
154
15
174
B.C. College
20
39
35
94
Other
15
53
25
93
Total
40
246
75
361
S
S.M. 02/03/98
Page 8
Faculty/BOA ?
1998-2 ?
1998-3 ?
1999-1 ?
Total
?
0
Arts
B.C.Gr.Xll
40
931
15
986
B.C. College
300
476
280
1,056
Other
205
447
210
862
Total
545
1,854
505
2,904
Business Administration
B.C. Gr.Xll
0
65
5
70
B.C. College
15
15
10
40
Other
0
0
0
0
Total
15
80
15
110
Education
B.C. Gr.Xll
0
0
0
0
B.C. College
0
0
0
0
Other
20
120
60
200
Total
20
120
60
200
Science
B.C.Gr.Xll
5
400
15
420
B.C. College
40
70
25
135
Other
10
80
30
120
Total
55
550
70
675
University
B.C. Gr.Xll
50
1,550
50
1,650
B.C. College
375
600
350
1,325
Other
250
700
325
1,275
Total
675
2,850
725
4,250
Note: 250 additional students will be admitted in 1998-3 and will be allocated to
the Faculties by the Vice-President Academic in consultation with the
Deans."
In response to an inquiry as to why Faculty targets were included for 98-2, Senate
was advised that by establishing a total target for the year and targets for 98-3 and
99-1, the residual is the intake for 98-2.
Question was called, and a vote taken. ?
MOTION CARRIED
g) ?
Senate Graduate Studies Committee
i) ?
Paper S.98-29 - Annual Report (For Information)
The Annual Report of the Senate Graduate Studies Committee was
received by Senate for information. ?
0
S.M.
02/03/98
Page
9
• ?
6.
?
Other Business
i)
?
Paper
S.98-30 -
Draft Statement of Purpose (For Discussion)
Introducing discussion on the draft statement, D. Gagan explained that the
Government has commenced an accountability program, now called
performance management program, for the public sector. Typically, in the public
sector performance management means accounting for the productivity - both in
terms of quantity and quality - that is generated with the resources provided. A
protocol has been signed between the University Presidents' Council of British
Columbia and the Ministry which establishes a process whereby the Vice-
Presidents Academic will negotiate with the Ministry an acceptable process of
accountability for the university system within the Government's performance
management requirement. The Board of Governors of each university will be the
validating body that reports to the Ministry whether or not the University is
achieving its stated purposes. The level of accountability between the Board and
the Ministry will be based on each university's unique mission/purpose. The draft
statement before Senate has been prepared within this context and consists of
objectives (listed on the left hand side of the page) and explanations (listed on the
right hand side of the page) of what each of those objectives mean from SFU's
unique perspective. The draft was presented to Senate for consideration and
input.
Concern was expressed that the wording in Point Five implies that the activities
. described are perhaps more central to the University than excellence to research.
Suggestion was made that the word defined could be changed to 'an institution
able to respond to' but it was pointed out that the statement only deals with
student accessibility as noted by the words on the left side of the page.
Reference was made to Point Two which, in an earlier version, made reference
to the tutorial system when talking about effective and innovative instruction
employing a variety of teaching methods, and concern was raised that this
reference had been deleted in this new version. Also, in an earlier version several
points included reference to the value and support of employees and students.
This has been deleted and opinion was expressed that the reference was worth
including in some form or another.
J. Morris read a written response submitted by the Student Society to an earlier
draft of the Statement of Purpose which included several concerns and questions
about specific points and apparent omissions. Specifically, nothing is included
about the importance of democratic governance structures, or the significant
involvement of all members of the community in decision-making processes.
Standards need to be set and enforced in departments across the university on
issues such as quality, democracy in governance, and the fair treatment of all
members of the university community, and the university should be committed to
a high standard of ethics both in its treatment of its own community members
and in its involvement with the outside community. While educational
. ?
technology is emphasized in the draft, it must be restricted to ways that improve
and vitalize the research, teaching and learning environments at SFU. Statements
S.M.
02/03/98
Page 10
relating to these issues were felt by SFSS to be worthwhile for inclusion in the
University's Statement of Purpose.
It was noted that a variety of different verbs were used throughout the document
for different paragraphs and the issue was raised as to whether they were used
with specific intent. It was suggested that more careful consideration be given to
the precise wording.
Several Senators commented positively that the Statement of Purpose begins
with a reference to research and teaching being the two main activities of the
University. However, concern was expressed about the text to the left of the first
statement and whether the word "consolidate" conveys the appropriate
sentiment.
The Chair indicated that Senate's comments, concerns, and suggestion will be
taken into consideration and expectations are that a revised draft will be
presented to Senate in May for further consideration prior to the statement going
to the Board of Governors for approval.
ii)
Report of meeting with Chair of SCUB
L. Boland, Chair of SCUB, reported that SCUB had met with the President and
discussed budget principles and the process and schedule for budget preparation.
SCUB will discuss the specific three-year plans of VPs and Deans and then provide
advice to the President.
The Chair wished to add that he had undertaken to provide SCUB with all the
same questions and items sent to VPs and Deans for advice on both the recurring
and non-recurring budget.
iii)
Paper
S.98-31 -
G. Kirczenow motion re SCUB
Moved by G. Kirczenow, seconded by A. Chan
"that the Senate Committee on University Budget establish
guidelines to be followed by the administration in communicating
budgetary information to SCUB"
G. Kirczenow explained that the motion was before Senate because of the
apparent communication barrier between SCUB and the administration and he
felt it would be useful if some kind of framework could be established for
communicating information to SCUB.
Opinion was expressed that the motion contravened the intention of the
University Act for establishing a budget committee which the Act defines as being
advisory to the President. The committee therefore is not a regulatory body and
does not have the power to dictate to the administration what information it
receives. It was pointed out, however, that SCUB's terms of reference specify that
SCUB must maintain an overview and familiarity with the operating and capital
S.M.
02/03/98
Page 11
funds of the university and therefore SCUB needs appropriate information in
order to do that.
Brief discussion ensued with regard to SCUB's role in relation to decentralization
of the budget. Opinion was expressed that SCUB should have access to the
budget as a whole so that they can obtain an overview of the budget and can offer
advice on important financial matters which may impact the University as a
whole.
A suggestion to change the motion as follows was accepted as a friendly
amendment:
"that the Senate Committee on University Budget develop
guidelines to be negotiated with the administration about
communicating budgetary information to SCUB"
The Chair reiterated his intent to share fully with SCUB all matters for which he
requests advice from Vice-Presidents and Deans and, if SCUB wished to provide
advice on other matters within the President's jurisdiction, they were welcome to
do so.
Question was called, and a vote taken. ?
MOTION (AS AMENDED) CARRIED
iv) ?
G. Kirczenow presented the following Notice of Motion for the next
meeting of Senate:
"that Senate recommend to the Board of Governors that the
procedures for the recommendation and selection of candidates for
president of SFU be reviewed and that a revised version be brought
to Senate for discussion and approval at least twelve months before
the next presidential search begins"
In response to a concern about process and an inquiry with regard to a
review of the existing policy on research ethics, Senate was advised that the Vice-
President Research is no longer Chair of the Research Ethics Review Committee.
That responsibility has been delegated to a member of the Committee. It was
also noted that once the Tr-Council policy has been established (probably in
April) universities in general, including SFU, will be reviewing their policy on
research involving human participants. Expectations are that the review process
will include wide consultation, including Senate, in the hope of arriving at a much
better policy.
7. ?
Information
The next regularly scheduled meeting of Senate will take place on Monday, April
6, 1998.
The Open Session adjourned at
9:50
pm and moved directly into Closed Session.
•
?
Alison Watt
Director, Secretariat Services