U_^A

Minutes of a meeting of the Senate of Simon Fraser University held on

Monday, May 11, 1998 at 7:00 pm in Room 3210 West Mall Centre

Open Session

Present:

Blaney, Jack, President and Chair

Absent:

Akins, Kathleen

Baert, Jessica

Aloi, Santa (representing J. Pierce)

Beattie, Suzan

Berggren, J. Len

Blazenko, George

Boland, Larry

Bowman, Marilyn

Chan, Albert

Coleman, Peter

Clayman, Bruce

Dobb, Ted

Cleveland, William

Etherington, Lois

D'Auria

John

Giffen, Ken

Dunsterville, Valerie

Hassan, Nany

Emmott, Alan

Lewis, Brian

Frindt, Robert (representing C. Jones)

Marteniuk, Ron

Gagan, David

Mathewes, Rolf

Gillies, Mary Ann

Mauser, Gary

Ho, Lawrence

McInnes, Dina

Jones, John

Nip, Harry

Kanevsky, Lannie

Parmar, Neelam

Kirczenow, George

Peterson, Louis

• ?

Morris, Joy

Russell, Robert

Naef, Barbara

Sanghera, Balwant

Ogloff, James

Segal, Joseph

Osborne, Judith

Warsh, Michael

Overington, Jennifer

Wickstrom, Norman

Percival, Paul

Winne, Phil

Reed, Clyde

Wong, Tim

Selman, Mark

Yagi, Ian

Tam, Lawrence

Waterhouse, John

Wortis, Michael

In attendance:

Gordon, Irene

Knockaert, Joe

Heath, Ron, Dean of Student Services/Registrar

Watt, Alison, Director, Secretariat Services

Grant, Bobbie, Recording Secretary

S.M. 11/05/98

Page

Approval of the Agenda

The Agenda was approved as distributed.

Approval of the Minutes of the Open Session of April 6, 1998

The Minutes were approved as distributed.

Business Arising from the Minutes

There was no business arising from the Minutes.

Report of the Chair

I) ?

Paper S.98-41 - Election Report (For Information)

As required by the Rules of Senate, Senate was provided with a report of the

results of recent elections of faculty and students to Senate and the Board of

Governors.

ii) ?

Location of Senate Meeting

In response to concerns expressed by Senate about the current meeting

facilities, A. Watt reported that this matter had been discussed at SCAR and that

the the only suitable replacement for Senate's current meeting room is the

Halpern Centre. Halpern Centre will be used on a pilot basis for the June

Senate meeting. Full audio and recording equipment will not be available for

the June meeting. However, should Senate's view favour meeting at the

Halpern Centre, inquiries will be made as to the cost of providing those extra

facilities. Halpern Centre is not available in July should there be a Senate

meeting scheduled at that time.

Reports of Committees

Senate Committee on University Teaching and Learning

Paper S.98-42 - Revised Terms of Reference and Membership - SCUTL

Moved by D. Gagan, seconded by J. Morris

"that Senate approve the revised terms of reference and

membership of the Senate Committee on University Teaching and

Learning, as set out in S.98-42"

I. Gordon, Chair of the Senate Committee on University Teaching and Learning

was in attendance in order to respond to questions.

Senate was advised that the Committee had felt that too much time was being

spent on matters related to teaching evaluation and thought there was equally

valuable work that could be done in other areas related to teaching and

learning. The membership and terms of reference were reviewed and revised,

with the new mandate identifying a broader range of activities related to

teaching and learning within the University.

S.M. 11/05/98

Page 3

0 ?

Amendment moved by J. D'Auria, seconded by G. Kirczenow

"that the Director of Student Academic Resources be a non-voting

ex-officio member"

Opinion was expressed that a non-academic resource person should not be a

voting member on a committee which makes decisions and recommendations

on university teaching. Senate was informed that the intent of the revision was

to provide both Directors with full membership in the hope that they would

become fully integrated into the work of the committee. It was pointed out that

the Director of the Centre for University Teaching was a faculty member and

therefore there was no concern with voting rights with respect to that position.

Further opinion was expressed that since the Director of Student Academic

- - - - -- Resources sees-students-on adaily-basis in a slightly different role than that ofa

faculty member, he/she would be able to provide valuable input to the

committee from a different perspective.

Question was called on the amendment,

and a vote taken.

AMENDMENT FAILED

An inquiry was made as to whether the same level of advice and guidance on

issues relating to teaching evaluation is expected to be provided under the

expanded mandate. It was noted that Part B, Item (c) provides the same

instruction with regard to this issue as before.

Reference was made to Part B, Item (g), (advice on efficacy of various teaching

strategies), and concerns were expressed that the committee may not have the

expertise or the resources to accomplish this objective. It was pointed out that

the Committee has access to such resources through the Office of the Vice-

President, Academic and the Centre for University Teaching.

Question was called on the main motion,

and a vote taken.

MAIN MOTION CARRIED

ii)

Paper S.98-43 - Annual Report - (For Information)

I. Gordon, Chair of SCUTL, advised Senate that the name of Dr. Larry Weldon

had inadvertently been left off the list of committee members. I. Gordon

apologized to Senate for this oversight and noted that Dr. Weldon had made

positive and important contributions to the committee over the past year.

The Annual Report of the Senate Committee on University Teaching and

Learning was received by Senate for information.

U_^A 

S.M. 11/05/98

Page 4

b) ?

Senate Committee on International Activities

i) ?

Paper S.98-44 - Proposed amendments to the University Policy on

International Activities (GP 231

Moved by D. Gagan, seconded by L. Berggren

"that Senate approve and recommend approval to the Board of

Governors, as set out in S.98-44, the proposed revised University

Policy on International Activities"

J. Knockaert, Director, Office of International Cooperation was in attendance in

order to respond to questions.

Senate was advised that revisions have been made to ensure a proper review

of international activities at all levels in the administrative process. An

additional level of reporting and signing off by the Vice-President, Academic

has been added but procedures have been sufficiently streamlined to provide

for a timely flow of documentation from the beginning to the end of the process.

Some changes to the policy have occurred as a result of the reorganization of

the Office of International Cooperation which will become the central clearing

house for information on international activities moving through the University.

Amendment moved by J. Morris, seconded by J. Overington

"that the following responsibility be added to section 6.3 of the

Terms of Reference for the Senate Committee on International

Activities: To ensure broad community consultation prior to the

final approval of any major proposal for international activities that

fall under GP 23 and for any proposal covered by GP 23 for which

human rights considerations are likely to be a concern"

While there was no objection to the suggestion that SCIA should take a broadly

consultative approach to approvals of international activities where there are

particularly significant and sensitive issues involved, concern was expressed

that serious problems dealing with the routine business of SCIA might occur

depending on how the amendment was interpreted.

Following brief discussion with respect to clarification of intent and what was

meant by a major proposal, the amendment was revised as follows:

"that the following responsibility be added to section 6.3 of the

Terms of Reference of the Senate Committee on International

Activities: To ensure broad community consultation prior to the

final approval of any proposal covered by GP 23 for which human

rights considerations are likely to be a concern"

S.M. 11/05/98

Page 5

• Discussion ensued about past practices of the committee, especially in relation

to the EIUDP project. It was noted that wide consultation had taken place at the

time of the Phase II review and Senate had approved most of the Indonesian

material. Opinion was expressed that regulations were being created because

of unhappiness with a past project and concern was expressed about whether

or not the amendment really addressed a general problem. Several members

of SCIA expressed support for the amendment and noted SCIA's intent to follow

this practice in any event.

Question was called on the amendment,

and a vote taken. ?

AMENDMENT CARRIED

There were no objections to the following editorial amendments suggested by

P. Percival: (i) 1.0 General: continuation of the strike through to include

- - -

'teaching-and service responsibilities' in the fifth line;-and (ii) 6.2-Membership:

revision of the word 'or' to 'and' in first line following list of committee members

so it reads: The Committee shall meet at least once each semester and at the

call of the Chair.

General discussion ensued with respect to the difference between research

activities covered under GP 23 as opposed to other university policies, the

process for determining whether or not projects require Senate approval, and

the issue of academic and diplomatic protocol.

. Suggestion was made that future reports from SCIA include the procedures

used by the committee for assessing criteria relevant to human rights

considerations and that this information be provided as part of the annual

report. Concern was expressed about the lack of information in general in past

reports and request was made to enhance the amount of information provided

to Senate. J. Knockaert noted the suggestions for future reports.

Opinion was expressed that the general statement relevant to projects in

Section 1 was too restrictive in the sense that it referred only to projects in

developing countries. A suggestion to eliminate this reference by deletion of

the words 'development assistance' and changing the word 'developing' to

'host' was accepted as a friendly amendment.

Amendment moved by J. Morris, seconded by J. Overington

"that the membership under Section 6.2 be revised to include one

at-large student, to be appointed by the Student Society, and one

at-large faculty member, to be elected by Senate"

Opinion was expressed that the amendment served to broaden the

representation by providing the possibility for undergraduate and graduate

student representation without adding an additional burden on members of

Senate.

S.M. 11/05/98

Page 6

It was pointed out that the workload of the committee was quite heavy and

opinion was expressed that since the committee meets monthly immediately

prior to the Senate meeting it is more feasible if members of the committee were

also members of Senate. In response to a suggestion that both students be

members of Senate, it was pointed out that there could easily be a time when

there was only one graduate student on Senate and there are a number of

existing committees that require a graduate student senator so it was important

to leave it open for an at-large graduate student.

As a result of discussion, the amendment was revised as follows:

"that the membership under Section 6.2 be revised to include one

at-large graduate student and one undergraduate student senator

elected by Senate"

Question was called on the amendment,

and a vote taken. ?

AMENDMENT CARRIED

Question was called on the main motion

and a vote taken.

MAIN MOTION (AS AMENDED) CARRIED

ii) ?

Paper S.98-45 - Motion from Jennifer Overington

A motion to revise procedures of the Senate Committee on International

Activities was withdrawn by J. Overington.

Senate Committee on Academic Planning/Senate Graduate Studies

Committee

Paper S.98-46 - School of Computing Science - Graduate Curriculum

Revisions (For Information)

Senate received information that the Senate Graduate Studies Committee,

acting under delegated authority, approved minor revisions to existing courses

within the School of Computing Science; deletion of CMPT 811, 812, 824, 841,

851; and the following new courses: CMPT 816,.817, 820, 889.

ii)

Paper S.98-47- Faculty of Business Administration - Changes to the

Senate received information that the Senate Graduate Studies Committee,

acting under delegated authority, approved minor revisions to existing courses

and programs within the Faculty of Business Administration, including the

Graduate Diploma in Business Administration.

iii)

Paper S.98-48 - Faculty of Education - Changes to the MA and Ph.D.

programs in Psychology of Education (For Information)

Senate received information that the Senate Graduate Studies Committee,

acting under delegated authority, approved minor revisions to existing courses

within the Faculty of Education and a reorganization of program structure for the

MA and PhD in Psychology of Education programs.

S.M. 11/05/98

Page 7

iv) ?

Paper S.98-49 - Department of Mathematics & Statistics - Graduate

Curriculum Revisions (For Information)

Senate received information that the Senate Graduate Studies Committee,

acting under delegated authority, approved minor revisions to the procedures

for Comprehensive Examinations, and modified Calendar wording for the

Applied and Computational Mathematics entry, Mathematics and Statistics

entry, and the Statistics entry.

Moved by D. Gagan, seconded by B. Clayman

"that Senate approve, as set forth in S.98-50, the amendments to

the terms of reference and memberships of the following

committees:

Senate Graduate Studies Committee

Senate Appeals Board

Committee to Review University Admissions

and that the Graduate Appeals procedure approved by Senate on

January 9, 1989 be revoked. All these changes should take place

on June 1, 1998"

SSenate was advised that the original process while well-intentioned had some

problems. The revised process which was discussed with the other committees

was felt to be a major improvement and should not significantly increase

workloads as the number of appeals is very low - perhaps one a year.

In response to a concern about decreased graduate student representation on

committees hearing graduate student matters, it was pointed out that the

composition of the previous appeal committee was predominantly faculty

members and had only one graduate student. Under the proposed revision,

student representation on the appeal committee is increased to two students

thus broadening the expertise base and providing a more balanced approach.

Brief discussion took place with respect to departmental responsibilities in

cases where student appeals are upheld.

Question was called, and a vote taken.

MOTION CARRIED

S.M. 11/05/98

Page

Other Business ?

Paper S.98-51 - Statement of Purpose

Moved by D. Gagan, seconded by J. Osborne

"that Senate endorse, and recommend to the Board of Governors

for approval and adoption, the Simon Fraser University Statement

of Purpose as provided in S.98-51"

Senators were reminded that the Statement of Purpose had been revised as a

result of previous Senate debate and it is now before Senate for endorsement

and recommendation to the Board of Governors.

Concern was expressed about applying the word "relevant" to curriculum as

public connotation of that word may imply that it will produce a job. D. Gagan

emphasized that the wording in the document had been very carefully chosen

since the University will have to be able to publicly defend the document

through the Provincial accountability process. He felt "relevant" was exactly the

right word to use because it meant the curriculum was deemed to be relevant by

the discipline that was teaching it.

Amendment moved by J. Morris, seconded by J. Overington

"that Point IX be amended to read: "An open and accessible

institution that values and supports diversity,

strives for a fair

treatment and high ethical standards in all of its dealings,

provides opportunities for participation,

encourages representative

governance and broad based community input into major

decisions,

and recognizes and supports the achievements of its

employees, students and alumni."

It was pointed out that the document was not before Senate for amendment.

Senate could endorse the document as a whole or refer it back for further

consideration but it was not open for amendment. It was noted however that

Senate could provide recommendations/suggestions that would be forwarded

to the Board along with the document if approved. The Chair ruled that the

motion to amend would stand down until discussion on the main motion

concluded.

Brief discussion followed with respect to Point V and what was meant by the

phrase 'essential student support'.

Question was called, and a vote taken.

MAIN MOTION CARRIED

Moved by J. Morris, seconded by J. Overington

S.M. 11/05/98

Page 9

. ?

"that Senate recommend to the Board of Governors that Point IX

be amended to read: "An open and accessible institution that

values and supports diversity,

strives for a fair treatment and high

ethical standards in all of its dealings,

provides opportunities for

participation,

encourages representative governance and broad

based community input into major decisions,

and recognizes and

supports the achievements of its employees, students and alumni."

Opinion was expressed that the document as it is written captures the essence

of the proposed amendment and the more words added, the more difficult

accountability becomes.

Confusion arose over the meaning of the word community and suggestion was

made that the wording be revised so that the intent which was to obtain input

- -from -the university-community would be clarified.- -

------------ - -

- - -

- -

Concern was expressed about the juxtaposition of the two phrases - one which

encourages representative governance, the other calling for broad based

community input. Opinion was expressed that the purpose of having

representative governance was to avoid decision making by universal

consensus.

Amendment moved by L. Boland, seconded by D. Gagan

"to strike the words 'and broad based university community input

into major decisions' from the motion"

Brief discussion ensued.

Question was called on the amendment,

and a vote taken. ?

AMENDMENT CARRIED

Question was called on the main motion

(as amended), and a vote taken.

MAIN MOTION (AS AMENDED) FAILED

b) ?

Paper S. 98-52 - Amendments to Appointment of Deans Policy

Moved by D. Gagan, seconded by J. Osborne

"that Senate approve and recommend approval to the Board of

Governors, as set out in S.98-52, the proposed amendments to the

Appointment of Deans Policy"

Senate was informed that under the current policy, every time a decanal

appointment ends at the end of a five year term, requirements are that a search

committee be established and a formal search conducted. The only flexibility in

• ?

the current policy is whether the search will be internal or external. This

amounts to an enormous investment of time and money and is an area where

S.M. 11/05/98

Page 10

some realistic efficiencies of time, money and effort are possible. The proposed

amendment would add an additional step (Stage One) in the process in cases

where a Dean is eligible for and seeking re-appointment in order to carry out a

review of the Dean's performance and of his/her suitability for re-appointment,

including a ratification vote by the Faculty involved. In addition, a support staff

person has been added as a member of a Faculty Dean search committee and

the Dean of Continuing Studies Search committee.

Inquiry was made as to why there was only one student on the Dean of

Continuing Studies search committee and why there was no staff person on the

Dean of Graduate Studies search committee. It was pointed out that the

community person on the Dean of Continuing Studies search committee would

also most likely be considered to be a student from Continuing Studies, and

there is no constituent group of support staff reporting to the Dean of Graduate

Studies other than the three directly working in the Dean's office.

There appeared to be general support for the addition of Stage One in the

process, but concerns were expressed about the standard required for

ratification under the existing policy.

Doubt was expressed about the sense of adding a support staff member to the

search committee because it would be very difficult for that person to have a

truly independent voice because they are supervised by Chairs and Deans who

may be candidates in the search process.

Discussion ensued about the impact of procedures of Stage One and Stage

Two on incumbent candidates who may not be recommended for re-

appointment after Stage One. It was pointed out that candidates not ratified as

a result of Stage One are not excluded from participating in Stage Two.

Concern was also expressed that the addition of Stage One requires a decision

to be made about an incumbent before knowing who else may apply so the

procedure may not result in the appointment of the best candidate.

Amendment moved by M. Wortis, seconded by L. Boland

"that a 60% majority of voters be required for ratification"

Following a brief discussion several suggestions were accepted as friendly

amendments with the result that the amendment was revised as follows:

"that ratification votes at Stage One and Stage Two require a 60%

majority of eligible votes cast"

Question was called, and a vote taken.

AMENDMENT CARRIED

Amendment moved by P. Percival, seconded by A. Chan

"that the addition of support staff members on those search

committees where it is suggested be deleted"

S.M. 11/05/98

Page 11

It was pointed out that although responsibilities of a Dean lie primarily in the

area of academic leadership, Deans also have various administrative

responsibilities and set the tone of personal interaction within a Faculty and it

was felt that support staff should be represented on a Dean's search committee.

Concerns were raised about what protection support staff have to allow them to

be independent voting members, and it was noted that they would have

protection through grievance structures within their union/association. Opinion

was expressed that it was critically important that the university be administered

efficiently and having a support staff representative on the committee would

provide some expertise in this area. It was noted that in other areas of

employment within the University employees do not have the opportunity to

select their supervisor and it was not appropriate for staff working within

Faculties to have this provision.

Question was called on the amendment,

and a vote taken. ?

AMENDMENT FAILED

Amendment moved by J. Overington, seconded by J. Morris

"that the membership of the Search Committee for the Dean of

Continuing Studies be changed to accommodate two students,

preferably one undergraduate and one graduate, selected by the

Student Society"

Opinion was expressed that student representation on the committee needs to

be characteristic of the group of students actually involved in Continuing

Studies and concern was expressed with the thrust of the amendment because

of the nature of Continuing Studies. A large number of students in Continuing

Studies are students in the non-credit area and do not fall neatly into the normal

student categories.

A suggestion that one of the students must be enrolled in a Continuing Studies

course/program was accepted as a friendly amendment.

Discussion continued with respect to the nature of students in Continuing

Studies, the difference in credit/non-credit courses and programs offered

through Continuing Studies, the role of Departments/Faculties, and the

relationship between Continuing Studies and Distance Education.

Question was called on the amendment,

and a vote taken.

AMENDMENT FAILED

Question was called on the main motion,

and a vote taken.

MAIN MOTION (AS AMENDED) CARRIED

Paper S.98-53 - SCODA - Election of Chair and membership

fl'

composition for hearing

S.M. 11/05/98

Page 12

Moved

"that

by P.

Senate

Percival,

approve

seconded

the

changes

J. D'Auria

the policy on the Senate

Committee on Disciplinary Appeals as set out in S.98-53"

Concern was expressed about the proposal to restrict the Chair's position to a

faculty member. Although it was likely that the position would be filled by a

faculty member most of the time the potential exists for a student who may have

the necessary experience and be particularly suited to the position to be

excluded simply by virtue of being a student.

Amendment moved by J. Morris, seconded by L. Tam

"that the word 'faculty' be deleted from Part A"

P. Percival explained that he had proposed the change because he felt it was

important that somebody who had been on the committee for a number of years

and had gained the appropriate experience with respect to procedures and

conduct of business became Chair. He also felt that a faculty member would

have an appropriate level of authority within the University to take whatever

action was required, and expressed opinion that students could not be

expected to have the appropriate experience or background for this position.

The Chair of SCODA receives very sensitive information about students and

opinion was expressed that it would be inappropriate for another student to see

that information unless it came to a full appeal at which point the student making

the appeal waives his/her right of privacy.

It was pointed out that the clause in the University Act requires the Committee,

not specifically the Chair, to be informed so technically student members of

SCODA already have access to confidential notices/information from the

President. It was noted that there are student chairs on other appeal

committees such as SAB and LPAC and concern was raised about excluding

someone simply because of their student status.

Opinion was expressed that the issue of continuity and having experience in

disciplinary matters really does make a difference in committees of this type and

on the balance of probabilities the Chair ought to be a faculty member.

Question was called on the amendment,

and a vote taken.

AMENDMENT FAILED

Question was called on the main motion,

and a vote taken.

MAIN MOTION CARRIED

Paper S.98-54 - Senate Committee Terms

Moved by L. Boland, seconded by P. Percival

"that Senate approve the staggering of the terms of members for

three Senate committees and the establishment of terms for

S.M. 11/05/98

Page 13

. ?

membership for three other Senate committees as set out in S.98-

54"

Question was called, and a vote taken.

MOTION CARRIED

Notice of Motion

i) ?

Paper S.98-55 - Notice of Motion to amend the Rules of Senate

regarding Elections

An amendment to change the Rules of Senate, Section IV.Elections, M. General

Regulations for Elections Conducted at Senate was presented to Senate as a

Notice of Motion for discussion at the next meeting of Senate.

Information

- ?

The date-of-the next regularly scheduled meeting

of Senate is Monday July 6, -

1998.

The Open Session adjourned at 9:45 pm. Following a brief recess, the Assembly

moved into Closed Session.

1 ?

Alison Watt

Director, Secretariat Services