. ?

DRAFT UNTIL APPROVED BY SENATE

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

Monday, October 5, 1998 at 7:00 pm in Room 3210 West Mall Centre

Open Session

Present: ?

Blaney, Jack, President and Chair

Akins, Kathleen

Baldwin, Paul (representing L. Copeland)

Barrow, Robin

Beattie, Suzan

Berggren, Len

Boland, Larry

Bowman, Marilyn

Burton, Lynn Elen

Chan, Albert

Clayman, Bruce

Coleman, Peter

D'Auria, John

Dhillon, Khushwant

Dunsterville, Valerie

Finley, David

Fletcher, James

Gagan, David

Giffen, Ken

Gillies, Mary Ann

. ?

Harris, Richard

Heaney, John

Jones, Cohn

Jones, John

Kanevsky, Lannie

Kirczenow, George

Mathewes, Rolf

McInnes, Dina

Morris, Joy

Naef, Barbara

Osborne, Judith

Overington, Jennifer

Percival, Paul

Peterson, Louis

Peters, Joseph

Pierce, John

Reader, Jason

Russell, Maya

Sanghera, Baiwant

Tam, Lawrence

Veerkamp, Mark

Waterhouse, John

Weeks, Daniel

Wortis, Michael

Zazkis, Rina

Heath, Ron, Dean of Student Services and Registrar

Watt, Alison, Director, Secretariat Services

Grant, Bobbie, Recording Secretary

Absent:

Cheng, Winnie

Emerson, Joseph

Emmott, Alan

Lewis, Brian

Marteniuk, Ron

Mauser, Gary

Ogloff, James

Russell, Robert

Segal, Joseph

Warsh, Michael

Wickstrom, Norman

In attendance:

Forsyth, Ian

S.M. 5/10/98

Page 2

The Chair welcomed new Senators, John Heaney, Faculty of Business

Administration, and Daniel Weeks, Faculty of Applied Sciences to Senate.

Approval of the Agenda

The Agenda was approved as distributed.

Approval of the Minutes of the Open Session of September 14, 1998

Reference was made to page 9, last sentence of the second paragraph of Item 6.

Request was made to change the words 'should be' to 'was' and to insert the

word 'will' after Senate, resulting in the sentence reading as follows: 'Therefore,

the break was declared not to exist and Senate will be given an opportunity at the

next meeting to consider how a mid-semester break might be accommodated'.

Following this amendment, the Minutes were approved.

Business Arising from the Minutes

All business arising from the previous meeting has been brought forward as

agenda items.

Report of the Chair

With the exception of the President's Agenda which appears as Item 6.iii on the

Agenda, there was no report from the Chair.

REPORTS OF COMMITTEES

SENATE NOMINATING COMMITTEE

i) ?

Paper S.98-75 - Elections

The following are the results of elections to the following Senate Committees:

Senate Committee on Honorary Degrees (SCHD)

One Senator (Arts)

and

one Senator (Business Administration)

to replace

William Cleveland and Lois Etherington from date of election to May 31, 1999.

Elected by acclamation:

Mary Ann Gillies (Arts)

Wm. John Heaney (Business Administration)

SENATE COMMITTEE ON AGENDA AND RULES

I) ?

Paper S.98-76 - Semester Schedule and Calendar Committee

It was noted that S.98-76 was before Senate for information and will be discussed

at the next meeting of SCAR and brought back to the November meeting of

Senate.

S.M. 5/10/98

Page 3

ii) ?

Paper S.98-77 - Information Policies

Ian Forsyth, University Archivist and Information and Privacy Coordinator, was in

attendance in order to respond to questions.

It was noted that Polks 11 0.01 through 11 0.07 deal with the University's specific

responsibilities under the FOl/POP legislation and were before Senate for

information. Policies I 10.08 through I 10.10 deal with the collection and

disclosure of instructor and course evaluations, the retention and disposal of

student exams/assignments, and the posting of student grades and return of

exams/assignments and were before Senate for advice.

Reference was made to Policy I 10.05 Collection of Personal Information and an

inquiry was made about the legality of approaching a colleague for an informal

opinion of a candidate during a faculty search procedure. It was pointed out that

if there was no intention of recording anything in written form as part of the

competition, prior written authorization from the candidate is not needed.

Clarification was requested with respect to the schedule of maximum fees.

Senate was advised that the fee schedule is set by regulation and established fees

that a public body such as a university can charge when answering a formal FOl

request. The fees cover costs associated with researching, retrieving and

reproducing records and preparing them for release. It was noted that informal

access requests are not subject to fees and inquiry was made as to the difference.

Senate was advised that if there is an existing procedure in place to provide the

public with routine access to university records then no fees are involved. Under

the FOl Act, the University is permitted to charge fees only if there is a formal

request for university records that contain either personal or confidential

information.

Referring to Policies 10.08-10.10, concern was expressed about the lack of faculty

input during the drafting of these policies. It was pointed out that a faculty

member was on the advisory committee and that the policies had been sent to

SFUFA.

An objection was raised with regard to the suggestion in Policy 10.10 that exams

and assignments had to be returned to students in individual envelopes and an

example of the problems this created with large classes was given. It was

suggested that it would have been better if procedures could have been

centralized or the onus put on students to provide envelopes. It was pointed out

that the examples in the policies were suggestions only and Senate's attention

was drawn to the second last sentence of the policy which states that the specific

confidentiality measures used are at the discretion of each instructor to permit

flexible, pragmatic procedures that suit the circumstances of each case. Another

suggestion was made that the University could ask students upon admission to sign

a waiver so that their assignments could be handed back in the most practical

manner. Students who choose not to waive their right of privacy as it relates to

the return of assignments/exams might then be asked to pay an additional fee.

S.M. 5/10/98

Page 4

Brief discussion took place with respect to course evaluations. It was pointed out

a number of different instructors could be involved with a specific course and if

course evaluations were to be used to modify the course all of the instructors

should see all of the comments. Therefore, the statement about handwritten

comments being made available to the course instructor should be pluralized.

The issue of allowing students to sign course evaluations if they so wished was

raised and it was pointed out that students should be made aware of how the

evaluation forms will be used and to whom they may be disclosed so that they can

make an informed decision about whether to identify themselves or not.

Reference was made to Section 1.4 of Policy 10.09 wherein it was stated that

students should be informed to retain their returned exams and assignments in

case they wish to appeal a grade. A centralized mechanism should be developed

for this procedure instead of having instructors inform students individually.

Senate was advised that the grading policy was currently under revision and

intentions are to incorporate this statement into the revised policy.

It was noted that the policies before Senate were designed to inform the

University community of the Provincial FOI/POP legislation as it applies to

universities but it would be up to Departments and Faculties to determine what

mechanisms would have to be put in place to deal with the regulations. The

examples outlined in the policies were examples only and mechanisms for

handling specific issues were best resolved at the Department and Faculty level.

Inquiry was made about whether or not there was protection in place for faculty

members if a student challenged the procedure used in a particular

circumstance. Senate was advised that if disagreement arose over how a policy

was applied, the person having the concern should speak to Ian Forsyth to see if

the issue could be resolved informally.

It was reiterated that the policies reflected the Act as it applied to all universities

and colleges in British Columbia and there was no latitude with respect to the

implications of the legislation. The policies were similar to policies at other

universities in British Columbia. However, there appeared to be some latitude

with respect to their implementation and further discussion and debate would be

useful in that area. This matter would be referred to SCAR and, in the interim,

any questions about interpretation, should be referred to Ian Forsyth.

iii)

Paper

S.98-78 -

Senate Meeting Time Survey (For Information)

A summary of the results of an email survey about the Senate meeting time were

received by Senate for information. It was decided not to recommend any

change to the time of Senate meetings at the present time.

S.M. 5/10/98

Page 5

0 ?

iv)

Paper

S.98-79 -

Senate Location

Moved by L. Boland, seconded by L. Peterson

"that the meetings of Senate continue to be held in Room 3210 in

the West Mall Centre"

Question was called, and a vote taken.

MOTION CARRIED

6. ?

OTHER BUSINESS

Paper

S.98-80 -

Advertising in the Calendar

Moved by

D'Auria, seconded by M.A. Gillies

"that advertising not be allowed in the Calendar until the principle

has been approved by Senate and the relevant procedures on how

the advertising will be selected are discussed"

A suggestion to insert the word 'further' before 'advertising' was accepted as a

friendly amendment, with the motion reading as follows:

"that further advertising not be allowed in the Calendar until the

principle has been approved by Senate and the relevant procedures

on how the advertising will be selected are discussed"

A suggestion was made that when a Calendar committee is set up, this question

be referred to that committee to draft a recommendation for Senate

consideration.

Question was called, and a vote taken.

MOTION CARRIED

ii)

Paper

S.98-81 -

Mid-Semester Break

Moved by D. Gagan, seconded by M. Veerkamp

"that Simon Fraser University schedule a mid-semester break in the

Spring semester 1999 on February 15 and 16, 1999"

R. Heath, Registrar, apologized to Senate for authorizing the mid-semester break

without Senate's approval and explained the rationale behind his decision. He

noted that the mid-semester break was initiated by the Student Society as a

result of a referendum held in the Spring

1998

elections. Since the Spring

semester

1999

had a full 13 weeks of instruction, and based on the practice

established in other semesters where normally at least two days off in holidays

occur, an assumption was made that it would be possible to deal with a two-day

. ?

break in the Spring in similar fashion as time lost to holidays in Fall and Summer

semesters. In cases where Easter might fall within the semester, it was clearly the

S.M. 5/10/98

Page

intent that the semester would then be extended so that the maximum time lost

would be the two days.

Concern was raised about the cancellation of classes that meet only once a week

on either the Monday or Tuesday. Opinion expressed that this might not have

been a problem if the announcement had been made prior to the scheduling of

classes for the Spring semester when instructors could have planned accordingly

for the cancellation. However, because the semester can not be extended in

Spring 1999 due to the Easter break, instructors teaching classes which meet

once a week on Monday or Tuesday would have to considerably reduce their

classroom material in order to accommodate the break. While there was no

objection to the principle of a mid-semester break, opinion was expressed that

the classes must be made up by adding any cancelled classes to the end of the

semester prior to the start of exams and therefore opposition was expressed

against having a mid-semester break in Spring 1999 semester. It was suggested

that the issue of a mid-semester break should be considered for future semesters

when the cancelled class time could be made up and that this might be an issue

for a Calendar committee to consider. It was noted that the issue of making up

classes when Professors or TAs are ill is currently dealt with every semester and it is

not unusual to make up one or two days of missed class time. Furthermore, since

the Spring semester does not have any scheduled statutory holidays, a two day

break would even out the semesters.

It was also noted that during this period students experience more stress than at

other times of the year and a mid-semester break in the Spring would be

beneficial. Senate was advised that the Student Society had collected 709

signatures on a petition from students this semester supporting a mid-semester

break in Spring 1999. The wording of the petition was read and the process of

collecting signatures was discussed. The referendum and the petition did not

include reference to the cancellation of classes.

Opinion was expressed that the current proposal benefits some students and

discriminates against others and the only fair solution would be to schedule a

week long break so that all students benefit equally. A few Senators indicated

they were opposed to the motion because of the lack of consultation and proper

approval process, but were not opposed to the notion of a spring break in

principle. This matter will be referred to the proposed Calendar Committee.

Question was called, and a vote taken.

MOTION DEFEATED

iii) ?

Paper S.98-82 - President's Agenda

The Chair explained that the President's Agenda outlined his priorities for the

next two years. He welcomed the advice and comment of Senate on this

document. He stressed that SFU needed to retain its enterprising spirit and

remain as open and consultative as possible. He also felt that times were going to

be much more challenging in terms of public resources for the University and

more time and resources would have to be spent working with the Government.

Therefore, SFU will have one full-time person dealing with Government relations.

S.M. 5/10/98

4 ?

Page

. The report refers to and specifies priorities for two major constituent groups -

faculty and students. Commitments to students include an increase to

scholarships and bursaries, more assistance with respect to career transition and

getting into employment, increased affordable student housing, and

improvement to the quality of student residences. A top priority for faculty is

renewing the faculty resource and recruiting the very best scholars. To this end a

Task Force on Faculty Renewal and Recruitment has been established which will

seek advice as to the best way to recruit and retain good faculty members. Other

commitments to faculty include increasing the number of endowed

professorships, and the improvement of equipment and infrastructure resources.

To this end, the Presidents of the universities have struck three joint committees

with the Ministry - on access, on faculty renewal, and on equipment and

infrastructure to work closely with the Government in these areas.

In response to an inquiry about the optimal size for the University, the Chair

expressed his opinion that a major consideration was the availability of money.

However, he pointed out that public institutions are somewhat constrained by

Government demands.

Referring to the statement about the importance of having an open and inclusive

institution, the Chair was asked whether any consideration had been given to the

inclusion of students on the Board of the Burnaby Mountain Community

Corporation. The Chair indicated that the proposed organization for the Board of

Directors as well as an Advisory Group would soon come to Senate for discussion.

It was his belief that there should be some student and faculty representation on

the Board but the final decision rested with the Board of Governors.

Brief discussion ensued with respect to the criteria used for setting up the Task

Force on Faculty Renewal and Recruitment. Concern was expressed that not all

Faculties were represented. The Chair expressed his belief that smaller

committees were better able to get a task done successfully and indicated that

the committee would consult widely across all Faculties in the University.

Reference was made to the statement about SFU's spirit of adventure and

support for bold initiatives and inquiry was made as to what this meant in practical

terms. The Chair responded that in terms of new program/course initiatives, the

normal approval process through appropriate committees and Senate would

apply, and faculty appointments would clearly have to be initiated by

departments and faculties. However, it was his hope that procedures could be

accelerated to some extent to encourage the incentive and energy needed to

invest in new initiatives.

Reference was made to page 5 with regard to the statement about commitment

to ensure that student residences are increased as part of the plans for developing

the village community. Concern was expressed about the development of the

project and inquiry was made as to what kind of student housing was envisioned

and what would be done to ensure implementation. The Chair stressed his belief

about the importance of increasing student housing in the development plans

but he reiterated that the final decision rested with the Board of Governors.

S.M.

5/10/98

Page

Brief discussion ensued with respect to the process of faculty appointments.

Opinion was expressed that in order to stay competitive and recruit the best

candidates, the whole process had to be compressed, including the time

required for final approval from the Board of Governors.

Information

Senate was advised that after twenty-five years of attending Senate meetings as

Director of Media and Public Relations, Ken Mennell was moving to a new

position to become the Director of Government Relations. On behalf of Senate,

the Chair extended thanks to K. Mennell for his years of service to Senate and

expressed congratulations on his new position.

The date of the next regularly scheduled meeting of Senate is Monday,

November

2, 1998.

The Open Session adjourned at 8:30 pm. Following a brief recess, the Assembly moved

into Closed Session.

Alison Watt

Director, Secretariat Services