. ?
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.
1.
Approval of the Agenda
The Agenda was approved as distributed.
2.
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.
3.
Business Arising from the Minutes
All business arising from the previous meeting has been brought forward as
agenda items.
4.
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.
5.
REPORTS OF COMMITTEES
a)
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)
b)
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.
0
S.M. 5/10/98
Page 3
0
?
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.
0
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
i)
Paper
S.98-80 -
Advertising in the Calendar
Moved by
J.
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
8
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.
?
-
7.
?
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
9