4mer,dec4 b.,

er4€ g(39q

DRAFT UNTIL APPROVED BY SENATE

rarAer a,rierSec/

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

Monday, February 1, 1999 at 7:00 pm in room 3210 West Mall Complex

1 q

Open Session

Present: Blaney, Jack, President and Chair

Akins, Kathleen

Barrow, Robin

Berggren, J. Len

Boland, Lawrence

Bowman, Marilyn

Burton, Lynn Elen

Chan, Albert

Coleman, Peter

Copeland, Lynn

D'Auria, John

Dunsterville, Valerie

Emerson, Joseph

Emmott, Alan

Finley, David

Fletcher, James

Gagan, David

Gillies, Mary Ann

Harris, Richard

Hart, Stephen (representing B Clayman)

Heaney, W. John

Jones, Cohn

Jones, John

Kanevsky, Lannie

Kirczenow, George

Marteniuk, Ron

Mathewes, Rolf

McInnes, Dina

Morris, Joy

Overington, Jennifer

Percival, Paul

Peterson, Louis

Peters, Joseph

Russell, Robert

To, Shek Yan

Waterhouse, John

Weeks, Daniel

Wortis, Michael

Absent:

Beattie, Suzan

Dhilhon, Khushwant

Giffen, Ken

Lewis, Brian

Mauser, Gary

Naef, Barbara

Ogloff, James

Osborne, Judith

Pierce, John

Reader, Jason

Sanghera, Balwant

Segal, Joseph

Veerkamp, Mark

Warsh'Michael

Wickstrom, Norman

Zazkis, Rina

In attendance:

Delany, Paul

Heinrich, Kathy

Pinto, Mario

Reich, Blaize

Heath, Ron, Dean of Student Services and Registrar

Watt, Alison, Director, Secretariat Services

Grant, Bobbie, Recording Secretary

S.M. 1/2/99

Page

Approval of the Agenda

The Agenda was approved as distributed.

Approval of the Minutes of the Open Session of January 11, 1999

The Minutes were approved as distributed.

Business Arising from the Minutes

Reference was made to the comments on page 4 with respect to Senate's

responsibility for the terms of reference of endowed chairs, and opinion was

expressed that the University Act required Senate to consider not only the terms of

reference but the establishment of the endowed chair itself. Senate's attention was

drawn to item 5.d.i (Senate review) on the agenda and suggestion was made that it

would be more appropriate to discuss this matter under that item.

Report of the Chair

On behalf of Senate, the Chair extended congratulations to Kathleen Akins who

won the $1 million (U.S.) James S. McDonnell Centennial Fellowship for her work

in Philosophy and Neuroscience.

Commenting on a recent article that appeared in SF

eUwith

regard to increased

funding and ending the tuition freeze, the Chair stressed that it was not the

University's intention to lobby the Government to

endWis

ition

freeze. He also

wished to point out that materi [Wearing in SF not edited by the

administration even though SF Wis funded b th university. A group of

faculty and staff make up the editorial board for SF

W1and

they try to protect the

independence of the publication in order to maintain its credibility and

authenticity.

The Chair reported that he was pleased to see a report in the Globe and Mail on

the funding situation in Canadian universities. Reference had been made to the

erosion of funding over the past ten years and how Canadian universities were

falling behind their U.S. competitors. The Chair advised that the Presidents of B.C.

universities have had very good discussions with the Provincial Government on this

issue and he was pleased that the B.C. Government, over the past five years, had

supported universities very well relative to other Ministries and other provinces

across Canada. However, there were still major problems with funding,

particularly in relation to revenue per student. The budget had been presented to

the Ministry and circulated to all employee groups and the Student Society. Four

items were requested - increased revenue per student, increased access, increase

of non-salary expenditures, and that a greater share of the access dollars be given

to universities.

Reference was made to a recent article in the Vancouver Sun about Milton Wong

being nominated as SFU's next Chancellor. The paper erroneously reported that

Dr. Wong had been nominated by the Faculty Association. The news release

clearly stated that the Alumni Association had nominated Dr. Wong and the

Vancouver Sun printed a retraction and apologized for the error.

S.M. 1/2/99

Page 3

:)y had been elected as the new Chair of

is the first person to be Chair who was

and a student member of the Board of

• The Chair reported that Evaleen Jaager R(

the Board of Governors. Ms. Jaager Roy

once an undergraduate student at SFU

Governors.

5. ?

Reports of Committees

Senate Nominating Committee

i) ?

Paper S.99-1 5 Revised - Elections

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

Senate Committee on International Activities (SCIA)

One Undergraduate Student Senator to replace Winnie Cheng from date of election

to May 31,

2000.

Elected by acclamation: ?

Shek Yan To

Senate Appeals Board (SAB)

One Undergraduate Student (Alternate) to replace Jason Reader from date of

election to May 31, 1999.

Candidates:

Fletcher, S. Haynes

Elected:

James Fletcher

Calendar Committee

One Faculty Senator. In this first election, term of office will be from date of

. ?

election to May

31, 2001.

Thereafter, the term of office shall be for two years

commencing on June 1

St.

Elected by acclamation: ?

John D'Auria

One Student (at-large). In this first election, term of office will be from date of

election to May 31, 2000. Thereafter, the term of office shall be for one year

commencing on June i.

Elected by acclamation: ?

Shek Yan To

President's Task Force on Faculty Renewal and Retention

i) ?

Paper S.99-16 - Draft Report

For Discussion

Members of the Task Force (K. Heinrich, Chair, Department of Mathematics and

Statistics, P. Delany, Department of English, M. Pinto, Department of Chemistry,

and B. Reich, Faculty of Business Administration) were in attendance in order to

respond to questions.

The Chair of the Task Force provided a brief introduction to the report. The Task

Force sought input from people internal and external to the University and

conducted a detailed survey of Chairs about what happens to faculty at the

University, and surveyed new faculty members about their perceptions of SFU, the

hiring process and why they chose to come to SFU. Copies of the reports are

available from the Office of the Vice-President Academic. The Task Force also

reviewed existing processes and policies. Reallocation through a decentralized

• ?

budget process and funding through the Strategic Initiatives Fund plays an

important role in the University's process and the first recommendation of the Task

S.M. 1/2/99

Page 4

Force is that the process be clarified and criteria established to reflect what is

important to the University as an institution so that decisions can be made

accordingly. The report also focuses on three aspects of leadership - departmental

chairs, mid-career appointments, and recognition of senior faculty members.

Recommendations are suggested as to how best support and acknowledge faculty

in these three areas. Recommendations are also made with respect to the support

of new faculty members, and the consideration of some form of a transitional

retirement program. The Task Force welcomed comments and suggestions on the

draft report from Senate.

Opinion was expressed that the report was flawed in its emphasis on strategic

opportunities. A result of this emphasis might be the neglect of core disciplines

which must be renewed and strengthened in order to support other disciplines and

programs within the university. It was suggested that there were different views on

what was and what was not a core program. Further opinion was expressed that it

would have been more helpful if the Task Force had included suggestions about

implementation of their recommendations. Suggestion was also made that the

recommendation 1 should contain reference to decentralization.

Reference was made to the emphasis on selectivity and the direction of resources

to high demand programs, and concern was expressed about who would be

making decisions on the criteria listed in recommendation one. It was noted that

although the document contained a thorough discussion on strategy and long term

planning, it lacked recommendations with respect to implementation and implied

that decision-making would not be made at the departmental or Faculty level. It

was also pointed out that Senate was responsible for academic programs and yet

Senate's role in the academic planning process was not mentioned anywhere in the

report. Decentralization of the university budget, together with decision-making

and program planning at the grass roots level has been enthusiastically adopted

and has worked very well since its inception. Concern was expressed that

recommendation 1 moves in the opposite direction and contravenes the spirit of

the present process.

It was pointed out that the terms of reference specifically refer to the recruitment of

new faculty and the consideration of initiatives that have been successful

elsewhere. Opinion was expressed that the report does not specifically address

either of these issues. It was further suggested that the first three recommendations

overlap with the planning process and that the Task Force had strayed from its

terms of reference and its mandate. It was noted that the mechanisms currently in

place to handle reallocation and resos work well and the Task Force should be

considering innovative and creative 4s relevant to hiring the best quality faculty.

It was suggested that recommendation 2 was too vague and questions were raised

as to who would make such decisions and who would identify the areas where

senior appointments were needed.

Objection was raised with respect to recommendation 3 and the suggestion that all

departments include initiatives for joint appointments with external agencies. It

S.M. 1/2/99

Page 5

•

was pointed out that this might be appropriate for some departments but it was

inappropriate for others.

With respect to recommendation 4.5 concerning spousal hiring, suggestion was

made that it would have been useful to include some concrete suggestions

regarding implementation. It was pointed out that departments being approached

to hire a spousal appointment really had no incentive to do so, particularly if the

appointment was not in an area of high priority in their three-year plan or if the

candidate was not a top ranking individual. Brief discussion followed with respect

to possible methods of implementation.0ç4"

Opinion was expressed that recommendation 1 was likely motivated by the

realization that sufficient funding would not be received from the Government to eeIevce.

support excellence in all areas and therefore selective funding and transfer ofr'

resources to stronger programs would be necessary. If so, it was suggested that

more emphasis should be placed on the Strategic Initiatives Fund to plan

reallocation over Faculties. Suggestion was made the fund should be increased in

value and redistributed to those areas necessary to the development of the

University. It was pointed out that Senate, through the recommendations of SCAP,

would play a valuable role in determining the priorities of the University.

It was suggested that one issue which needed discussion was whether it was

desirable to have a differential reallocation/redistribution of resources and how that

should be accomplished.

Concern was expressed about the suggestion to increase the Strategic Initiatives

Fund because it taxed all departments/programs and only focussed on internal

redistribution. Suggestion was made that departments should be allowed to

strengthen the quality of their programs through the receipt of external funds and

the University needed to allow outside agencies to earmark funding for specific

programs.

Opinion was expressed that the Strategic Initiatives Fund was a short term solution

for long term problems and that the University needed to focus on restructuring and

redistribution in order to make a difference in the long term.

Further opinion was expressed that the allocation of the Strategic Initiatives Fund

was not the real issue involved in faculty renewal. The issue related to the

competitive. market in which new faculty members have to be recruited. It was

pointed out that in order to compete for the best faculty, the University currently

had to give up two positions to hire one new person and eventually would end up

with a much smaller faculty complement than it started with simply because of the

nature of the competitive process. It was suggested that the most important issue in

terms of future faculty renewal was whether the University was determined to be

equally competitive in all areas of the University and, if so, how that could be done

within the current budget situation. Comment was made that the University must

be careful during periods of fiscal restraint not to create of lot of mediocre

• ?

departments with mediocre faculty simply because those are the only persons

available.

S.M. 1/2/99

Page 6

Suggestion was made that the Task Force include in their report statements

encouraging the University to allow direct input from faculty into the operation of

service areas such as health, counselling and community services in order to make

them more useful for existing and new faculty members.

Comment was made that the university could encourage departments to be more

proactive and creative in their searches. If funds were allocated well in advance to

departments which expect to have a vacant position within the next two years, they

could seek out and aggressively pursue highly qualified candidates. Brief

discussion ensued about possible methods and examples of successful searches

conducted in this way were given.

It was also noted that under current practices, departments are under pressure to

hire or else lose the position. It was suggested that the administration consider

allowing departments to postpone a search if necessary.

It was noted that the American issue had not been addressed in the report.

Questions such as to how to retain Canadian candidates or bring them back to

Canada, what the University's position was on American candidates, and what the

University's attitude was with respect to the law and what can be accomplished

within the limits of the law need to be discussed.

Concern was expressed that recommendation 1 appears to combine two different

goals as though they were one - academic excellence and attracting resources from

external sources. Opinion was expressed that these goals were different and if

separated they could both be met but the report needed to carefully separate one

from the other and separate the mechanisms for achieving them.

Comment was made that one of the best features of SFU, from the student's point of

view, was the high degree of available interdisciplinary opportunities. Concern

was expressed that too much focus and in-fighting over internal redistribution of

funds would have a negative impact on these opportunities.

Opinion was expressed that the leadership training for Chairs as suggested in

recommendation 5.2 was demeaning and might be viewed as a barrier to faculty

who are equally qualified to become the Chair of their department. Suggestion was

made that the wording be changed to make it such that training was available to

anyone who wished to take advantage of it rather than making it a requirement of

the position. It was pointed out that the Task Force had found support from the

Chairs for this idea. The intent was to acknowledge the difficulty of the job, to

identify potential leaders and better support faculty in the administration by helping

them better understand their role and the problems associated with the Chair's

position.

Concerns were expressed that the recommendations in general were open-ended

and there appeared to be more emphasis on the University as a market place rather

than as a scholarly institution.

S.M. 1/2/99

7 ?

Page

• The Chair of the Task Force advised Senate that the Task Force intended to rewrite

the report following completion of their consultations across the University. The

schedule of consultations was posted on the Web and the final report was expected

to be completed by the end of March. The Chair of the Task Force felt the debate

had been useful and beneficial to the committee and thanked Senate for its

comments.

Moved by R. Russell, seconded by M. Wortis

"that Senate considers Recommendations 1 and 3 outside the

mandate of the Task Force and recommends that these

recommendations be struck from the report"

The Chair reminded Senate that the report was before Senate for consultation and

comment, not approval, and if approved, the motion would take the form of advice

to the Task Force rather than explicit direction to exclude any recommendations.

The Chair

feltthat

the Task Force had to be free to look at all possible ideas and

discuss those ivith other members of the campus community.

It was noted that the Task Force had listened to Senate's concerns and was likely to

take them into consideration when the report was revised and opinion was

expressed that the motion was inappropriate at this draft stage.

Contrary opinion was expressed that the motion in fact provided the Task Force

. ?

with a straw vote on the opinion of Senate and would give a clear indication of

Senate's view on this issue.

It was stressed that the Task Force had been asked to consult with the community

about issues relating to faculty renewal, and the committee has asked a broad

range of questions and consultations are not yet finished. It was felt it was unusual

for Senate as only one of the constituencies to be consulted to attempt to tell the

Task Force what it should and should not investigate.

Comment was made that although Senate could not dictate what should be in the

report, Senate had a right to its opinion. Since the impetus behind the motion was

that Senate felt that recommendations 1 and 3 fell outside the mandate of the

committee, a suggestion to delete the second half of the motion was accepted as a

friendly amendment. Amended motion follows:

"that Senate considers Recommendations 1 and 3 outside the

mandate of the Task Force"

Opinion was expressed that the motion did not capture the spirit of the debate and

that such a strong motion was inappropriate at this time.

Moved by J. D'Auria, seconded by P. Percival:

"that the motion be tabled until the next report is presented to

Senate"

S.M. 1/2/99

Page 8

Brief discussion took place with respect to whether the motion to table had been

made to close debate. The Chair ruled the motion to table required a 2/3 majority

vote.

Question was called on the motion to table,

and a vote taken. ?

MOTION TO TABLE DEFEATED

Question was called on the main motion,

and a vote taken.

MAIN MOTION DEFEATED

On behalf of Senate, the Chair extended thanks to members of the Task Force.

Senate Committee on University Budget

Paper S.99-17— Annual Report - For Information

Reference was made to a motion passed by Senate in March 1998 instructing

SCUB to develop guidelines to be negotiated with the administration about

communicating budget information to SCUB. Inquiry was made as to the progress

of those negotiations and whether SCUB was now satisfied with the information it

receives.

The Chair of SCUB indicated he was unclear as to the motion referred to and since

the next meeting of SCUB will involve the communication of budget matters he

was unable to say whether there is a problem until after that meeting has taken

place.

It was noted that past annual reports had contained documentation and

recommendations from SCUB to the President relating to each year's budget

discussions, and inquiry was made as to why this information was not included in

the documentation before Senate.

The Chair of SCUB indicated that procedures have changed because of the change

in the administration but he would make inquiries with respect to the issues raised.

Senate Committee on Agenda and Rules

i) ?

Paper S.99-18 - Senate Review

Moved by D. Gagan, seconded by J. Morris

"that Senate approve the Terms of Reference and Membership of the

Ad Hoc Committee on Senate Review, as set out in S.99-18"

A clerical error was noted in the first line of the second page, and the word

'organizational' was changed to 'organization'.

S.M.

1/2/99

Page

. Clarification was requested with respect to the role of this committee versus the

purpose of the committee currently reviewing University policies in relation to

Senate's responsibilities under the University Act. It was pointed out that this

committee would have to read, define and understand the University Act but it was

a fairly open review of Senate and its organization.

Question was called, and a vote taken.

MOTION CARRIED

ii)

Paper

S.99-19 -

Election Rules - Waiver

Moved by D. Gagan, seconded by A. Chan

"that for the

1999

Convocation

election shall be completed shall

stated in the Rules of Senate"

Election, the date by which the

be May

7th

and not April 15

It was noted that the change had the support of the majority of members of the

Electoral Standing Committee and inquiry was made as to whether there was a

minority objection. Senate was advised that at the time the paper was prepared

two members of the committee had supported the change; the other member had

not responded but has since supported it.

Question was called, and a vote taken.

MOTION CARRIED

6. ?

Other Business

Reference was made to the article in The Peak with respect to one of the Student

Senators losing her seat on Senate and clarification was requested with respect to

eligibility requirements. The Registrar was requested to provide the information to

interested Senators during the break. (Student Senators are required to take a

minimum of 18 credit hours over the twelve month period.)

Reference was made to the action of the Senate Committee on International

Activities delegating decision-making authority to its Chair and opinion was

expressed that this violated their terms of reference. Suggestion was made that the

committee should bring an amendment to Senate if they wished to change their

mandate. It was noted that any Senate committee may, within limits, delegate

authority to its chair when it serves the purpose of the committee. The case

referred to applied to only one instance which was essential to the conduct of the

business of the University in general and the Committee in particular. Senate was

advised that individual departments and Faculties receive international contracts

that require approval for the contract or memorandum of understanding in a very

short time frame. If they had to wait for a special meeting of the Committee to be

convened they ran the risk of losing the contract and its associated revenue. SCIA

therefore gave the Chair authorization on its behalf to deal with such contracts on a

timely basis with the outcome to be the reported at its next meeting.

S.M. 1/2/99

Page 10

7. ?

Information

The date of the next regularly scheduled meeting of Senate has been scheduled on

Monday, March

1, 1999.

The Open Session adjoined at 9:10 pm. Following a brief recess, the Assembly moved

into Closed Session.

Alison Watt

Director, Secretariat Services