.
?
DRAFT UNTIL APPROVED BY SENATE
Minutes of a meeting of the Senate of Simon Fraser University held on
Monday, March 1, 1999 at 7:00 pm in room 3210 West Mall Complex
Open Session
Present: Blaney, Jack, President and Chair
Barrow, Robin
Berggren,
J.
Len
Boland, Lawrence
Burton, Lynn Elen
Chan, Albert
Clayman, Bruce
Copeland, Lynn
Emmott, Alan
Finley, David
Gagan, David
Gillies, Mary Ann
Harris, Richard
Heaney, W. John
Jones, Cohn
Jones, John
Kanevsky, Lannie
Kirczenow, George
Lewis, Brian
Marteniuk, Ron
Mathewes, Rolf
Mauser, Gary
McInnes, Dina
Morris, Joy
Ogloff, James
Osborne, Judith
Overington, Jennifer
Percival, Paul
Peters, Joseph
Pierce, John
Russell, Robert
To, Shek Yan
Waterhouse, John
Weeks, Daniel
Words, Michael
Zazkis, Rina
Watt, Alison, Director, Secretariat Services
Grant, Bobbie, Recording Secretary
Absent:
Akins, Kathleen
Beattie, Suzan
Bowman, Marilyn
Coleman, Peter
D'Auria, John
Dhillon, Khushwant
Dunsterville, Valerie
Emerson, Joseph
Fletcher, James
Giffen, Kenneth
Naef, Barbara
Peterson, Louis
Reader, Jason
Sanghera, Balwant
Segal, Joseph
Veerkamp, Mark
Warsh, Michael
Wickstrom, Norman
In attendance:
Cameron, Rob
Duguid, Stephen
Knockaert, Joe
Martin, Randy
Volker, Michael
0
S.M.
1/3/99
Page
2
1.
Approval of the Agenda
The Agenda was revised to reverse the order of Item
5
F.i and
5
F.ii in order to
consider
5.99-30
prior to
S.99-29.
Following this amendment, the agenda was
approved.
2.
Approval of the Minutes of the Open Session of February
1, 1999
The following revisions were made: page
2, 2
nd
paragraph, Item
4 -
SF Week
changed to SF News, page
4, 4
0 '
paragraph and page
7, 3'
paragraph -
typographical error corrected, 'ides' changed to 'ideas', and the following sentence
was added to the
2'
paragraph on page
5 -
Opinion was expressed that familial
hiring be discouraged because the University should aim for strong professional
relations rather than supporting ones which could lead to conflict of interest
situations.
Following the above amendments, the Minutes were approved
3.
Business Arising from the Minutes
Reference was made to the issue raised about the alleged communication problems
between the Administration and SCUB. Brief discussion ensued with respect to the
current budget process and SCUB's involvement in that process. Discussion also
ensued with respect to problems experienced in the past with respect to
information being withheld from SCUB. The Chair hoped that this was no longer
the case and indicated that from his experience the budget process is as open as it
can possibly be. The Chair of SCUB expressed opinion that there was currently no
purpose for SCUB and suggested that Senate needs to think about what it wants
SCUB to do. The Chair indicated that the procedures for SCUB can be revisited at
any time and suggested that the Senate Review Committee look at this issue.
4.
Report of the Chair
i)
?
Budget Information
The Chair presented Senate with information to show what has happened to the
base grant, the grant per student, and the percentage that tuition represents in the
overall budget since
1971-72
and
1989-90.
The Chair pointed out the income per
student has decreased every year and has become a serious problem, not only for
SFU and BC universities, but Canada wide as well. The AUCC has indicated that
its priority over the next few years will be pressure relating to funding for core
operating budgets. At the national level, the Canadian Federation of Students,
CAUT, and AUCC have been very effective by working together and BC
universities have to work with the Provincial Government in the same way. In
meeting with the Ministry, BC universities presented a joint submission and asked
for four items:
• Revenue per student
($12
million requested system-wide)
• Access - more of the fully enrolment increase for universities
(1450
places
requested
• Library acquisitions ($5 million requested system-wide)
• Tuition freeze relaxation for graduate professional programs
S.M. 1/3/99
Page 3
. The Chair also reported that the University Presidents are part of large task force
that the Government has created on high technology. Its purpose is to try and find
out what the Government can do to stimulate the economy and the high
technology sectors. People from industry have recommended that the Government
be more directive in the allocation of the base budget of the universities so that if
more money was needed in a high demand area, funds could be taken from a less
popular area. This has been resisted very strongly and with the argument that
universities need autonomy over their budgets. The recommendation was
subsequently changed but industry and Government continue to expect universities
to be more proactive in providing training where the needs are. In response to a
suggestion that industry provide endowment money to fill their needs, the Chair
indicated that a lot of the industries are small and just getting underway and are
already paying premium salaries to keep people from moving to the U.S. They also
generally feel they already pay very high taxes to the Government which go to
support of the universities.
ii) ?
Paper S.99-20 - TIME Centre Presentation
Mike Volker, Director of the University/Industry Liaison Office was in attendance in
order to make a presentation to Senate and respond to questions.
The Vice-President Academic provided Senate with brief background information.
Partly in response to the Government's agenda to promote high technology,
attempts were made to explore ways to capture and highlight the University's
expertise in the area of high technology generally and more importantly in the
management of technology. Following discussions with the Government and
industry in which a number of ideas were collected as to how to share SFU's high
technology expertise in a constructive way with industry/private sector partners, a
concept paper was prepared that recommended the creation of a synergistic
enterprise shared by SFU, the public sector, and private sector partners. At
approximately the same time, the 7' floor of the Spencer Building became
available and it seemed appropriate to expand Harbour Centre by linking the
activities outlined in the concept paper and a group of interested parties began to
translate the concept paper into a business plan.
M. Volker presented overheads to Senate summarizing information about the
mission and goals of the TIME Centre, the benefits of the Centre to SFU, industry
needs and how the Centre can meet those needs, examples of activities and
participants that are envisioned for the Centre, the facilities including the types of
rooms and services envisioned, financial considerations, and the management of
the Centre by an internal management board and an external industry advisory
board.
The Dean of Business Administration and the Dean of Applied Sciences both
expressed strong support for the Centre and felt it was a unique opportunity for
faculty and students to interact with corporate partners and develop two way
relationships that benefit both the University and the private sector.
S.M. 1/3/99
Page 4
Skepticism was expressed about the claim that the Centre would support research,
and concern was expressed that expanded development at Harbour Centre may
reduce similar opportunities for campus initiatives and take resources away from
the Burnaby campus. The difference between the environment on campus and the
environment at Harbour Centre was noted, and opinion was expressed that this
environmental split resulted in two cultures and was not healthy for the University.
Comment was made that if university/industry interactions were to be enhanced it
would have been better to have them occur on campus. However, it was pointed
out that expansion on the Burnaby campus was not possible at this time as a result
of the Government's cap on new buildings for traditional universities. It was also
noted that showing visitors from industry the facilities on campus and pointing out
the pressures faced by SFU in the hope of receiving funds was no longer adequate.
The business community looked at what can be done in terms of mutual benefit
and has indicated that the major problem was a lack of recurrent education for
people already in the work force. In particular, the high tech industry has indicated
that there was no place locally that can respond to their needs and they were
having to recruit more and more people from the United States at premium prices
or send employees to the United States to get the experience and training that was
required. This was one of the reasons why Continuing Studies would play an
important role in the Centre. It is hoped that the Centre will address some of the
problems associated with the growth in high tech industries and in return the
University will benefit in material and concrete ways.
It was pointed out that some faculty members felt alternating teaching between
Harbour Centre and the Burnaby campus enriched their experience as a result of
working not only with students from downtown but also with the private sector. It
is hoped that money will be made available through partnerships with industry to
support the purchase of basic teaching and research equipment which is one way
the Centre could help in terms of research and teaching.
Comment was made that many high tech companies were not located in the
downtown core and the Burnaby campus would be just as convenient. It was also
suggested that space in the downtown core was probably much more expensive
than elsewhere. It was pointed out that the City of Vancouver exempts the
University from property tax which makes the rental costs very advantageous to the
university. Senate was also advised that most of the new high tech media and
internet companies were locating in the Yaletown and Gastown areas and there
were major plans underway by the City of Vancouver to develop the entire area
along the waterfront from Harbour Centre eastward into a high tech corridor. By
being located downtown and in Burnaby, SFU was in an excellent position to
cover both ends of the corridor and meet the needs of the community.
Inquiry was made as to how the Centre fits in and/or competes with Tech BC.
Senate was advised that although some of the proposed activities resemble those
of Tech BC, discussions with industry tend to suggest that the need is great enough
for both ventures.
S.M. 1/3/99
Page 5
A suggestion was made to include student representatives on the Advisory Board
and Senate was advised that the suggestion would be given serious consideration.
Questions were raised about how the costs would be covered by the Faculties
given the current financial situation of the University in general. Senate was
advised that expectations are that the revenue generated by the programs offered
and corporate sponsorships would offset the operating expenses and cover the
lease payments.
Reference was made to the statement on page 4 which indicated that the Vice-
President Academic has committed one-third of the funds for the Centre and
inquiry was made as to where these funds were coming from. Senate's attention
was drawn to the list of participants which was illustrative rather than exhaustive
and it was noted that funds from each of these participants would be used to make
up the VP Academic's commitment. Senate was assured by the Vice-President
Academic that none of the University's academic budget would be used to sustain
any of the activities proposed for the
7th
floor of Harbour Centre.
iii)
?
FOl/POP Procedures
Reference was made to the e-mail sent by D. Finley to all members of Senate about
matters relating to the Freedom of Information office and getting a response in a
timely fashion. The Chair acknowledged that there were significant delays and
advised that the backlog was enormous. Some requests entailed a lot of detail and
S ?
the amount of work involved was substantial. However, additional staff has been
assigned to the office to help clear up the backlog and hopefully speed things up.
Requests are currently handled on a first come first serve basis and suggestion was
made that there should be an expedited process to handle simple requests which
specifically identify one or two documents.
Suggestion was also made that a fee be charged for substantial requests to help
recoup some of the costs. It was pointed out that there was a schedule of fees in
the Act but they were not sufficient to offset the substantial costs in human
resources and fees cannot be charged for requests for personal information.
5. ?
Reports of Committees
a)
?
Senate Nominating Committee
i)
?
Paper S.99-21 - Election
The following are the results of an election to the following Senate Committee:
Senate Committee on Academic Plannin
g
(SCAP) and Senate Committee on
University Budget (SCUB)
One Student Senator to replace Maya Russell from date of election to May 31,
2000.
Elected by acclamation: ?
Albert Chan
0
S.M.
1/3/99
Page 6
b)
Senate Committee on International Activities/International University
Exchange Committee
J. Knockaert, Director, Office of International Co-operation, and R. Martin,
Director, International and Exchange Student Services were in attendance in order
to respond to questions.
J. Morris wished to commend the Committee on the format of the document which
she found to be extremely readable and, at the same time, comprehensive.
Inquiry was made as to how universities were selected for exchange programs.
Senate was advised that this has been done on an ad hoc basis where interested
institutions approach SFU and SFU in turn has tried to establish relationships with a
number of other institutions. The International Student Exchange Committee then
approves and recommends the establishment of such programs to the Vice-
President Academic. Senate was advised that an initiative to identify a group of
universities around the world which would be a good match for exchanges with
SFU, not only for students but faculty and staff as well, was underway and it is
hoped that a planned process to strengthen the University's international contacts
can be developed over the next couple of years.
c)
Senate Committee on Academic Plannin
Paper
S.99-23 -
External Review - Library (For Information) ?
is
Bruce Clayman, Senator and Vice-President Research and Lynn Copeland, Senator
and University Librarian Pro Tern were in attendance in order to respond to
questions.
Reference was made to recommendation
21
concerning the Book Robot and
Senate was advised that the proposal for an automated retrieval facility was put
forward several years ago and was still a viable storage alternative when compared
to the option of constructing a new building. Discussion ensued with respect to
future space requirements and technological processes available to the Library,
including on-line access to scholarly materials. Comment was made that when a
final decision was made, it was hoped that faculty would have input in terms of
balancing the intellectual needs and financial realities in the matter.
ii)
?
Paper S.99-24 -
Establishment of the Department of Humanities
Moved by D. Gagan, seconded by B. Clayman
"that Senate approve and recommend approval to the Board of
Governors, as set forth in
S.99-24,
the establishment of the
Department of Humanities"
S. Duguid, Chair of the Humanities Program was in attendance in order to respond
to questions.
S.M. 1/3/99
Page 7
Reference was made to the description of the Humanities program on page
3
and
surprise was expressed to see Science included as part of the Humanities. Senate
was advised that occasionally Science topics in courses on critical thinking as well
as courses on the history of Science are taught so it was referred to in very broad
terms.
Question was called, and a vote taken. ?
MOTION CARRIED
d)
?
?
Senate Committee on Academic Planning/Senate Committee on
?
Undergraduate Studies
Moved by D. Gagan, seconded by J. Osborne
"that Senate approve, as set forth in
S.99-25,
the following change to
the Registration Priority Rules:
Students attempting to register for a course for the first time shall be
given the opportunity to register prior to any students who are
presently registered in the course or who previously passed the
course with a C- or better"
Note: This Regulation will take effect for the
99-3
semester preregistration process.
.
?
?
R. Cameron, School of Computing Science, was in attendance in order to respond
?
to questions.
Discussion ensued with respect to whether or not priority for certain categories of
students would continue after all first time students had been released to the
system. Senate was advised that this rule did not change the boundaries and would
only look at students within their specific categories. Concern was expressed that
the issue regarding categories was not mentioned in the motion.
Question was called, and a vote taken. ?
MOTION CARRIED
ii)
?
?
Paper
S.99-26 -
Faculty of Education - Undergraduate Curriculum Revisions
?
-
For Information
Senate received information that SCUS, acting under delegated authority, approved
two new courses - EDUC
330
and EDUC
430,
and a change of title and
description for EDUC
463
and
482.
Overlap concerns were raised with respect to the two new courses. It was pointed
out that in order to challenge an item of information the signatures of five members
of Senate were required to be submitted before the item can be brought back to
Senate for discussion.
0
S.M. 1/3/99
Page 8
e) ?
Senate Committee on Academic Planning/Senate Graduate Studies
Committee
i)
?
Paper S.99-27 - Faculty of Arts - Graduate Curriculum Revisions - (LAS,
Psychology) - For Information
Senate received information that the SGSC, acting under delegated authority,
approved curriculum revisions as follows:
a)
Latin American Studies: i) Change of preamble for LAS program because of
the merger of the LAS program and the Department of Sociology and
Anthropology; ii) Change of admission requirements to a biennial basis; iii)
Change to LAS MA course requirements; iv) Title change for LAS 851 and
800; v) Course deletions - LAS 810, 811, 812, 813, 830, 831, 850, 852; and
vi) New courses - LAS 815, 825, 835
b)
Department of Psychology: i) Joint SFU/UBC Program in Law and Forensic
Psychology; ii) Specialty stream in Child Clinical Psychology; iii)
Reorganization of general graduate programs; iv) Editorial changes to
Calendar to program descriptions; v) Credit hour change PSYC 830 and 831.
ii)
?
Paper S.99-28 - Faculty of Education - Graduate Curriculum Revisions - For
Information
Senate received information that the SGSC, acting under delegated authority,
approved the following curriculum revisions: I) Changes for comprehensive
examinations; ii) Calendar changes to individual graduate programs; iii) Title and
prerequisite changes - EDUC 899; iv) Description change - EDUC 883; v) New
courses - EDUC 859, 878, 983; vi) Deletion of courses - EDUC 861, 875.
f)
?
Senate Committee on Academic Planning/Senate Committee on Enrolment
Management and Planning
i) ?
Paper S.99-30 - Admission to the Faculty of Business Administration
Moved by D. Gagan, seconded by J. Waterhouse
"that Senate approve and recommend to the Board of Governors, as
set forth in S.99-30, that the 15% cap on Category 1 admissions to
the Faculty of Business Administration be removed"
Concern was raised about the removal of the cap because unlike other Faculties,
Business Administration was the only Faculty to explicitly determine admission to
the Faculty by means of a GPA and had four different categories of admission
which placed it in an unequal position to other Faculties. Opinion was expressed
that unlimited direct admission for Category 1 students would merely substitute one
inequity for another. Given the overall limitation enrolment in Business
Administration, each student given direct admission resulted in less space for
existing students wishing to change their major to Business Administration and
these same students were required to have a higher GPA than the directly admitted
S.M. 1/3/99
Page
9
• ?
students. It was felt that this policy resulted in inequity and unfairness to students
who are not admitted directly to the Faculty.
Amendment moved by L. Boland, seconded by P. Percival
"that the word 'removed' be deleted and replaced by 'increased to
50%"
It was pointed out that in practice the
50%
limit would likely never come into
effect so it would essentially mean nothing. Senate was advised that the objective
Of the Faculty was to attract the very best students and the new practice of direct
admission of high school students has increased the percentage of highly qualified
students in the Faculty. Statistical information was requested with respect to the
percentage of high school students who managed to maintain the GPA required to
stay in the program but it was pointed out that since the policy was only
implemented for the first time in 98-3
it is difficult to compare performance over
only one term. It would be more useful to analyze these students following the
completion of their prerequisite program in two years time.
Question was called on the amendment,
and a vote taken.
?
AMENDMENT DEFEATED
Amendment moved by A. Chan, seconded by
J.
Overington
"that the following sentence be added to the existing motion: and be
replaced by the requirement that the maintenance CGPA for
Category 1 students be raised to B-
(2.67) until these students have
completed all the lower division requirements (with the exception of
Business
207 and
254)"
Brief discussion followed with respect to what happened to students who fell below
the required CGPA. Suggestion was made that the proposed amendment be
accepted for the time being and statistical information could then be generated for
Category 1 students over the next two years and when the information was
available the issue could be revisited.
Question was called on the amendment,
and a vote taken. ?
AMENDMENT CARRIED
Question was called on the motion, as amended,
and a vote taken.
?
MOTION AS AMENDED CARRIED
ii) ?
Paper S.99-29 -
Undergraduate Admission Targets for
1999/2000
Motion #1
Moved by D. Gagan, seconded by J. Osborne
.
?
"that Senate approve and recommend to the Board of Governors, as
set forth in S.99-29,
undergraduate admission targets for each basis-
S.M. 1/3/99
Page 10
of-admission group and for each semester in 1999/2000, and that
SCAP be delegated authority to make adjustments based on changes
to the overall provincial enrolment targets for SFU and based on
actual enrolment experience in 1999-2 and 1999-3"
W. Wattamaniuk, Director of Analytical Studies, was in attendance in order to
respond to questions.
Senate was reminded that this was the usual motion brought forward to Senate
each year, the purpose of which was to distribute the admission targets by source
of students. In response to an inquiry concerning the 'Other' category, Senate was
advised that this was an umbrella category which included groups such as
university transfer, degree holders, mature students, out of province secondary or
college transfers, special entry, concurrent studies. The Admissions Office
establishes some targets within this category but they have not been identified.
Senate was also advised that most of the sub-categories have an average CPA
assigned to them which is usually higher than BC 12 and College transfer
categories.
Reference was made to the bottom of table 1 (page 3). The fourth column labelled
target was confirmed to be 1999/2000 rather than 1997/98.
Concern was expressed that the minimum admission CPA would significantly
increase with the reduced admission targets. Senate was reminded that last year in
order to dampen the effect on admission CPA, the University deliberately agreed to
accept 200 unfunded students who were still in the system. This practice could not
be continued without having a serious impact on the University, and it was
therefore decided that this year the University should try to come in right on target.
Brief discussion ensued with respect to the quality of the students in the different
categories. Senate was advised that comparisons were done about once very four
years and past experience has shown that BC Grade 12 and BC College transfers
were roughly equal in terms of their outcomes at university.
Inquiry was made as to how the numbers for the various categories were arrived at.
Senate was advised that they reflect historical experience and represent a fairly
complex enrolment management protocol within the University. It was also
pointed out that SFU attracted a large number of students from the community and
university college system and it was necessary to maintain this historical balance.
Question was called, and a vote taken. ?
MOTION CARRIED
Motion #2
Moved by D. Cagan, seconded by J. Osborne
"that Senate approve and recommend approval to the Board of
Governors, as set forth in S.99-29, undergraduate admission targets to
each Faculty as indicated in Table 2, and that SCAP be delegated
authority to make adjustments based on changes to the overall
S.M. 1/3/99
Page 11
. ?
provincial enrolment targets for SFU and based on actual enrolment
experience in
1999-2
and 1999-3"
Although not obvious in the data before Senate, it was pointed out that the
384
FTEs that were being shed were coming from the Faculty of Arts and the Faculty of
Science, representing a reduction in the Arts and Science intake of 10% each.
Concern was expressed that continuing reduced enrolment would have significant
budget implications, and reassurance was requested that should the University
receive fully funded FTEs which were not targetted for specific programs, they
would be returned proportionately to replenish the admission targets for the
Faculties of Arts and Sciences.
Senate was reminded that the motion allowed adjustments to be made as necessary
and provided funded FTEs were received and not targetted they would be
appropriately distributed to achieve a balance amongst all the Faculties.
Discussions between the Deans and SCEMP about the implications of unfolding
enrolment patterns in each Faculty have been ongoing and there was a general
concern among the Deans about the impact of enrolment fluctuations both long
term and short term on Faculty resources. Assurance was given by the Vice-
President Academic that there would be no short term resource repercussions as a
result of the removal of the
380
FTEs from this year's enrolment targets. He felt the
real issue was long term in that a level playing field and a mechanism to maintain it
across all the Faculties in terms of the relationship between their resources and
• ?
their equitable share of the University's enrolment needed to be assured.
Concern was expressed that this information was not in the documentation before
Senate. It was noted that the background information for motion one contained
historical data relevant to the motion but no such data was provided for motion
two. The Faculty of Science has had direct admission for several years and in
previous years the historical information was provided so that it was possibleto
determine if enrolments were increasing or decreasing. The Chair advised that the
historical data would be included with similar motions next year.
It was pointed out that FTE activity in the Faculty of Science was also affected by
the type of student admitted to the University. For example, Engineering Science
and Computing Science students take approximately 50% of their course work in
Science so the issue was more complex than just enrolment targets.
As the only non-administrative member of SCEMP, A. Chan suggested that it would
be very useful if Senate were to consider putting a faculty senator on the
Committee as well. The Chair advised that the suggestion would be forwarded to
the Senate Review Committee.
Question was called, and a vote taken.
?
MOTION CARRIED
0
S.M. 1/3/99
Page 12
g) ?
Senate Graduate Studies Committee
?
0
I)
?
Paper S.99-31 - Annual Report
-
For Information
Reference was made to the 1996 date in the 2' paragraph on page 2 and comment
was made that the report should be updated from year to year with new
information.
Reference was made to section VII on page 4 wherein statements were made about
the setting of enrolment targets at the Faculty level and the discontinuation of less
successful programs. Inquiry was made as to the process that would be used to
determine and implement these suggestions. Senate was advised that the issue
arose as a result of the University having 435 graduate students who were not
funded by the Province and SCEMP was in the process of considering mechanisms
for deciding this issue. Suggestion was made that Senate should be involved at an
early stage in the determination of this kind of policy.
Inquiry was made as to the appointment process for the Associate Dean of
Graduate Studies. Senate was advised that a lengthy search for candidates who
were both suitable and willing to serve was undertaken. The leading candidate
was then recommended to the Vice-President Academic, and after consultation
with the Senate Graduate Studies Committee, the appointment was made.
6.
Other Business
There was no other business.
7.
Information
The date of the next regularly scheduled meeting of Senate has been scheduled on
Monday, April 12, 1999.
The Open Session adjoined at 9:40 pm. The Assembly moved directly into Closed
Session.
Alison Watt
Director, Secretariat Services
0