DRAFT UNTIL APPROVED BY SENATE

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

Monday, November 1, 1999 at 7:00 pm in Room 3210 West Mall Complex

Open Session

Present:

Blaney, Jack, President and Chair

Al-Natour, Sameh

Atkins, Stella

Baldwin, Paul (representing L. Copeland)

Barrow, Robin

Benezra, Michael

Boland, Larry

Budra, Paul

Chuah, Kuan

Clayman, Bruce

Crossley, David

D'Auria, John

Davidson, Willie

Delgrande, James

Emerson, Joseph

Finley, David

Fletcher, James

Gillies, Mary Ann

Harris, Richard

Heaney, John

Hyslop-Margison, Emory

Jones, John

Marteniuk, Ron

Mathewes, Rolf

Mauser, Gary

McBride, Stephan

McFetridge, Paul

McInnes, Dina

Munro, Jock

Niwinska, Tina

Osborne, Judith

Peters, Joseph

Peterson, Louis

Pierce, John

Reader, Jason

Russell, Robert

Sanghera, Balwant

Steinbach, Christopher

To, Shek Yan

Waterhouse, John

Wessel, Silvia

Wortis, Michael

Yerbury, Cohn

Absent:

Chan, Albert

Driver, Jon

Dunsterville, Valerie

Kanevsky, Lannie

Kirczenow, George

McArthur, James

Naef, Barbara

Ogloff, James

Paterson, David

Smith, Michael

Wong, Milton

Zazkis, Rina

In attendance:

Berggren, Len

Brockman, Joan

Cameron, Rob

Fizzell, Maureen

Nesbitt, Tom

Plischke, Michael

Preece, Daniel

Seager, Allen

Schwarz, Carl

Thewalt, Jenifer

. ?

Watt, Alison, Director, Secretariat Services

Heath, Ron, Dean of Student Services and Registrar

Grant, Bobbie, Recording Secretary

S.M.

1/11/99

Page 2

Approval of the Agenda

The Agenda was approved as distributed.

Approval of the Minutes of the Open Session of October

4, 1999

It was noted that M. Benezra should have been recorded as absent rather

than present. Following this change, the Minutes were approved.

Business Arising from the Minutes

The Chair reported that revisions to the Student Conduct Policies would

come back to the December Senate meeting for consideration.

Secretary's Note: Revisions were still in progress and would be brought

forward to a later meeting of Senate.

Report of the Chair

Honorary Degree

The Chair was pleased to report that Julie Payette had accepted the

University's offer and had agreed to come to Vancouver to receive her

honorary degree which would be awarded at a special ceremony, the details

of which had yet to be confirmed.

ii)

Mission Statement

The Chair reported that he hoped to have a working draft of this document

available in the near future for full discussion by Senate.

Reports of Committees

a) ?

Senate Nominating Committee

i) ?

Paper

S.99-60 -

Elections

The following are the results of elections to Senate Committees:

Senate Committee on Continuing Studies (SCCS)

One Alternate Student (at-large) to fill an existing vacancy to May 31, 2000.

Senate was advised that the nomination of S. Galbaransingh had been

withdrawn by the student.

Elected by acclamation: ?

David Yau

Senate Appeals Board (SAB)

One Alternate Graduate Student (at-large) to replace Thomas du Payrat from

date of election to May 31, 2000.

Elected by acclamation: ?

Dan Preece

Committee to Review University Admissions (CRUA)

One Graduate Student (at-large) to replace Ruth Derksen as the Regular

member from date of election to May 31, 2000.

Elected by acclamation: ?

Carmen Choi

S.M.1/11/99

Page 3

University Board on Student Discipline and Senate Committee on

Disciplinary Appeals

i) ?

Paper S.99-61 - Annual Report (For Information)

J. Brockman, Co-Ordinator of the UBSD, and

Thewalt, Chair of SCODA,

were in attendance in order to respond to questions. In response to an

inquiry, brief explanation was provided with respect to the decision-making

process of the UBSD.

In response to an inquiry as to whether there were plans to publicize the

report, the Chair indicated that the report would be published in both SF

News and The Peak.

Inquiry was made as to the status of the annual report required under the

harassment policy. Senate was informed that the report was late but was

forthcoming.

Senate Committee on Academic Planning

er S.99-62 - External Review - De

I ?

J.L. Berggren, Chair of the Department of Mathematics and Statistics was in

attendance in order to respond to questions.

Further details were requested with respect to recommendation six relating

to the establishment of a separate department of statistics. Senate was

advised that the recommendation dated back to the Department's previous

review and, since Statistics had grown and become a more active part of the

Department, the current reviewers felt the issue should be revisited. It was

noted that separation could not occur without additional resources so this

was not an imminent issue. At the present time the Department was trying

to work out an arrangement which provided an increased degree of

autonomy for the statisticians while at the same time enabled the unit to

work together as a department.

Reference was made to statements in the fourth paragraph on page 3 which

outlined changes which would result in a reduced level of service to

students and a net decrease in the overall quality of instruction. Opinion

was expressed that Senate should be concerned about the consequences of

financial constraints which result in such changes not only in the

Department but throughout the University.

S.M. 1/11/99

Page

ii) ?

Paper

S.99-63 -

External Review - Department of Physics (For

Information)

M. Plischke, Chair of the Department of Physics, was in attendance in order

to respond to questions.

Senate Committee on Academic Planning/Senate Committee on

Enrolment Management and Planning/Senate Committee on Undergraduate

Studies

i) ?

Paper

S.99-64 -

Course space restrictions (For Information)

R. Cameron, School of Computing Science was in attendance in order to

respond to questions.

Brief discussion took place with respect to the course restriction process and

Senate was advised that the intent of the proposal was to give relevant

priority to students who had not completed upper division requirements

over students who had completed the requirements.

Senate Committee on Academic Planning/Senate Committee on

Enrolment Management and Planning

Paper

S.99-65 -

Faculty of Business Administration - Continuance

Requirements for Direct Entry Students to the BBA Program

M. Fizzell, Faculty of Business Administration, was in attendance in order to

respond to questions.

Motion #1

Moved by

Munro, seconded by

Waterhouse

"that Senate rescind the motion (amended) contained in

S.99-

as follows: '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 and 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 BUS

207

and

BUS

254)'"

Opinion was expressed against rescinding the motion given that Business

Administration limits the overall number of students granted admission, and

unlimited direct admission for Category 1 students merely substitutes one

inequity for another because each direct entry student admitted results in

less space for existing students wishing to enter the major. These same

students were also required to have a higher GPA than the directly admitted

students, and suggestion was made that either the fixed limit on Category 1

students remain or the disparity between the GPA for Category 1 students

S.M.1/11/99

Page 5

and Category 3 and 4 students be addressed by requiring a higher

continuance GPA for Category 1 students.

It was pointed out that although the Faculty admits in four categories, once

admitted, all students are students of the Faculty and should be treated in

the same way. Having a maintenance average for one category of students

that was different from other categories was felt by the Faculty to be unfair.

A disagreement of opinion was expressed with respect to the term 'students

of the Faculty'. It was stressed that the Business major did not start until the

third year so the notion of direct admissions being in the Faculty and subject

to a different set of rules was misleading.

In response to an inquiry, clarification was provided with respect to how the

continuance GPA was determined for students admitted from the other

categories. Senate was advised that Category 1 students do not impact the

number of other students until they reach 45 credit hours so there has been

no impact to date. Expectations are that when direct entries are taken into

consideration for the first time in the Spring semester 2000 they would have

little, if any, impact on the determination of the GPA for other categories.

Brief discussion took place with respect to the impact the direct admission

. ?

policy has had on admissions to the Faculty and the quality of students

being admitted.

Question was called, and a vote taken.

MOTION CARRIED

Motion #2

Moved by

Munro, seconded by R. Marteniuk

"that Senate approve, as set forth in S.99-65, 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 reiterated that unlimited direct admission for

Category 1 students would merely substitute one inequity for another and

this policy was unfair to students who are not admitted directly to the

Faculty.

Amendment moved by L. Boland, seconded by C. Steinbach

"that the motion be amended by deleting the word 'removed'

and substituting the words 'increased to 25%"

S.M.1/11/99

Page 6

In response to inquires about the percentage distribution for the various

categories, Senate was advised that without counting Category 1 students,

the Faculty admits approximately 500 new students per year and 45-50% of

those admissions are Category 3 students. As the Category 1 students move

into the 300 level courses, expectations are that the number of Category 3

students would drop to about

30%.

It was pointed out however that direct

entry students do not replace students from other categories on a one-to-one

basis since many of them would have high enough GPA's to be admitted in

any event.

Inquiry was made as to whether there was a significant difference in

programs between direct entry students and students transferring into

Business at a later stage. Senate was advised that Category 1 students were

required to follow the same program as the other students. However,

Category 1 students tend to sample a wide range of courses while Category

3 and 4 students tend to take courses which elevate their GPAs.

It was noted that the direct entry program works quite well in that it allows

flexibility for individual programs and Faculties to compete for top quality

students and at the same time provides the opportunity for

Faculties/Departments to meet the needs of transfer students from college

and other programs within the University.

Brief discussion ensued with respect to whether the motion was a directive

to the Faculty of Business Administration or to SCEMP when they set the

University's admission targets. It was pointed out that when SCEMP defines

the number of enrolments in Categories 1 and 2, in a sense, they define

Categories 3 and 4 in total, so both the Faculty and SCEMP have some say

in the division of Business enrolments.

Question was called on the amendment,

and a vote taken.

AMENDMENT FAILED

Question was called on the main motion,

and a vote taken.

MOTION CARRIED

Senate Committee on Academic Planning/Senate Committee on

Undergraduate Studies

i) ?

Paper S.99-66 - Faculty of Arts - Undergraduate Curriculum

Revisions

Motion #1:

Moved by J. Munro, seconded by J. Pierce

"that Senate approve and recommend approval to the Board

of Governors, as set forth in S.99-66, the following revision in

the Division of Interdisciplinary Studies: Deletion of the

S.M.1/11/99

Spanish Program (Honors, Major, Minor, Extended Minor, Page 7

Joint Major in Spanish and Latin American Studies, and the

Joint Major in French and Spanish)"

Question was called, and a vote taken. ?

MOTION CARRIED

Motion #2:

Moved by

Munro, seconded by

Pierce

"that Senate approve and recommend approval to the Board

of Governors, as set forth in S.99-66, the following revision in

the Department of History: Proposed Minor Program in

Labour Studies including new courses: LBST 101 and 301"

A. Seager, Department of History, and T. Nesbitt, Centre for Labour Studies

were in attendance in order to respond to questions.

Question was called, and a vote taken.

MOTION CARRIED

Senate received information that SCUS, acting under delegated authority,

approved course deletions/new courses and/or minor curriculum revisions

in Archaeology, Canadian Studies Program, Contemporary Arts,

. Criminology, Economics, English, Co-op Education Program in Liberal

Studies, Political Science, Psychology, Sociology and Anthropology, and

Women's Studies.

g) ?

Ad Hoc Senate Review Committee

Paper S.99-67 - Draft Report (For Discussion)

The following members of the Committee were present at the meeting and

available to respond to questions:

Munro (Chair), M.A. Gillies, D. Preece,

and J. Waterhouse.

Moved by

Munro, seconded by L. Boland

"that Senate move into a quasi-committee of the whole"

Question was called, and a vote taken.

MOTION CARRIED

Senate was provided with a brief overview of the report and brief

background explanation was given for each section. The Committee hoped

to gain a sense of what Senate wanted in a final report and how Senate felt

about the Committee's recommendations prior to the Committee carrying

their work to a further stage.

Concerns were expressed about

• ?

the abolition of SPCSAB and the transfer of the policy-making

responsibilities to the adjudication committees

S.M.1/11/99

Page

• SCUS and SGSC reporting directly to Senate as there was a potential

that curriculum issues would have to be argued in detail on the floor of

Senate

• the transfer of SCUB responsibilities to a new priorities committee

having a similar membership as SCAP and this same committee having

responsibility for both the planning/academic review process and

budget process

• ?

the one year trial period for afternoon meetings

• ?

at-large student positions on Senate committees being appointed by

SFSS

• ?

the elimination of alternate members on Senate committees

• ?

the lack of support documentation and rationale for the

recommendations of the committee

Senators, particularly student senators, were invited to provide the

Committee with written submissions (within the next ten days) with respect

to the issue of how student positions on Senate committees are filled.

Senators were reminded about the second open meeting of the Committee

to be held at the Harbour Centre campus on Thursday, November

4th

at 3:00

pm.

Senate Librar

Committee

Senate

Paper

continued

S.99-68

on in the

Annual

quasi-committee

Report of the

of the

Senate

whole.

Library

and Annual

Report of the Library (For Information)

The annual reports were presented to Senate for information.

i) ?

Senate Committee on Agenda and Rules

Senate continued on in the quasi-committee of the whole.

i) ?

Paper

S.99-69 -

Procedures for Mid-Term Review of Senior

Academic Administrators (For Discussion)

C. Schwarz, President of the Faculty Association, was in attendance in order

to respond to questions.

Senate was advised that the document was a result of approximately two

years of discussion between the Faculty Association and the Administration

and was before Senate for input. It was also pointed out that because of the

difficulty implementing this type of evaluation, agreement had been reached

with the SFUFA Executive that, prior to the document becoming official

policy, an initial evaluation would be carried out on a trial basis.

Osborne

had volunteered for the review.

Concerns were expressed about

• the amount of work created for everyone involved in the process

S.M. 1/11/99

. ?

Page

• the potential difficulty in attracting qualified administrators and making

SFU less competitive with other universities because of the review

process

• the lack of student representation in the review process

• decisions by administrators being made based on factors which would

result in a good review rather than on other considerations

• the lack of clarification with respect to the meaning of Part B, Section 10

and the reference in Part B to the reliability of responses

• the involvement of the Faculty Association in the process

• the lack of due process for someone who disagreed with the findings of

the review

• the timing of the review

The Chair thanked Senate for its comments and indicated that a trial review

will be carried out after which the policy as drafted would be revisited and a

further document would come back to Senate for consideration.

6. ?

Other Business

Senate continued on in the quasi-committee of the whole.

i) ?

Paper S.99-70 -

President's Response to the Task Force on Faculty

Renewal and Retention (For Discussion)

The Chair referred to comments received from the Executive of the Faculty

Association which had been circulated to Senate and advised that he had

also received comments from others in the University and that the next

document would clarify some of the language.

D. Finley wished Senate to note his opposition on ethical grounds to spousal

hiring which was referred to on page 8. He felt hiring should be done on

individual merit and it was an ethical mistake to endorse a policy on spousal

hiring.

Reference was made to the addition of a significant number of endowed

professorships and concern was expressed that such hiring took away from

the actual teaching faculty of the University.

Opinion was expressed that the University should be very careful when

engaging in external partnerships to make sure that they were academically

based and served the needs of the institution and were not pursued just for

the funding aspect.

Discussion ensued with respect to the ongoing competition challenges

between US universities and other Canadian universities. The Chair

indicated that SFU was very cognizant of the difficulties facing the university

• and he noted the issue of faculty renewal and retention was a very serious

issue in terms of both policy and budget planning which he hoped was

reflected in the document.

S.M.1/11/99

Page 10

Nothing was reported back to the main assembly from quasi-committee of the whole.

The open session adjourned at 9:20 pm, and the Assembly moved directly into Closed

Session.

Alison Watt

Director, Secretariat Services