fli'

amc-de0e

beriak)

DRAFT UNTIL APPROVED BY SENATE

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

Monday, February 7, 2000 in Room 3210 West Mall Centre

Open Session

Present: ?

Blaney, Jack, President and Chair

Absent:

Atkins, Stella

Al-Natour, Sameh

Barrow, Robin

Benezra, Michael

Chan, Albert

Boland, Larry

Delgrande, James

Budra, Paul

Fletcher, James

Chuah, Kuan

Heaney, John

Clayman, Bruce

Marteniuk, Ron

Copeland, Lynn

Mauser, Gary

D'Auria, John

McArthur, James

Davidson, Willie

McBride, Steph9n

Driver, Jon

Sanghera, Balwant

Dunsterville, Valerie

Warsh, Michael

Emerson, Joseph

Wong, Milton

Finley, David

Zazkis, Rina

Gillies, Mary Ann

Harris, Richard

Hyslop-Margison, Emery

In attendance:

Jones, John

Fattah, Ezzat

Kanevsky, Lannie

Gee, Ellen

Kirczenow, George

Gruneau, Rick

. ?

Mathewes, Rolf

Hart, Stephen

McFetridge, Paul

Lowman, John

McInnes, Dina

MacKenzie, Christine

Munro, John

Palys, Ted

Naef, Barbara Ann

Preece, Dan

Niwinska, Tina

Winne, Phil

Ogloff, James

Osborne, Judith

Paterson, David

Peters, Joseph

Peterson, Louis

Pierce, John

Reader, Jason

Russell, Robert

Smith, Michael

Steinbach, Christopher

To, Shek Yan

Waterhouse, John

Wessel, Sylvia

Wortis, Michael

Yerbury, Cohn

Heath, Ron, Dean of Student Services and Registrar

Watt, Alison, Director, University Secretariat

Grant, Bobbie, Recording Secretary

S.M. 7 Feb 2000

Page

Approval of the Agenda

The Agenda was approved as distributed.

Approval of the Minutes of the Open Session of January 10, 2000

The Minutes were approved as distributed.

Business Arising from the Minutes

Commercialization of University Research

Senate was advised that the report of the ad hoc committee established to consider

Senate's motion with regard to this issue would be presented to Senate at its next

meeting.

Report of the Chair

Honorary Degrees

The Chair reported that on March 10, 2000 a special ceremony to award Julie

Payette an honorary degree would take place at Centennial High School in

Coquitlam. Ms. Payette was also scheduled to give a public lecture on the main

campus at SFU in the afternoon of the same day. Details would be published at a

later date.

The Chair further reported that the following honorary degree recipients would be

awarded degrees at the June Convocation: Edward Broadbent, Joseph Gosnell,

Judith Marcuse, Madam Justice Beverley McLachlin, Kenneth Spencer and David

Suzuki. John Ralston Saul and John Kerr were scheduled to receive degrees at the

October ceremonies.

Reports of Committees

a) ?

Senate Nominating Committee

Paper S.00-1 7 - Elections

The following are the results of elections to Senate committees:

Senate Library Committee (SLC)

One Graduate Student (at-large) to replace Thomas du Payrat for term of office

from date of election to May 31, 2001.

Elected by acclamation: ?

Jeff Powell

Committee to Review University Admissions (CRUA)

One Graduate Student (at-large) to replace Nadeane Trowse as the Alternate

member from date of election to May 31, 2000.

Elected by acclamation: ?

Jeff Powell

Senate Committee on International Activities (SCIA)

One Graduate Student (at-large) to replace Kevin Hewitt from date of election to

May 31, 2000.

No nominations received. Vacancy will be carried forward.

S.M. 7Feb 2000

Page 3

Senate Committee on Agenda and Rules (SCAR)

One Senator (at-large) to replace Rolf Mathewes for term of office from date of

election to May 31, 2001.

Elected by acclamation: ?

Mary Ann Gillies

b) ?

Senate Committee on Agenda and Rules

I) ?

Paper S.00-18 - Guidelines affecting students in the event of a labour

dispute or other disruption

Moved by J. Munro, seconded by

Osborne

"that Senate approve the Guidelines Affecting Students and Courses

in the Event of a Labour Dispute or other Major Disruption, as set

forth in S.00-1 8"

Senate was advised that at the time the paper was drafted, SFU was facing the

possibility of strike action and it was felt that it would be worthwhile to have a set

of guidelines to give to students should there be a disruption of classes in the

future. Senate was advised that the guidelines reflected past practice and various

sections of existing university policies.

. Concern was expressed that the policy required students to notify course instructors

if they chose not to cross a picket line but instructors were not required to inform

students. It was pointed out that the proposed guidelines were intended as an

informational document for students. The strike policy pertaining to faculty

members required instructors to advise the university 36 hours after strike notice

was issued if they were not going to meet their classes. This information would

then be made available to students by posting on the university's web site.

Question was called, and a vote taken.

MOTION CARRIED

ii)

Paper S.00-19 - Research Ethics Policy Revisions (For Discussion)

Moved by B. Clayman, seconded by W. Davidson

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

Question was called, and a vote taken.

MOTION CARRIED

Senate was advised that the intent was to have a general discussion of the policy

following which either the Vice-President Research and the Task Force or an ad

hoc committee of Senate would determine if changes were necessary and a revised

policy would then come back to Senate for further consideration and approval.

Since it was expected that debate/discussion would be fairly lengthy, the Chair

advised that Senate's rule that a person speak only twice to a particular issue would

S.M.7Feb 2000

Page 4

be enforced and, provided there were no objections, a five minute time limit would

also be enforced for each speaker. There were no objections to this procedure.

The following members of the Task Force were present at the meeting and

available to respond to questions: E. Gee (Chair), C. MacKenzie, and P. Winne.

The following faculty members were in attendance as guests in order to make a

presentation to Senate with regard to the policy: E. Fattah, R. Gruneau, S. Hart, J.

Lowman, T. Palys.

Senate was presented with background information with respect to the process

involved in relation to the development of the Tr-Council Policy Statement, and

the process followed by the Task Force in relation to the proposed Ethics Policy

revisions.

Differences between the existing policy and the revised policy were pointed out as

follows: more types of research and researchers would be subject to ethics review,

increased bureaucracy as a result of required audits and annual reports, the

administrative structure of the ethics review process would now be more

autonomous from the administration of the university, the articulation of ethical

principles was part of the policy, emphasis was placed on non-adversarial

relationships between researchers and ethics review personnel, and issues relating

to confidentiality in relationship to the law were now included.

The following concerns, opinions and suggestions were expressed by guests and

Senators during presentations and discussion that ensued:

• revised policy was an improvement over existing policy

• good idea to review the revised policy in two years time

• perceived need for ethics education and an educational campaign should be

organized to inform the university community of the content and mechanisms

of the review process

• organization of seminars and workshops to help researchers understand and

accept ethics policy and its requirements

• an important aspect in the supervision of graduate students was the

responsibility of faculty members to protect both students and research

participants from potential harm when approving research topics and research

methods; this was not seen as impinging on academic freedom

• research ethics policies can not promote the concept of absolute confidentiality

since absolute privilege or absolute confidentiality does not exist in the law

• limits of confidentiality should be recognized

• consent forms for dealing with human subjects should provide expectations in

terms of protection of privacy and confidentiality but should explicitly

acknowledge that absolute confidentiality can not be assured

• particular forms/methods of research may not be well understood or well

represented by members of an ethics committee and specialized committees

should be formed

• creation of specialized or new committees for each claim that the research was

qualitatively different would be unworkable and slow down the process

S.M. 7 Feb 2000

Page 5

. ?

•

encourage and make funding available for instruction in research ethics within

graduate programs

•

past issues that arose (Ogden case) with respect to confidentiality and whether

research ethics should be subjugated to law not resolved by revised policy

•

Tr-council code seen to be a threat to academic freedom depending on

individual interpretation

• final

draft should acknowledge that there are

principles that go across

disciplines, but there is considerable disciplinary and methodical diversity and

ethics review personnel and review committees need to be sensitive to these

differences

•

ad hoc committee should be established to consider issues rather than referral

back to the Task Force; the ad hoc committee should identify issues and

concern but have a fairly focussed purpose rather than trying to reinvent the

policy

•

Tr-council policy seen to be biased in a biomedical direction and insensitive

particularly to qualitative research in the Social Sciences

•

information on how other universities have responded to the imposition of the

Tr-council policy on their institutions would have been helpful

•

policy not appropriate or sensitive to the diversity of research methods in the

Humanities and Social Sciences

• well ?

articulated

guidelines ?

are ?

essential ?

to ?

govern

implementation,

adjudication, and appeal

•

overly

centralized ?

structure ?

of decision-making

may ?

substantially ?

limit

academic freedom

. ?

•

policy undermines existing ethics guidelines and established conditions of peer

review within individual disciplines

•

inherent contradictions within the policy about how research subjects are

defined which made it difficult to determine how to apply it to individual

research

•

wording in Sections 3.1.f, especially the last two bullets, and 3.2 too vague

•

Co-op Education, referred to in Sections 4.1 and 6.2, should not be included

the policy

•

policy seen as being excessive; principle investigator should have responsibility

for ethics research approval and, once given, all persons working on the project

should then be covered and protected

•

subjecting all research to a policy driven by the requirements of the Tr-Council

was unreasonable; the university should state its own position of what

constituted appropriate research ethics and only Tr-council funded research

should be subject to Tr-council guidelines

•

State initiative such as the Tr-Council policy undermines the autonomy of

Provincial powers and the autonomy of individual university administrations

•

agreement with recommendation not to create two REBs but should have at

least two REAs, one for methods and qualitative research, the other for

quantitative research

•

the scope of work envisioned for REA deemed unrealistic

•

successful implementation of policy requires development of effective audit and

monitoring mechanisms and the provision of negative repercussions for

deliberate violations and intentional non-compliance of policy; these should be

•

part of the policy, not left to the REB

S.M. 7Feb 2000

Page 6

As a result of the following motion, Senate moved out of quasi-committee of the

whole.

Moved by

Osborne, seconded by B. Clayman

"that the draft research ethics policy be referred to an ad hoc

committee of Senate with the members of SCAR reporting back to the

next meeting of Senate regarding the terms of reference and

membership of the committee"

In response to an inquiry as to whether there was any connection or interplay

between the Tr-Council statement and the document on the commercialization of

university research, Senate was advised that although they had totally independent

genesis there was some overlap, and since they both came from the Federal

Government there was likely some general in-principle motivation.

In response to an inquiry as to what Senate had in mind with respect to the size

and composition of the ad hoc committee, should it be approved, the following

suggestions/comments were made:

• broad consensus across campus was required, therefore consultations outside of

Senate must take place

• at least one faculty member from each Faculty

• two undergraduate and two graduate students

• should be a relatively small focus group who would receive input and bring

something back to Senate fairly quickly

Question was called, and a vote taken.

MOTION CARRIED

The Chair acknowledged the enormous amount of time and work done by the Task

Force and on behalf of Senate and the University, extended appreciation and

thanks to each member.

iii) ?

Paper S.00-20 - Final Report - Senate Review Committee

Moved by

Reader, seconded by C. Steinbach

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

Question was called, and a vote taken.

MOTION CARRIED

The intent was to have a general discussion and then move out of quasi-committee

of the whole to consider each of the 12 motions outlined in Paper S.00-20.

It was pointed out that as a result of previous Senate consideration, there were

significant revisions to Section 7 dealing with Senate committees. Senate's

attention was directed to the additional responses that the committee received

noted at the bottom of page 7 of the report.

S.M. 7 Feb 2000

Page

. The following members of the Task Force were present at the meeting and

available to respond to questions:

Munro (Chair), M.A. Gillies,

Waterhouse, D.

Preece, and A. Watt (Secretary).

Discussion ensued and the following points were made:

• afternoon meetings difficult for students to attend

• experiment of one year for afternoon meetings too long; one or two semesters

more appropriate

• clarification of process with regard to student nominations to Senate

committees; Student Society versus Senate Nominating Committee

• possibility of allowing Professor Emeritus to run in elections for faculty senators

due to the large turnover of senior faculty retirements

• concern about the removal of the Library representative from SCUS and SGSC

• concern about SCUS and SGSC reporting directly to Senate

• concern about proposed membership of SCUS; none of the members have a

direct connection/experience with Senate

Moved by

Reader, seconded by S. Al-Natour

that Senate move out of quasi-committee of the whole"

Question was called, and a vote taken.

MOTION CARRIED

Motion #1

Moved by

Munro, seconded by

Waterhouse

"that Senate adopt Section VI of the SRC Report as a statement of

purpose for Senate to become Section II of the Rules of Senate"

In response to an inquiry about whether mention of the University Act should be

part of the statement, Senate was advised that the first sentence comes from the Act

itself and that the Act is referred to in the preamble to the Rules of Senate.

Question was called, and a vote taken.

MOTION CARRIED

Motion #2

Moved by

Munro, seconded by M.A. Gillies

"that Senate direct the Senate Committee on Agenda and Rules to

prepare an agenda-setting motion that incorporates recommendations

A.1, A.2 and A.5 in Section V of the Rules of Senate"

In response to a request for clarification, Senate was advised that Section V of the

Rules of Senate dealt with meetings and SCAR was being asked to prepare a motion

for Senate approval which would amend Section V to incorporate

recommendations A.1, A.2 and A.5.

0 ?

Question was called, and a vote taken.

MOTION CARRIED

S.M. 7 Feb 2000

Page 8

Motion #3

Senate was advised that further work was required on the composition of thco

eeffirnl-tteesand request was made by the Chair of the SRC that this motion be held

over to the next meeting of Senate.

Motion #4

Moved by

Munro, seconded by J. Waterhouse

that Senate agree to the restructuring of the Senate Committee on

Academic Planning into the Senate Committee on University

Priorities as proposed in Section B.1 .ii of the SRC report"

Inquiry was made as to the rationale for the proposed couency of the new

committee. Senate was advised that the reduced

Ft ?

et'tefIects the change

in responsibility from academic planning and was

ptby the SRC to address

a perception of domination by administrators on he commt(ce.

Amendment moved by M. Smith, seconded by R. Russell

"that the number of Deans be decreased by one and the number of

faculty be increased by one"

It was noted that although the SRC had felt that it was not necessary to have every

Dean on the Committee, reducing the Deans too much would likely have a

negative impact on the effectiveness of the committee. Opinion was expressed that

if the proposed amendment passed, there would still be four administrators and five

faculty which was more representative of the University and Senate; it was also

noted that Deans could attend for the purpose of information at any time. It was

pointed out that the University has moved towards a more decentralized system of

planning and since Faculty plans were an important part of university priorities, it

would be a mistake to limit the representation of Deans.

Question was called, and a vote taken.

AMENDMENT DEFEATED

Amendment moved by

Reader, seconded by C. Steinbach

"that the membership be changed from 'four Faculty Senators, with

no more than two from any Faculty' to 'one Faculty Senator from

each Faculty'

It was pointed out that the amendment would increase the number of faculty by

one but would ensure representation from each Faculty, without requiring each

Dean to be a member.

Opinion was expressed that the membership of a committee often determined the

way the committee formed an opinion and the SRC had proposed the composition

of SCUP to avoid elections resulting in skewed distributions in terms of

representation from Faculties.

S.M. 7 Feb 2000

Page

Question was called, and a vote taken.

AMENDMENT CARRIED

Question was called on the main motion,

and a vote taken. ?

MAIN MOTION (AS AMENDED) CARRIED

Motion #5

Moved by

Munro, seconded by M.A. Gillies

"that Senate agree that the Senate Committee on University Budget

be abolished and that its functions be performed by the Senate

Committee on University Priorities as proposed in Section B.1 .iii of

the SRC report"

Senate was advised that SCUB had been criticized by its members as not being

effective and the SRC felt it might work better if its responsibilities were merged

with the Senate Committee on University Priorities.

Question was called, and a vote taken.

MOTION CARRIED

Motion #6

Moved by

Munro, seconded by

Waterhouse

"that Senate agree to the restructuring of Library Penalties Appeal

Committee as proposed in Section B.1 .iv of the SRC report"

Senate was advised that the intent was to change the LPAC from an independent

committee to a subcommittee of the Senate Library Committee with a subset of the

overall members of the SLC making up the membership of the LPAC.

Question was called, and a vote taken.

MOTION CARRIED

Motion #7

Moved by J. Munro, seconded by M.A. Gillies

"that Senate agree that the Senate Committee on Honorary Degrees

be abolished and replaced by the Senate Committee on University

Honours as proposed in Section B.1 .v of the SRC report"

Senate was advised that this recommendation had not been part of the original

draft report because the committee had not yet reached agreement. The intent was

to have the committee meet regularly through the year rather than on a periodic

basis and to deal with 'ceremonial' type honours. Which specific honours should

be included would be specified in the new terms of reference.

Question was called, and a vote taken.

MOTION CARRIED

S.M.7Feb 2000

Page 10

Motion #8

Moved by

Munro, seconded by J. Waterhouse

"that Senate agree to the restructuring of the Senate Committee on

Enrolment Management and Planning as proposed in Section

B.1 .vi

of the SRC report"

Senate was advised that the proposal changed the composition of the committee

and made it a committee which reported directly to Senate.

Question was called, and a vote taken.

MOTION CARRIED

Motion #9

Moved by

Munro, seconded by M.A. Gillies

"that Senate charge all restructured committees to submit revised

terms of reference by June,

2000

as proposed in Section

B.2

of the

SRC report"

It was pointed out that Senate committees existed because of Senate's desire for

them to do a specific task, and concern was expressed about committees drawing

up their own terms of reference. The motion was changed as follows:

"that Senate charge all restructured committees to submit revised

terms of reference for the approval of Senate by June,

2000

proposed in Section

B.2

of the SRC report"

Question was called, and a vote taken.

MOTION CARRIED

Motion #10

Moved by

Munro, seconded by

Waterhouse

"that Senate add the committee recommendations concerning vice

chairs, quorums, nomination and open meetings to Section VI of the

Rules of Senate, as proposed in Sections

B.3, 4, 5

and

C.4

of the SRC

report"

Senate was advised that the intent of the motion was to bring consistency to the

practices of Senate committees.

It was pointed out that motion #11 specifically targetted the recommendations

made within

B.5

and clarification was requested as to why it was included in

motion 10. Senate was advised that

B.5

was in the motion by mistake and

reference to it should be deleted. The motion would now read

"that Senate add the committee recommendations concerning vice

chairs, quorums, and open meetings to Section VI of the Rules of

Senate, as proposed in Sections

B.3, B.4

and

C.4

of the SRC report"

S.M. 7 Feb 2000

Page 11

Opinion was expressed that some Senate committees such as the Adjudication

committees could not have open meetings; it was noted that the recommendation

specified 'if appropriate'.

Question was called, and a vote taken.

MOTION CARRIED

Motion #11

Moved by J. Munro, seconded by

Waterhouse

"that Senate change the method of selection for all Senate

committees so that all candidates, except ex-officio members, are

nominated by the Senate Nominating Committee as proposed in

Section B.5 of the SRC report"

Senate's attention was drawn to the change of language in the motion from the

wording on Senate paper

S.00-20

Concern was expressed that the Student Society would be left out of the process of

nominating students for positions on Senate committees. It was noted that the

normal protocol was to notify SFSS of vacancies and approach them for

nominations. Inquiry was made if that process should be enshrined in the motion

in any way. No formal amendment was made but the Chair made assurances that

the same process would continue.

Opinion was expressed that it was unclear as to how nominations were handled by

the SNC. If the motion passed there would be no way for someone to become a

member of the committee except if nominated by the SNC and concern was

expressed that a perception of committee manipulation might arise if the SNC were

always to put forward the exact number of nominations. Senate was advised that

the practice of the SNC was to put forward as many nominations as were received

but many times it had difficulty filling all vacancies. It was also pointed out that

the terms of reference of the SNC specifically stated that the committee should

attempt to bring forward more than the minimum number of names.

Question was called, and a vote taken.

MOTION CARRIED

Motion

#12

Moved by

Munro, seconded by M.A. Gillies

"that Senate authorize a change in Senate's meeting time for a one

year period beginning June

1, 2000

as proposed in Section C.3 of the

SRC report"

In response to an inquiry as to who would make an evaluation/decision at the end

of the one year period, Senate was advised that Senate itself would be required to

address this issue.

• ?

Concern was expressed that it would be much more difficult for students and lay

senators to attend late afternoon meetings.

S.M. 7 Feb 2000

Page 12

It was pointed out that one of the reasons for moving to an earlier time was an

attempt to include representation from individuals who might be interested in

participating in the governance of the University but found it difficult to attend

evening meetings due to family or other obligations outside the university.

Opinion was expressed that having the possibility for informal discussion at Senate

dinner was a excellent opportunity to inform oneself of the issues and, although

this could be done in other ways, having a collective discussion with colleagues

was extremely useful.

Brief discussion followed with respect to the one-year period of time proposed.

Some Senators felt it was too long, some felt it was too short.

The Chair reminded Senate of its rule that Senate meetings must conclude at 10:00

pm unless a motion was approved by the majority to extend the time.

Moved by C. Steinbach, seconded by L. Boland

"that the meeting time be extended to 10:30 pm"

Question was called, and a vote taken.

MOTION CARRIED?

Amendment moved by M. Benezra, seconded by S.Y. To

"that the period of time be changed from one-year to one semester in

the Fall semester"

Question was called, and a vote taken.

AMENDMENT DEFEATED

The possibility of starting the meetings at 5:30 pm rather than 3:30 pm was

suggested.

It was pointed out that many faculty teach in the evening and there are many

students who have classes in the evening; there might be an entire different pool of

candidates who put themselves up for election if Senate meetings were held earlier.

Reference was made to the earlier comment about the large number of senior

faculty who would be retiring and it was suggested that earlier meetings might be

one way of accommodating newer faculty members into Senate.

Question was called on the main motion,

and a vote taken.

MOTION DEFEATED

The Chair wished to acknowledge the work of the ad hoc committee and extended

thanks and appreciation on behalf of Senate and the University.

S.M. 7Feb 2000

Page 13

0 ?

6. ?

Other Business

a) ?

Paper S.00-21 - Senate membership - Notice of vacancy (For Information)

Senate received notice that D. Crossley had resigned from Senate effective

immediately and a by-election to seek a replacement to fill his position would be

issued in February at the same time as the regular call was issued for the annual

election of students to Senate.

7. ?

Information

Date of the next regular meeting of Senate is scheduled for Monday, March 6,

2000.

Open Session adjourned at 10:05 pm; Senate moved directly into Closed Session.

Alison Watt

Director, University Secretariat

fli'