DRAFT UNTIL APPROVED BY SENATE

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

Monday, March 6, 2000 in Room 3210 West Mall Centre

Open Session

Present:

Blaney, Jack, President and Chair

Absent: Al-Natour, Sameh

Atkins, Stella

Barrow, Robin

Benezra, Michael

Fletcher, James

Blackman, Roger (representing J

Pierce)

Heaney, John

Boland, Larry

Kanevsky, Lannie

Budra, Paul

Kirczenow, George

Chan, Albert

McFetridge, Paul

Chuah, Kuan

McInnes, Dina

Copeland, Lynn

Warsh, Michael

D'Auria, John

Wessel, Sylvia

Davidson, Willie

Wong, Milton

Delgrande, James

Yerbury, Cohn

Driver, Jon

Dunsterville, Valerie

Emerson, Joseph

Finley, David

Gillies, Mary Ann

Harris, Richard

Hart, Stephen (representing B. Clayman)

In attendance:

Hyslop-Margison, Emery

Knockaert, Joe

•

Jones, John

Marteniuk, Ron

Macdonald, Gregg

Olewiler, Nancy

Mathewes, Rolf

Mauser, Gary

McArthur, James

McBride, Stephan

Meredith, Lindsay (representing J.Waterhouse)

Munro, John

Naef, Barbara

Niwinska, Tina

Ogloff, James

Osborne, Judith

Paterson, David

Peters, Joseph

Peterson, Louis

Reader, Jason

Russell, Robert

Sanghera, Balwant

Smith, Michael

Steinbach, Christopher

To, Shek Yan

Wortis, Michael

Zazkis, Rina

Heath, Nick, Acting Registrar

Watt, Alison, Director, University Secretariat

Grant, Bobbie, Recording Secretary

S.M. 6 March 2000

Page 2

Approval of the Agenda

The Agenda was approved as distributed.

Approval of the Minutes of the Open Session of February 7, 2000

Reference was made to page 8, motion 3 and suggestion was made that the

minutes should make specific reference to the two committees - SCUS and SGSC.

On the same page, motion 4 (last sentence), suggestion was made that the word

'composition' be changed to 'membership' and 'the committee' be changed to

'Senate' since the results of SRC's survey reflected a perception of domination of

administrators on Senate.

Following these revisions, the Minutes were approved as amended.

Business Arising from the Minutes

In response to an inquiry, Senate was advised that the location of the ceremony

to award Julie Payette an honorary degree had been changed from Centennial

High School to Images Theatre on campus as a result of a request from her office.

Report of the Chair

i) ?

Paper S.00-22 -Revised 'Values and Commitments' document

Since the President wished to participate in debate of this item, J. Ogloff, Vice-

Chair of Senate took over as Chair.

N. Olewiler, Senior Policy Advisor, President's Office and Chair of the

Department of Economics, and C. Macdonald, Executive Director, President's

Office were in attendance in order to respond to questions.

Moved by J. Munro, seconded by J. Osborne

"that Senate endorse and recommend to the Board of Governors,

the 'Values and Commitments' document, S.00-22"

The President referred to the preparatory comments made at the January

meeting and advised that the revised document was the result of Senate

discussion at the January meeting and from comments received in writing and at

the open meetings held in January.

Brief discussion ensued with respect to the use of the word 'relish' (paragraph 2)

'pioneering' (paragraph 3) and 'can' (paragraphs 3 and 5), and minor editorial

suggestions were made related to these concerns. Opinions were also expressed

against the suggested editorial changes and suggestions made that the wording

not be changed. Since the substance of the statement was not in dispute,

suggestion was made that endorsement proceed without specific amendment;

the committee would then further discuss the comments made by Senate and

make whatever changes they deemed necessary.

S.M. 6 March 2000

Page

• Inquiry was made as to whether the statement that 'students can expect teaching

that is personal' was a long term commitment to the tutorial process. Senate was

advised that although the university was not necessarily at the level where it

would like to be with respect to the kinds of values and commitments referred to

in the statement, the document should serve as a reminder of the kind of

University the planning process should aim for.

Question was called, and a vote taken.

MOTION CARRIED

J. Blaney resumed the Chair.

5. ?

Reports of Committees

Senate Nominating Committee

i) ?

Paper S.00-23 - Election

Senate Committee on International Activities (SCIA)

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

May 31, 2000.

Elected by acclamation:

Lorena Jara

Senate Committee on International Activities

i) ?

Paper S.00-24

Annual Report (For Information)

J. Knockaert, Secretary of SCIA and Director of International Co-operation was in

attendance in order to respond to questions.

It was pointed out that previous annual reports included information about the

kinds and size of international projects that the University was involved in and

inquiry was made as to why this information was missing from the report before

Senate. Senate was advised that there had been no change in the projects from

last year.

C) ?

Senate Committee on Academic Planning and Senate Committee on

Enrolment Management and Planning

i) ?

Paper S.00-25 - Undergraduate Admission Targets for 2000/20001

Motion #1:

Moved by J

Munro, seconded by J

Osborne

"that Senate approve and recommend approval to the Board of Governors, as set

forth in S.00-25 , the following undergraduate admission targets for each basis-

of-admission group and for each semester in 2000/01, and that SCAP be

delegated authority to make adjustments based on changes to the overall

provincial enrollment targets for SFU and based on actual enrollment experience

in 2000-2 and 2000-3.

S.M. 6 March 2000

Page 4

Admission Targets for New Students

2000-2

2000-3

2001-1

Total

B.C. Gr. XII

1,837

125

2,042

B.C. College

459

669

604

1,732

Other BOA Groups

172

649

392

1,213

Total Intake

711

3,155

1,121

41987"

Question was called, and a vote taken.

MOTION CARRIED

A substantial decrease over the last 20 years in the number of mature students

being admitted to the university, together with a substantial increase in the

admission of high school students was noted and inquiry made as to whether

this was coincidental or the result of an active policy of the University. Opinion

was expressed that these changes were the result of an increase in the general

standards for admission and changes in patterns of enrolment in post-secondary

institutions whereby mature students tend to enter the university after having

completed two years at the community college level.

Motion #2:

Moved by J

Munro, seconded by J

Osborne

"that Senate approve and recommend approval to the Board of

Governors, as set forth in S.00-25, the undergraduate admission

targets to each Faculty as indicated in the attached table, 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 2000-2 and 2000-3"

Inquiry was made about why Applied Sciences was not being increased next

year but the Arts was planned to be increased by 500 students. Senate was

advised that it was felt that the college transfer admission GPA was too high in

the current year relative to the high school admission GPA and the increase in

the number of college transfers would result in more students being admitted to

Arts. The question of balance between supply and demand in Arts and Applied

Sciences would likely be a significant issue for the university in the future and

has been discussed in SCEMP and SCAP.

Question was called, and a vote taken.

MOTION CARRIED

S.M. 6 March 2000

Page 5

ii)

Paper S.00-26 - Limits on International Student Admissions to SFU

Moved by J

Munro, seconded by J

Osborne

"that Senate approve and recommend approval to the Board of

Governors, as set forth in S.00-26, that the number of international

students, excluding exchange students, who are admitted into

undergraduate programs at SFU be limited to 7% of all admissions

in the academic years 2000/01, 2001/02, and 2002/03"

Senate was reminded that this was simply an extension of the current limit and

that international admissions (4.9% on new admissions this year) were well

below the quota.

Inquiries were made with respect to how the limit at SFU compared to policies at

other provincial universities and what the percentage would be if exchange

students were included. Senate was advised that UBC had approximately the

same percentage of international students relative to the size of the university,

and that the current 125 exchange students would only make a slight change in

the percentage if included.

Question was called, and a vote taken. ?

MOTION CARRIED

iii)

Paper S.00-27 - Limits on International Student Admission to Faculty of

Business Administration

Moved by L. Meredith, seconded by G. Mauser

"that Senate approve and recommend approval to the Board of

Governors, as set forth in S.00-27, that the number of international

students, excluding exchange students, who are admitted into the

undergraduate programs in the Faculty of Business Administration

at SFU be limited to 10% of all admissions in the academic years

2000/01, 2001/02, and 2002/03"

Opinions expressed in opposition to the motion included the following

comments:

• the limit was unnecessary because the Faculty of Business Administration

was no where near the existing 10% limit

• imposing the limit discriminated against students who have already been

admitted to the University and treated them differently from other students

• it was unfair to admit students and then restrict their choice of programs

• if qualified, students should not be restricted because of a quota and by

having a higher quality of student in a class the learning experiences between

students increased

S.M. 6 March 2000

Page 6

Opinions expressed in support of the motion included the following comments:

• enrolment pressures within the Faculty were severe and as a public

institution there was a responsibility to serve the needs of domestic students

• without a limit the percentage of international students would significantly

increase which could have a serious impact on domestic students

• the demand from international students for Business programs was much

higher than other Faculties

Clarification was sought with respect to the wording of the motion relating to the

phrase '10% of all admissions". Senate was advised that the motion should in

fact read '10% of all admissions to the Faculty of Business Administration'; the

change was accepted as an editorial amendment.

If there was a concern about the differential for Business Administration but the

problem of not having a limit was recognized, it was suggested that the motion

could be amended to delete the reference to the Faculty of Business

Administration so that the limit would then apply to all Faculties.

Brief discussion ensued regarding the issue of differential fees and the historical

background related to the implementation of the existing limit.

Question was called, and a vote taken.

MOTION DEFEATED

iv) ?

Paper S.00-28 - PBD Admission to School of Computing Science (For

Ti- fr-rrrtn+;r%n) ?

Senate received information that admission to the regular Post Baccalaureate

Diploma Program in the School of Computing Science was suspended until

further notice. Admission to the ARC Internship PBD program in Computing

Science would not be affected.

d) ?

Senate Committee on Academic Planning

i) ?

Paper S.00-29 - Planning and Review Framework -

Motion #1:

Moved by J

Munro, seconded by J

Osborne

"that Senate approve the revisions to the Guidelines for External

Reviews as outlined in S.00-29"

Senate was informed that during the consultation process strong opposition from

departmental chairs had been expressed with respect to the interval between

successive external reviews and successive academic plans. It was also pointed

out that many chairs in the Faculty of Arts supported the concept that the

planning cycle be half the length of the external review cycle but were very

concerned that the proposed time period for external reviews was too short.

S.M. 6 March 2000

Page 7

Amendment moved by R. Blackman, seconded by M.A. Gillies

"that the planning period be 4 years and the external review period

be 8 years rather than 3 and 6 years respectively"

An amendment to the amendment was moved by L. Boland, seconded by S.

McBride

"that the planning period be 3 years and the external review period

be 9 years"

Opinion was expressed that external reviews were very expensive and having to

go through the process in a shorter period of time significantly increased the cost.

It was pointed out that one of the main measures of accountability both publicly

and within institutions was the review of academic programs on a regular basis,

and opinion was expressed that lengthening the review cycle would have a

negative impact on the accountability process. Suggestion was made that annual

reports from departments or the three year academic plans could be used to

satisfy accountability measures.

It was noted that it was difficult to recruit qualified external reviewers and

shortening the time period would make it even more difficult; opinion was

is ?

expressed it would be better to have less frequent reviews with more highly

selected reviewers.

Concern was expressed that the 3/6 plan/external review cycle was unrealistic

and too short to make significant curriculum and program changes and

departments needed the longer period to make meaningful evaluations between

reviews.

It was pointed out that whatever cycle was approved, the time line was not

immutable. Under the existing policy, changes were continuously made to

accommodate a variety of circumstances within departments each year, and it

was felt that increasing the time between reviews was not advisable because it

would then be possible for departments to go ten or eleven years between

reviews.

Some members suggested that external reviews were very labour intensive and

had a much bigger impact on smaller departments so a longer review period was

more feasible. However, it was pointed out that some departments may need a

review more frequently than others and it was suggested that procedures be

written into the process to allow flexibility in determining where in the cycle the

review should take place. Another senator suggested that external reviews were

not worthwhile at all.

It was pointed out that the orientation of external reviews was meant to be on the

academic character and academic quality of a department's teaching and

S.M. 6 March 2000

Page 8

research programs and not on difficult situations which were better handled

internally.

The view was expressed that with the renewal of faculty that would occur over

the next several years, there would be a need through the academic planning

process to review how departments were evolving at a more rather than less

frequent interval.

Moved by J

D'Auria, seconded by E. Hyslop-Margison

"that the motion be tabled to allow reconsideration by the Senate

Committee on Academic Planning"

Senate was informed that approval of the motion would refer the original motion

as well as the amendments back to SCAP.

Question was called, and a vote taken.

MOTION TO TABLE CARRIED

Motion #2:

Moved by J

Munro, seconded by J

Osborne

"that Senate approve the new Guidelines for Academic Plans as set

forth in S.00-29"

Senate was advised that the proposed plan interval was partly based on the

current time period and partly because the university was currently entering a

period of rapid change and a longer interval was not feasible. Outside funding

agencies were increasingly requesting the university to develop plans and up-to-

date departmental academic plans were vital to that planning process. The

guidelines reflected past practice and various parts of existing university policy.

It was pointed out that the motion before Senate recommended a 3 year planning

cycle. Senate tabled, as part of the previous motion, reconsideration of this issue,

and concern was expressed that the SCAP review would be limited by having

motion two approved because it would establish one part of the cycle that was to

be reviewed by SCAP.

Moved by R. Blackman, seconded by J

Reader

"that the motion be referred to the Senate Committee on Academic

Planning for reconsideration"

Question was called, and a vote taken.

MOTION TO REFER CARRIED

S.M. 6 March 2000

Page 9

e) ?

Senate Graduate Studies Committee

i) ?

Paper S.00-30 - Annual Report (For Information)

The annual report of the Senate Graduate Studies Committee was received by

Senate for information.

Senate Committee on Agenda and Rules

i) ?

Paper S.00-31 - Senate Review Committee - Final recommendations on

SCUS and SGSC

Moved by J

Munro, seconded by M.A. Gillies

"that Senate approve the restructuring of the Senate Committee on

Undergraduate Studies and the Senate Committee on Graduate

Studies as follows:

SCUS and SGSC shall become committees reporting directly to

Senate. Membership of each committee shall consist of two student

members elected by Senate, the chair of each Faculty-level

committee plus one faculty member elected by each Faculty-level

committee, the Registrar (or designate) and the University

• Librarian (or designate). The Chair of SCUS will be the Vice-

President, Academic (or designate); the Chair of SGSC will be the

Dean of Graduate Studies"

As a point of clarification, it was noted that the students elected to the Senate

Committee on Undergraduate Studies would be undergraduate students, and

the students elected to the Senate Graduate Studies Committee would be

graduate students.

Discussion ensued with respect to the election of faculty members to the

committees. Suggestion was made that the faculty members should be elected

by and from Senate. It was pointed out that although the SRC had considered

this option, it was felt that it was too much of a constraint on faculty Senators.

Opinion was also expressed that the Chairs of the Faculty-level committees

needed to be on these committees in order for them to operate effectively.

Amendment moved by J

D'Auria, seconded by A. Chan

"that each faculty member be elected by and from respective

Faculties"

Brief discussed followed with respect to the electoral process and it was clarified

that the intent was for the elections to be conducted by the Secretariat Office

rather than by individual Faculties.

S.M. 6 March 2000

Page 10

Concern was expressed that a Faculty-wide election would not be as effective as

the original proposal to have the Chair and one member from the Faculty-level

committee serving on the Senate committee. Having members already familiar

with the curriculum process provided operational knowledge to the Senate

committee and since the Faculty-level committees have elected members the

confidence of the Faculty had already been given to these people.

Concern was expressed that there was no guarantee that any member on SCUS

or SGSC had any knowledge of the Senate process and that the amendment did

not address that issue.

Question was called, and a vote taken.

AMENDMENT DEFEATED

Question was called on the main motion,

and a vote taken.

MAIN MOTION CARRIED

ii)

-32 -

Referring to the Government's proposal to introduce 'innovation' as a fourth

mission together with teaching, research and community service, opinion was

strongly expressed that this step interfered with the academic autonomy of the

university. Concern was voiced that the report from the ad hoc committee did

not address this issue and the following motion was suggested by J

D'Auria:

"that Senate recommends that the Federal Government not get

involved in the academic governance of universities"

The Chair advised that he would be attending a meeting of the Canadian

Association of Universities and Colleges of Canada, and this issue was on the

agenda. He was personally opposed to adding a fourth mission to the university

and would express this view if the opportunity presented itself. The Chair

reported that there had been a lot of discussion within AUCC about the

Government's report and it would be interesting to see the Government's white

paper on the matter. The Chair also advised that he and two other university

Presidents were meeting with Minister John Manley next week and it was his

intention to raise this particular concern at that meeting. The Chair indicated

that he would report the outcomes of these two meetings to Senate at the next

meeting.

Given the Chair's comments, the proposed motion was withdrawn by J

D'Auria.

iii)

Paper S.00-33 - Ad hoc committee to review Research Ethics Revisions

(For Information)

The terms of reference and proposed timeline for report of the committee were

presented to Senate for information. Senate was also advised that the following

S.M. 6 March 2000

Page 11

Senators had agreed to serve on the committee: W. Davidson (Chair), J

Driver, S.

McBride, and B. Naef.

Other Business

MBA Program for Professional Accountants

In response to an earlier inquiry about the MBA Program for Professional

Accountants, Senate was advised that this program was in the process of

receiving assessment as a new program and would come to Senate for approval

in due course. During this period, under existing Senate policy, following

approval by the Senate Graduate Studies Committee, the program was currently

being offered on a cohort basis under Special Arrangements to start in September

this year.

ii)

Graduate Application Fees

In response to an earlier inquiry about how the graduate application fees were

spent, Senate was advised that 99% of the money was accounted for and that

68% was spent on graduate student travel, and the remainder was spent on the

recruitment of graduate students and direct research costs for graduate students.

7. ?

Information

Date of the next regularly scheduled meeting - Monday, April 3, 2000.

0 ?

Open Session adjourned at 7:15 pm; Senate moved directly into Closed Session.

Alison Watt

Director, University Secretariat