DRAFT UNTIL APPROVED BY SENATE

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

Monday, July 9, 2001 at 7:00 pm in Room 3210 WMC

Open Session

Present: ?

Stevenson, Michael, President and Chair

Al-Natour, Sameh ?

Absent:

Atkins, Stella

Aloi, Santa

Budra, Paul

Bawa, Parveen

Chan, Albert

Blackman, Roger (representing J

Pierce)

Dempster, Peter

Chang, Jack

Driver, Jon

Clayman, Bruce

Giffen, Ken

Collins-Dodd, Colleen

Haunerland, Norbert

Copeland, Lynn

Jones, John

Cowan, Ann (representing C. Yerbury)

LaRocque, Linda

D'Auria, John

Marteniuk, Ron

Davidson, Willie

McArthur, James

Delgrande, James

McFetridge, Paul

Dunsterville, Valerie

Muirhead, Leah

Gerson, Carole

Peters, Joseph

Gerwel, Wojtek

Russell, Robert

Gill, Alison

Sekhon, Devinder

Grimmett, Peter

•

Thandi, Ranbir

Gupte, Jaideep

Waterhouse, John

Heaney, John

Weldon, Larry

Hill, Ross

Wessel, Sylvia

Jackson, Margaret

Wong, Milton

Jensen, Britta

Wortis, Michael

Klymson, Sarah

Mauser, Gary

McInnes, Dina

Meredith, Lindsay (representing E. Love)

In attendance:

Naef, Barbara

Weinberg, Hal

Osborne, Judith

Paterson, David

Percival, Paul

Sirri, Odai

Smith, Michael

Tansey, Caralyn

Thompson, Janny (representing R. Barrow)

Van Aalst, Jan

Warren, Joel

Heath, Ron, Dean of Student Services and Registrar

Watt, Alison, Director, University Secretariat

•

Grant, Bobbie, Recording Secretary

S.M. 9 July 2001

Page 2

Approval of the Agenda

The Agenda was approved as distributed.

Approval of the Minutes of the Open Session of Tune 4, 2001

The Minutes were approved as distributed.

Business Arising from the Minutes

There was no business arising from the Minutes.

Report of the Chair

The Chair reported that the University Presidents' Council was working to keep

issues of post-secondary education high on the public agenda and, to this end, he

was actively engaged in consultations with members of the Government and newly

elected MLAs in Vancouver and Burnaby.

Ouestion Period

Senate was advised that a series of questions had been submitted by J

Warren with

regard to the appointment process for the J.S. Woodsworth Chair. The Chair

reminded Senators that an independent review of this issue has been set up.

Expectations were that responses to the kind of questions raised would be

forthcoming from the review and it was not appropriate to comment at this point.

In response to further questions, the Chair emphasized that he did not know and

had never met or had any discussion with Lyman Robinson and that the only

connection Mr. Robinson had to SFU was that he was under contract to the

University for the purposes of conducting the review. In response to a question

about making the non-confidential conclusions of the report public, the Chair

indicated this was his intention.

Reports of Committees

Senate Nominating Committee

i) ?

Paper S.01-50 Revised - Elections to Senate Committees

Senate was advised that C. Collins-Dodd was elected by acclamation to replace J.

Zaichkowsky on the Senate Committee on University Priorities to December 31,

2001, and that no nominations had been received for the positions for any of the

committees listed in S.01-50. These vacancies would be carried forward. Senators

were encouraged to submit suggestions for nominations to the Senate Nominating

Committee.

Senate Committee on Undergraduate Studies

Paper S.01-51 - Department of Molecular Biology and Biochemistry

a) ?

New Program: joint Major in Molecular Biology and Biochemistry and

Business Administration

Moved by R. Blackman, seconded by M. Smith ?

S.M. 9 July 2001

Page 3

"that Senate approve and recommend approval to the Board of

Governors the Joint Major in Molecular Biology and Biochemistry and

Business Administration, as set forth in S.01-51, effective 2002-3"

The ensuing discussion primarily focussed on concerns about the lack of breadth

requirements and whether or not there was a need to include an ethics course

specifically developed for molecular biology and biochemistry students.

Senate was advised that SCUS had discussed the ethics issue and while a course in

ethics was identified as being desirable for the program, the lack of such a course

was not felt to be sufficient enough reason to derail the program. It was pointed out

that the Department of Molecular Biology and Biochemistry was in the process of

developing a second year course entitled Biotechnology and the Society which

provide an ethics component for Science students. It was suggested that the

Business ethics course - Business 303 - could be reworked to include more focussed

topics that would be covered within the joint major program from a Science point of

view. Opinion was expressed that the proposed program represents a much

broader program than is typical for a Science student and satisfies the existing

policies of Senate and of the Faculty of Science.

Question arose as to why only English was offered as part of the lower division

Business requirements when other Arts courses such as Philosophy were acceptable

in other major programs within Business. A friendly amendment was accepted

• suggesting that the lower division Business requirements be broadened to include

appropriate Arts courses such as Philosophy. There was also discussion of the need

for a writing course specifically designed for science students.

Concern was expressed about the creation of this new program and the impact it

would have on the available course spaces for Business students. Opinion was

expressed that it might be better to concentrate on the current enrolment difficulties

rather than offering a new program to an entirely different group of students who

would then be competing for spaces in Business. The issue of access was briefly

discussed and Senate was advised that the majority of students accepted into

Business programs progress through their programs on a timely basis.

In response to an inquiry about entrance requirements, Senate was advised that

students would have to meet Faculty of Science requirements for admission since

completion of the program would result in a B.Sc. degree from the Faculty of

Science.

Senators were reminded that a thorough review of the undergraduate curriculum

was currently underway by the Ad Hoc Senate Committee to Review the

Undergraduate Curricula and Senators were encouraged to communicate the

concerns and observations expressed during the Senate debate.

Question was called, and a vote taken.

MOTION CARRIED

S.M.9July 2001

Page

b) Senate received information that the Senate Committee on Undergraduate

Studies, acting under delegated authority, approved the following curriculum

revisions:

- New courses: MBB 432 and MBB 300

- Change to course number, title, prerequisite, credit hour, description, and

vector:

MBB

311 to 308, and MBB 312 to 309

- New Co-Op Education courses: MBB 151, 251, 351, 451,452

ii) ?

Department of Earth Sciences

Paper S.01-52 - Undergraduate Curriculum Revisions (For Information)

Senate received information that the Senate Committee on Undergraduate Studies,

acting under delegated authority, approved the following curriculum revisions:

- Prerequisite change: EASC 301

- Deletion of EASC 404 and 405

- New courses: EASC 313, 404,413

- Minor revisions to course requirements for the Major program

Paper S.01-53 - SCUS Annual Report

Senate received the Annual Report of the Senate Committee on Undergraduate

Studies for information.

C) ?

Senate Graduate Studies Committee

Paper S.01-54 - Faculty of Arts - Graduate Curriculum Revisions

Senate received information that the Senate Graduate Studies Committee, acting

under delegated authority, approved the curriculum revisions in the following

departments;

i) Department of Archaeology

- Minor program revisions to streamline the MA program

- Editorial revisions to clarify Calendar wording for the PhD program

- Addition of ARCH 876 as a required course for all graduate students

ii)

Department of French

- Addition of Option: MA with Project

- Change of title: FREN 811, FREN 812, FREN 816

- Deletion of FREN 800, 801, 802, 807, 808, 809, 813, 814, 815, 817, 818, 830, 831,

832

- New courses: FREN 803, FREN 804, FREN 805, FREN 806, FREN 810, FREN

897

iii)

Faculty of Arts - MA Co-Op Option

- MA Co-Op Education Program Option, including new practicum courses:

LBRL 750, LBRL 751, LBRL 752

iv)

Department of Philosophy

- Addition of a Specialized Thesis Option at the MA level

- Introduction of area distribution requirements at the MA and PhD levels

- Minor revisions to the course requirements for the PhD program

- Editorial revisions to clarify Calendar wording, including the wording for

admission to graduate programs

S.M. 9 July 2001

Page 5

v) Department of Psychology

- Change all five (5) credit graduate seminars to three (3) credits

- Change Calendar description for PSYC 825

- Change in requirements - PhD Clinical Program

- Removal of Table I Experimental Graduate Program and Table 3 Clinical

Psychology Program from Calendar

vi) Department of Sociology and Anthropology

- MA Co-Op Program Option, including new practicum courses: SA 890, SA

891, and SA892

Senate Committee on Agenda and Rules

i) ?

Paper S.01-55 - Research Ethics Policy

Moved by W. Davidson, seconded by B. Clayman

"that Senate approve and recommend approval to the Board of

Governors the Policies and Procedures for Ethics Review of Research

Involving Human Subjects - June 5, 2001, as set forth in S.01-55"

Concerns were expressed from some members of the Faculty of Education with

regard to the definition of research. Some of the requirements of the teacher training

program such as the need to practice performance based assessment might be

• considered 'research' under the definitions outlined in Section 1 and therefore

would require research ethics approval. However, since the same course might vary

from one semester to the next depending on the instructor, obtaining approval

would be problematic. It was suggested that activities within the teacher training

program probably fall within the ambit of Section 1.7 and would therefore be

excluded from research ethics approval. Suggestion was made that if there was a

question as to whether the content of a course or program might be subject to ethics

review, the Department or Faculty should submit it for evaluation. If deemed to

require research ethics approval, the course/program would be reviewed once and

designated as a research ethics approved course/program and would only need to

be re-evaluated if the content of the course/program was changed.

H. Weinberg, faculty member currently involved in the review of research proposals

under existing Policy R20.01, was invited by the Chair to comment on the proposed

policy. He expressed his opinion that the proposed policy was a very sensible and

workable policy. He also felt that while the policy provided protection to research

subjects, it was unlikely to bog down the research process within the university.

Reference was made to the definition of researcher (Section 2.1) which seemed to

imply that the term included both the supervisor and people underneath the

supervisor. Concern was expressed that if misconduct by one member of the

research group occurred, the supervisor would also be held responsible for this

action. It was pointed out that there was a specific policy in place for issues of

misconduct and that policy would have its own definitions. Since each policy stood

alone definitions from one policy to another do not carry over.

S.M. 9 July 2001

Page 6

In response to an inquiry as to whether consideration had been given to the six

comments from the Tr-Councils, Senate was advised that a lot of thought had been

given to the comments but it was felt that there was no need to incorporate them

into the policy as it stands. It was suggested, however, that the policy be monitored

in light of the comments which may or may not need to be addressed when the

policy comes up for review in the future.

Reference was made to Section 1.6 with respect to the first sentence regarding the

various classes of research that are excluded from requirements of ethics review. In

order to clarify the wording, it was suggested that reference to Simon Fraser

University be added and the following revised wording was accepted as a friendly

amendment:

1.6 Certain classes of research involving human subjects are excluded

from the requirement of ethics review

by the Research Ethics Board at

Simon Fraser University.

Question was called, and a vote taken.

MOTION CARRIED

Other Business

There was no other business.

Information

There is no Senate meeting in August. Date of the next regularly scheduled meeting

of Senate is Monday, September 17, 2001.

Open Session ended at 8:25 pm and, following a brief recess, Senate moved into Closed

Session.

Alison Watt

Director, University Secretariat