friendly amendment.

. ?

DRAFT UNTIL APPROVED BY SENATE

- ?

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

Monday, April 8, 2002 at 5:30 pm in Room 3210 WMC

OPEN SESSION

Present: Stevenson, Michael, President and Chair of Senate

Aloi, Santa

Atkins, Stella

Chan, Albert

Clayman, Bruce

Copeland, Lynn

Davidson, Willie

Deigrande, James

Driver, Jon

Dunsterville, Valerie

Gerson, Carole

Haunerland, Norbert

Hill, Ross

Jackson, Margaret

Jones, John

Krane, Bill

Lewis, Brian

Love, Ernie

McFetridge, Paul

McInnes, Dina

Naef, Barbara

Paterson, David

Percival, Paul

Pierce, John

Russell, Robert

Steinbach, Chris

Stephenson, Brock

Thompson, Janny (representing R

Waterhouse, John

Yerbury, Cohn

Zaichkowsky, Judith

Absent: Chang, Jack

D'Auria, John

Dempster, Peter

Gill, Alison

Grimmett, Peter

Heaney, John

Jensen, Britta

Jones, Cohn

Klymson, Sarah

Mauser, Gary

McArthur, James

Muirhead, Leah

Peters, Joseph

Sekhon, Devinder

Sirri, Odai

Tansey, Caralyn

Thandi, Ranbir

Van Aalst, Jan

Warren, Joel

Weldon, Larry

Wessel, Silvia

Wong, Milton

Wortis, Michael

In attendance:

Hibbitts, Pat

Barrow) ?

Osborne, Judith

Watt, Alison, Director, University Secretariat

Grant, Bobbie, Recording Secretary

S.M. 8 April 2002

Page

Approval of the Agenda

The Agenda was approved as distributed.

Approval of the Minutes of the Open Session of March 4, 2002

The Minutes were approved as distributed.

Business Arising from the Minutes

There was no business arising from the Minutes.

Report of the Chair

As follow-up to his report at the last meeting, the Chair advised that the

budget letter to the University had been received. The news was not as

good as anticipated since the grants decline over the next three years by a

significant amount in absolute dollars and by a considerable amount in

per capita FTE equivalent grants. Grant funding has been received for the

Double the Opportunity Program in the amount anticipated and full

funding has been received for the initiative in Surrey. Particulars with

respect to capital and infrastructure funding required for the Double the

Opportunity Program have not yet been received but the Government has

indicated a commitment to a capital/ infrastructure program and the

University is submitting plans for its share. The letter confirms the lack of

funding for general inflation, cash limit mandates for previously

approved wage improvements, and the withdrawal of selected financial

assistance programs for graduate and undergraduate students. The

combined effect of these elements results in a projected deficit of 8.9

million dollars for 2002/03 which has to be resolved because the

University Act requires a balanced budget.

The situation leaves stark choices for the University. Either a reduction in

expenditures and cuts to programs will have to be made or revenues will

have to be increased. In the short term, increased revenue cannot be made

up by endowments or gifts to the University so heavy pressure is put on

tuition fees. The University cannot afford further threats to the quality of

education on top of the accumulated impact of underfunding over past

years. A recommendation with respect to tuition increases will be

presented as a Notice of Motion at the April meeting of the Board of

Governors with full debate to take place at the May meeting.

The Chair made reference to the recent publicity on campus for a "Swamp

the BOG" protest at the April Board meeting. This follows upon a

disruption of the last meeting of the Board of Governors. Protests of this

nature prevent open and civil discussion of these issues. The Chair noted

that the fee issue is a very pressing and difficult issue for the university

and deserves a full opportunity for the airing of different points of views

so it is hoped that no such disruption will take place in the future.

S.M. 8 April 2002

Page 3

Ouestion Period

There were no questions submitted.

Reports of Committees

Senate Committee on Agenda and Rules

i) ?

Paper S.02-27 - Chairs Appointment Policy

Moved by B. Clayman, seconded by J

Waterhouse

"that Senate approve and recommend approval to the Board

of Governors, the revised Policy A13.02 - Appointment of

Departmental Chairs and Directors of Schools, as set forth in

S.02-27"

J .

Osborne, Acting Associate Vice-President, Policy, Equity and Legal was

in attendance in order to respond to questions.

Reference was made to Section 4.2 and discussion took place with regard

to the meaning of the word 'normally' in the second sentence. It was noted

• that this sentence was in conflict with a later clause which protected a

Chair from a further reconsideration for one year following a

reconsideration. It was suggested that the wording provided a signal

indicating that only in extraordinary circumstances would a recall request

be considered in the first year of a Chair's appointment.

Amendment moved by P. Percival, seconded by B. Stephenson

"that the word 'normally" be deleted from the second

sentence of paragraph 4.2"

It was noted that the amendment would retain the sentiment expressed in

4.6 and if under extremely unusual circumstances it became necessary to

remove a Chair in the first year, the Dean or the Vice-President Academic

had the authority to initiate procedures.

Question was called, and a vote taken.

AMENDMENT CARRIED

Reference was made to the first sentence of paragraph 1.3 regarding

gender balance and opinion expressed that the intent was not clear. A

suggestion to

strike the word 'members'

from this sentence was accepted as a

friendly amendment.

is ?

Discussion turned to Section 4- Reconsideration.

S.M. 8 April 2002

Page 4

Amendment moved by J

Deigrande, seconded by J

Zaichkowsky

"that section 4.4 be amended to the effect that the Dean will

provide a copy of the text of the reconsideration request

without signatures to the Chair"

Points of view expressed opposing the amendment included the

following: people who complain should be prepared to have their identity

made public; everyone has the right to know the nature of the complaint

and where it came from; academic freedom allows faculty members to

express their opinions freely so there should be no consequences to

making the names known; signatures are part of the document and

reaction to the document may depend on who signed it; having to sign

guarantees the complaint is of substance and the person feels strongly

about the issue.

One argument in favour of the motion was that having the signatures

revealed might prevent some colleagues from expressing their concern.

Another reason mentioned was that a Chair might act negatively towards

a complainant in assigning teaching responsibilities, for example.

Question was called, and a vote taken.

AMENDMENT DEFEATED

It was suggested that a time limit be placed on the conflict resolution

process referred to in section 4.4. It was pointed out that conflict

resolution was not amenable to strict guidelines, some cases could be

simple, others complex, so the Dean has been given responsibility for

setting a timeline if the process is undertaken.

Reference was made to section 4.6 and clarification was requested whether

60% of the voting faculty means faculty members who are eligible to vote

or those who actually cast a ballot. Senate was advised that the rules for

ratification and the rules for reconsideration were now parallel in terms of

language and it referred to those who vote.

An amendment by J

Delgrande to reduce the 60% threshold to 50% failed

for want of a seconder.

Referring to voter eligibility in section 6, opinion was expressed that the

wording was ambiguous and needed clarification with respect to the term

'leave of absence'. Discussion ensued with respect to the variety and

lengths of leaves of absence. It was pointed out that this wording

paralleled the rules regarding ratification votes. A proposed amendment

to replace 'unpaid' with '100%' was withdrawn by the mover.

Discussion again turned to the required 60% support needed for

reconsideration and inquiry was made as to why it was deemed better to

have 60% rather than a simple majority. It was noted generally that recall

S.M. 8 April 2002

Page 5

• votes have a much higher threshold level than a simple majority and it

avoided the possibility of having such a serious issue decided by a margin

of one vote.

Opinion was expressed that a certain number or percentage of the total

faculty eligible to vote should be required in addition to the 60% of voting

members. However, it was pointed out that in that configuration people

could thwart a vote by not voting. Comments were made that it was very

unlikely that half the faculty would abstain from voting in such a serious

and extraordinary situation and that 60% was sufficient.

Questions arose with respect to the percentages referred to in the second

sentence of section 1.3 and a suggestion to change the wording as follows

was accepted as a

friendly amendment:

"Appropriate representation will

vary by discipline but should be

no less than 2 and no more than 6

male or

female members.' Discussion ensued with respect to distribution of

membership by gender and the number of committee members, and the

following wording was added as a

friendly amendment

"no less than two

(at least one of whom must be a faculty member) or more than 6 male or female

members"

in place of "20% or greater than 80%".

Further discussion took place about how to ensure appropriate gender

balance and still meet the requirements of 1.2 and 1.3. Considerable

• discussion ensued about the electoral process and a variety of scenarios

were debated. It was pointed out that this wording had not changed from

the previous policy and Senate was assured that the process had worked

over the years.

Question was called, and a vote taken. ?

MOTION CARRIED

ii) ?

Paper S.02-28 -

P. Hibbitts, Vice-President Finance and Administration was in attendance

in order to respond to questions.

A comment was expressed about the vagueness of the document. Senate

was advised that the policy was general because it was intended to

provide the basis for the development of specific procedures outlined at

the end of the policy. In the interim, Senate was advised that there was an

emergency plan in place and an emergency group that met regularly but

there had not been an official policy until now.

Reference was made to the statement under Scope that the Emergency

Operations Centre would coordinate operations at Harbour Centre and

Burnaby if a disaster affects both campuses, and concern was expressed

that communications between the two campuses might not be possible in

S.M. 8 April 2002

Page 6

certain disasters. Senate was advised that there would be a designated

person at Harbour Centre who would take responsibility in that event.

In response to an inquiry relating to the Director of Emergency Operations

Centre, Senate was advised that this would not be a new person but likely

a senior person from Facilities Management.

A question arose about whether a reference to SFU at Surrey should be

included. Senate's attention was drawn to the phrase "where a disaster

affects another location", in the last sentence under "Scope" and was

advised that this would cover other locations such as Surrey and

Kamloops. It was also noted that once SFU at Surrey becomes a legal

entity, policies will be reviewed to reflect that change.

iii) ?

Paper S.02-29 - Tech BC Update (For Information)

Senate was advised that the document had been distributed to inform

Senate fully as to the nature of the arrangement between the University

and the Ministry of Advanced Education and to provide current

information about the developments with respect to the Surrey campus.

Prospective faculty members for the Surrey program have been

interviewed and recommendations are in progress to appoint a sufficient

number to staff the program for the next year. A question arose with

respect to what fraction of current Tech BC faculty and staff are likely to

be offered employment at SFU. Although the fraction was not available,

Senate was advised that 27 faculty were to be hired and that the staff

situation was still evolving.

Reference was made to point 8 on page 7 with respect to commitment to

on-line learning and inquiry was made as to how much flexibility there

was within the agreement to use advanced technologies to support on-line

learning. Senate was advised that the intent is to look carefully at the

success of this learning style, its cost, and its applicability elsewhere in the

University before making a decision as to whether or not it should be

continued.

Other Business

There was no other business.

Information

The date of the next regularly scheduled meeting of Senate is Monday,

May 13, 2002.

Open Session adjourned at 6:44 pm and moved directly into Closed Session.

Alison Watt

Director, University Secretariat