was accepted as a friendly amendment.
read:

DRAFT UNTIL APPROVED BY SENATE

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

Monday, October 7, 2002 at 5:30 pm in Room 3210 WMC

Open Session

Present:: Stevenson, Michael

President and Chair of Senate

Absent:

Apaak, Clement

Atkins, Stella

Bourke, Brynn

Gordon, Robert

Gupta, Kamal

Heaney, John

Horvath, Adam

Jones, John

McArthur, James

Naef, Barbara

Poirier, Guy

Poletz, Taira

Warren, Joel

Weldon, Larry

Wessel, Silvia

Wong, Milton

Zaichkowsky, Judith

Al-Natour, Sameh

Aloi, Santa

Andrews, Ian

Beynon, Peter

Blackman, Roger

Brokenshire, David

Chen, Danny

Clayman, Bruce

Copeland, Lynn

D'Auria, John

Davidson, Willie

Driver, Jon

Dunsterville, Valerie

Garcia, Carlos

Gerson, Carole

Gill, Alison

Grimmett, Peter

Haunerland, Norbert

Higgins, Anne

Hill, Ross

Jackson, Margaret

Jensen, Britta

Jones, Cohn

Kemper, Michelle

Krane, Bill

Love, Ernie

Mauser, Gary

McFetridge, Paul

Parkhouse, Wade (representing B. Lewis)

Percival, Paul

Peters, Joseph

Phipps, Kate

Russell, Robert

Smith, Don

Thandi, Ranbir

Tyab, Azam

Vaisey, Jacques

Van Aalst, Jan

Waterhouse, John

Yerbury, Cohn

In attendance:

Heath, Nick

Krebs, Dennis

Morris, Dave

Heath, Ron, Dean of Student Services and Registrar

Watt, Alison, Director, University Secretariat

Grant, Bobbie, Recording Secretary

S.M. 7 Oct 2002

Page 2

Concern was expressed that Senate's meeting time had been changed to

accommodate the Chair's schedule rather than having the meeting chaired by the

Vice Chair of Senate at the normal time. The Chair indicated that SCAR had felt

it important for the President to be in attendance for the presentation of the

annual financial statements and that this would not be a regular occurrence.

Approval of the Agenda

The Agenda was approved as distributed.

Approval of the Minutes of the Open Session of September 16, 2002

Several grammatical/ typographical errors were noted, and an annotated copy of

the minutes with the corrections was submitted to the Secretary. Reference was

made to the fourth paragraph on page 5. A suggestion was made to change the

wording from 'maximize resources' to 'optimize resources'.

Following these amendments, the Minutes were approved.

Business Arising from the Minutes

There was no business arising from the Minutes.

Report of the Chair

On behalf of Senate, the Chair extended a welcome to the following new student

Senators: Sameh Al-Natour and David Brokenshire.

Dr. Decha Sungkawan, Dean of Graduate Studies, Thammasat University in

Bangkok was introduced to Senate. Senate was advised that Dr. Sungkawan is

reviewing SFU's graduate studies policies and procedures and the role that

research plays at the University as part of the Thai government's efforts to

upgrade its university systems.

i) ?

Paper S.02-71 - Annual Financial Statements (For Information)

D. Morris, Assistant Director of Accounting Services was in attendance in order

to respond to questions.

Reference was made to page 20 under the description of TRIUMF. It was

pointed out that each university appoints two members to the management

board, not three as stated in the report. This same error occurred in last year's

report and was pointed out at that time.

In response to an inquiry, clarification was provided as to what "prior year

appropriations" on page 2 under Revenue referred to.

Reference was made to page 8, Statement of Operations and Changes in

Operating Net Assets and a brief discussion ensued with respect to the increase

in revenue in relation to the increase in research activities with respect to grants

and contracts.

S.M. 7 Oct 2002

Page 3

Ouestion Period

There were no questions.

Reports of Committees

Senate Nominating Committee

i) ?

Paper S.02-72 - Elections

Senate was advised that no further nominations had been received. Gary Mauser

was therefore elected by acclamation to the Senate Committee on University

Priorities (SCUP) for term of office to May 31, 2004, and Anne MacDonald was

elected by acclamation to the Senate Committee on University Teaching and

Learning (SCUTL) for term of office to May 31, 2004. All other vacancies would

be carried forward to the next meeting of Senate.

Senate Committee on University

Priorities

i) ?

Paper S.02-73 - Final Report of the Ad Hoc Senate Committee to Review

and Develop the Undergraduate Curricula

D. Krebs, Chair of the Ad Hoc Committee, as well as several members of the

Committee were in attendance. D. Krebs was seated in order to respond to

questions and was asked by the Chair to provide a brief summary of the process

leading to the development of the motions before Senate.

Senate was advised that the Committee, consisting of faculty and student

representation, had been formed in January 2001 and had actively met since its

formation. The process which produced the recommendations reflected several

phases. The first phase which the Committee characterized as information

gathering lasted almost a year. During this period the Committee consulted

extensive documentation, reviewed curriculum at other universities, and met

with several departments and programs within SFU. At the end of this phase a

discussion paper was produced which was well publicized and widely

distributed. The next phase was a period of feedback and consultation

culminating in the publication of the penultimate report. The penultimate report

was also widely distributed and published on the web and the SFU community

was asked for feedback. The report also was presented to SCUS, SCUP and

Senate for discussion. Revisions were made and the final report was produced.

In addition to numerous changes for clarification and elaboration, the final report

reflects two substantial changes from the penultimate report: (a) it includes

explicit details and clarification with respect to the impact of additional

requirements in highly specialized concentrations, and (b) it clarifies that courses

designated as quantitative (Q) intensive courses need not necessarily involve

Mathematics. The Committee has offered a set of principles and guidelines and

it was for Senate to decide whether to continue to the next stage or abort the

entire initiative. It was pointed out that the motion did not ask Senate to vote on

all the particulars and details in the recommendations. The Committee wanted

to provide a fair amount of detail in order to give a good sense of the intent of

the motions but the details will have to be worked out in consultation with

S.M. 7 Oct 2002

Page 4

departments and programs and in the end may have to change in order to

accommodate various constraints, particularly in highly specialized programs.

Motion 1

Moved by J

Waterhouse, seconded by R. Blackman

"that Senate approve in principle the establishment of a 6-credit

writing requirement for all Bachelor's level degrees in a manner

consistent with the guidelines in the June 24, 2002 Final Report of

the Ad Hoc Curriculum Committee and in ways that do not

infringe upon the integrity of existing undergraduate programs"

Concern was expressed that the final report had not been reviewed by SCUS and

that questions raised by SCUS following consideration of the penultimate report

were not addressed in the final report. It was noted that the final report was

produced on June 24' whereas the SCUS feedback on the penultimate report was

only received on July

29th•

It was pointed out that SCUS had had an extended

discussion with the Committee and the final report reflected that input.

Clarification was requested on the meaning of the motion, particularly with

respect to a possible inconsistency contained in the contrasting notions of a

"requirement" and an "opt out" provision. The Chair explained that if the in

principle motions were approved, Senate should expect a six credit writing

requirement to be developed for all bachelors programs, unless exemptions are

approved through the normal Senate approval processes.

A question was posed as to why the motion limited itself to existing programs. If

a new program was proposed that was of academic value to the university but

did not meet this requirement was the intent of the motion to restrict the

introduction of such a program. Senate was advised that the inclusion of the

word existing was in direct response to feedback received from various units on

campus.

A suggestion to remove the word 'existing' from Motions

1, 2

and 3

was accepted as a friendly amendment.

Reference was made to the wording 'infringe upon the integrity' and concern

was expressed that the addition of extra credits would not necessarily infringe on

the integrity of a program but it would be deemed unacceptable to existing

programs. Suggestion was made that wording should be included to reflect that

the implementation of the requirement would not necessitate the addition of

credits to existing programs. Senate was assured that there was no intent to

increase credit hour requirements in degree programs as a result of any of the

motions before Senate. The intent was to have a university level writing

requirement for all programs but the motion also permitted exemptions if

departments could demonstrate that the integrity of the program would be

impaired. The application to opt out would go through the normal university

approval processes - SCUS, SCUP, Senate - for approval. It was stressed that the

motion does not state that students must take six additional credits, it simply

states that six credit hours of the courses taken within a degree program should

have a writing requirement and be so designated as a writing course.

S.M. 7 Oct 2002

Page 5

Considerable discussion followed with respect to details of implementation,

resource and support services.

Amendment moved by P. Percival, seconded by J

D'Auria ?

"that 'six credits' be deleted from the motion"

It was suggested that specifying a certain number of credits was an

implementation issue rather than an issue of principle and therefore the

reference should be deleted and the details decided on later. It was pointed out

that if too many details were removed the motions would become vacuous and

give little guidance to the implementation committees.

Question was called, and a vote taken.

AMENDMENT FAILED

M. Stevenson left the meeting and the Vice-Chair, P. McFetridge, assumed the

Chair.

Request was made to call the question on the main motion and Senate was asked

to vote on whether the question should be called.

VOTE TO PROCEED TO QUESTION FAILED.

Concern was expressed with the use of the term 'opting out'. It was suggested

that departments would have to prepare and submit justification for an

exemption from a university wide requirement and this would require approval

from the Faculty level through the normal processes to Senate.

Discussion turned to the meaning of 'in principle' in relation to 'consistent with

the guidelines'. Interpretation was provided by the Vice President Academic

that the implementation committee would be urged to consider the comments

included in the recommendations under writing requirement as well as the

guidelines and to develop specific implementation processes which would have

to be approved by Senate.

Amendment moved by P. Percival, seconded by G. Mauser

"that the words 'in a manner consistent with the guidelines in the

June 24, 2002 Final Report of the Ad Hoc Curriculum Committee

and in ways that do not infringe upon the integrity of

undergraduate programs' be deleted from the motion"

Opinion was expressed that the purpose of approval in principle should be

direction and orientation to the implementation committee and that they should

not be restricted to the guidelines as outlined in the document. It was noted that

the whole question of the implementation process and the guidelines provided

by the ad hoc committee was included in motion 6.

It was noted that the Committee had provided a set of directions for the way in

which the University should approach the requirement and to delete reference to

S.M. 7 Oct 2002

Page 6

the report would be inappropriate. It was also pointed out that it was important,

especially to highly structured programs, that the clause about not infringing on

the integrity of programs remain part of the motion.

With the agreement of the mover and seconder the

amendment was changed to

read:

"that the words 'in a manner consistent with the guidelines in the

June 24, 2002 Final Report of the Ad Hoc Curriculum Committee

and' be deleted from the motion"

It was reiterated that deletion of the reference to the committee's report left the

motion too unspecific and concern was expressed that the implementation

committee would not benefit from the guidance provided by the committee's

report.

Question was called, and a vote taken.

AMENDMENT FAILED

Senate was advised that the motion, as amended, was as follows:

"that Senate approve in principle the establishment of a 6-credit

writing requirement for all Bachelor's level degrees in a manner

consistent with the guidelines in the June 24, 2002 Final Report of

the Ad Hoc Curriculum Committee and in ways that do not

infringe upon the integrity of undergraduate programs"

Question was called, and a vote taken.

MOTION 1 CARRIED

Motion 2

Moved by J

Waterhouse, seconded by R. Blackman

"that Senate approve in principle the establishment of a 6-credit

quantitative requirement for all Bachelor's level degrees in a

manner consistent with the guidelines in the June 24, 2002 Final

Report of the Ad Hoc Curriculum Committee and in ways that do

not infringe upon the integrity of undergraduate programs"

Concern was expressed about Arts students who might not have a strong

mathematical background being able to meet the math requirement/ math exam

required for registration for Q courses.

Amendment was moved by P. Percival, seconded by C. Garcia

"that the words 'in a manner consistent with the guidelines in the

June 24, 2002 Final Report of the Ad Hoc Curriculum Committee

and' be deleted from the motion"

The concern about the impact of this requirement on Arts students was stressed,

especially in view of the details of implementation contained in the guidelines.

Reference was made to the list of existing non-mathematical courses with

S.M. 7 Oct 2002

Page 7

significant "Q" content and concern was expressed that the guidelines as

currently written would require students to take a Math exam prior to

registration in any of these courses.

It was stressed that the guidelines were to be used as a framework for the

implementation committee and that when the task force considers these issues

and makes recommendations, Senate will have opportunity to express its views

on the specifics. Opinion was expressed that the current discussion should

therefore be restricted to whether, as a matter of principle, there should be a six

credit quantitative requirement.

Question was called, and a vote taken. ?

AMENDMENT FAILED

Considerable discussion followed with respect to details of implementation,

resource and support issues. The Vice President, Academic stated his intent to

put in place not only support mechanisms for students but support for the

development of courses. This issue has been given some consideration and it

was felt that with reasonable adjustments to the university budget both the

implementation of the recommendations and the implementation of support

resources can be accomplished.

Request was made to call the question on the main motion and Senate was asked

to vote on whether the question should be called.

VOTE TO PROCEED TO QUESTION CARRIED.

Question was called, and a vote taken.

MOTION 2 CARRIED

Motion 3

Moved by J

Waterhouse, seconded by B. Clayman

"that Senate approve in principle the establishment of a 24-credit

breadth requirement for all Bachelor's level degrees in a manner

consistent with the guidelines in the June 24, 2002 Final Report of

the Ad Hoc Curriculum Committee and in ways that do not

infringe upon the integrity of undergraduate programs"

The issue of how heavily structured programs would operate within this

requirement was raised. It was noted that most programs at SFU already require

students to take a relatively large number of credits outside their programs. The

intent of this recommendation was that departments should designate breadth

courses within their areas that would satisfy breadth requirements. It was

recognized that in highly specified programs there may not be room to fit in any

extra breadth requirements and that was the reason for including the "integrity"

clause. The guidelines were intended to provide direction on how to achieve

breadth but the decision as to what constitutes breadth would be developed by

the individual programs and departments. Concerns were expressed about

imposing specific courses on students as it was felt that breadth should provide

students with the flexibility and freedom to choose for themselves. Considerable

S.M. 7 Oct 2062

Page 8

discussion ensued with respect to implementation details and existing practices

with respect to obtaining breadth in programs.

A request was made that the next step in the process be explicitly explained and

recorded in the minutes. Senate was advised that the following activities would

follow approval of the motions. A committee or task force comprised of one

representative from each of the Faculties and student representation would be

formed to consult with Faculties and develop university requirements that

would appear in the Calendar. These requirements would require approval by

SCUS, SCUP and Senate and at each step there would be opportunity for faculty

comment and input on the recommendations. With regard to the writing,

quantitative and breadth requirements, departments would be asked to identify

courses and requirements which would then require approval at the Faculty

level through SCUS, SCUP to Senate. In addition, departments that wished to be

exempted from some of the requirements because of the program integrity

argument would present their request for approval at the Faculty level through

the normal committees to Senate.

Question was called, and a vote taken.

MOTION 3 CARRIED

Senators were reminded that the meeting time limit of three hours had been

reached and that a motion was required in order to continue.

Moved by J

Waterhouse, seconded by I. Andrews

"that the meeting be extended in order to consider

Motions 4, 5 and 6"

vote taken.

Question was called, and a MOTION TO EXTEND MEETING TIME CARRIED

Motion 4

Moved by J

Waterhouse, seconded by R. Blackman

"that Senate recommend that two GPAs be calculated and

exhibited on students" transcripts: the overall cumulative GPA (as

is now done), plus a separate partial GPA for courses within each

student's major program, as determined by that program"

Senate was advised that the intention was that students should not be penalized

in terms of their GPAs for experimenting in courses outside their major.

Opinion was expressed that creating a partial GPA would create two classes of

students and by calculating the GPAs differently, there might be little incentive

for students to do well in the courses and might affect the adjudication of

scholarships. It was noted that GPAs were already calculated in specific ways

depending on requirements of granting agencies and that students concerned

about maintaining a good CGPA would still do their best to get a good grade in

whatever course they took. It was stressed that this motion would not change a

S.M. 7 Oct 2002

Page 9

student's cumulative grade point average for the purposes of calculating

scholarships, entrance requirements, etc.

Amendment moved by A. Tyab, seconded by K. Phipps

"that a sentence be added to the motion stating that the calculation

of the UDGPA will continue to be calculated and be part of the

student transcript"

It was noted that Upper Division GPA was often used in graduate school

admissions and concern was expressed that the lack of reference to the retention

of the UDGPA implied that it would be dropped. It was stressed that the motion

did not imply that the UDGPA would be dropped.

Question was called, and a vote taken. ?

AMENDMENT FAILED

Senate was reminded that the motivation for the requirement was to encourage

breadth experimentation without penalization. It was suggested that if the

breadth courses were important enough to be part of a student's program they

should not be treated differently from core courses and therefore it was not

necessary to have two GPAs.

Question was called, and a vote taken.

MOTION 4 CARRIED

Motion 5

Moved by J

Waterhouse, seconded by J

Driver

"that Senate authorize the Vice-President, Academic to establish a

task force to address the issues of course availability, accessibility

and timely completion as described in recommendation 6 of the

June 24, 2002 Final Report of the Ad Hoc Curriculum Committee"

Senate was advised that the ad hoc committee identified a problem with respect

to course availability for students who must take particular courses for their

degree requirements and the intent of the motion is to establish a task force to

address this issue.

Amendment moved by K. Phipps, seconded by A. Tyab

"that the following sentence be added to the motion: the

development and maintenance of additional support services such

as writing and math centres be added to the issues which the task

force will address"

S.M. 7 Oct 2002

Page 10

It was noted that the motion addresses the general issue of availability for all

courses in the university and therefore the amendment was not germane to the

motion.

Question was called, and a vote taken.

AMENDMENT FAILED

Question was called, and a vote taken.

MOTION 5 CARRIED

Motion 6

Moved by J

Waterhouse, seconded by R. Blackman

"that Senate authorize the Vice-President, Academic to establish an

implementation task force structure that includes appropriate

representation from each Faculty to assist academic units to

implement Motions 1 through 4. Motions 1 through 4 will be

implemented in accordance with established university policies

and procedures (as outlined in the Terms of Reference for the

Senate Committee on Undergraduate Studies) and the guidelines

provided by the Ad Hoc Curriculum Committee in its June 24, 2002

Final Report. Further, Senate recommends that sufficient resources

be allocated to ensure the effective implementation of Motions 14"

In response to an inquiry, Senate was assured that there would be no change to

Calendar copy until specific revisions were approved by Senate.

A suggestion to add student representation to the implementation task force

structure was accepted as a

friendly amendment.

A suggestion to replace the words ' appropriate representation' to 'elected

representation' was also accepted as a

friendly amendment.

Amendment moved by K. Phipps, seconded by A. Tyab

"that the following sentence be added to the motion: the

development and maintenance of additional support services such

as writing and math centres be added to the issues which the task

force will address"

As a point of clarification it was noted that the intent was to have a two centres -

a writing centre and a math centre.

r-1

Question was called, and a vote taken. ?

AMENDMENT CARRIED

S.M. 7 Oct 2002

Page 11

0 ?

Senate was advised that the motion, as amended, was as follows:

"that Senate authorize the Vice-President, Academic to establish an

implementation task force structure that includes

elected

representation from each Faculty

and student representation

to assist

academic units to implement Motions 1 through 4. Motions 1

through 4 will be implemented in accordance with established

university policies and procedures (as outlined in the Terms of

Reference for the Senate Committee on Undergraduate Studies)

and the guidelines provided by the Ad Hoc Curriculum Committee

in its June 24, 2002 Final Report. Further, Senate recommends that

sufficient resources be allocated to ensure the effective

implementation of Motions 1-4. The development and maintenance of

additional support services such as a writing centre and a math centre be

added to the issues which the task force will address"

Question was called, and a vote taken. MOTION 6 (AS AMENDED) CARRIED

Moved by M. Kemper, seconded by J

D'Auria

"that Senate adjourn following completion of agenda item 6.C.i and

that all further items on the agenda be referred to the next meeting

of Senate"

Question was called, and a vote taken.

MOTION CARRIED

On behalf of Senate, the Chair thanked Dr. Krebs and members of the Committee

for all of their hard work.

C) ?

Senate Committee on Undergraduate Studies

Paper S.02-74 - Proposed changes to Academic Standing and Continuance

Regulations

Moved by J

Waterhouse, seconded by R. Blackman

"that Senate approve the proposed changes to regulations

governing Academic Standing and Continuance, as set forth in

S.02-74, in effect as of Summer Semester 2003"

N. Heath, Director of Admissions, was in attendance in order to respond to

questions.

Senate was advised that, in this document, SCUS has attempted to correct some

anomalies within the regulations and make the Calendar language more

coherent and comprehensible. Inquiry was made about the process relative to

S.M. 7 Oct 2002

Page 12

letters of permission and Senate was advised that the change of wording

guarantees that credit would not be granted to students with RTW or EW

standing.

Question was called, and a vote taken.

MOTION CARRIED

The meeting adjourned at 9:00 pm. The remaining agenda items would be carried over

to the next meeting of Senate.

Alison Watt

Director, University Secretariat