amendment:
amendment.

. ?

DRAFT UNTIL APPOVED BY SENATE

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

Monday, January 6, 2003 at 7:00 pm in Room 3120 WMC

Open Session

Present: Stevenson, Michael

President and Chair of Senate

Aloi, Santa

Andrews, Ian

Beynon, Peter

Brokenshire, David

Chen, Danny

Clayman, Bruce

Copeland, Lynn

D'Auria, John

Davidson, Willie

Driver, Jon

Dunsterville, Valerie

Gerson, Carole

Gordon, Robert

Gupta, Kamal

Haunerland, Norbert

Hill, Ross

Horvath, Adam

Jackson, Margaret

Kemper, Michelle

Krane, Bill

Lewis, Brian

Love, Ernie

McFetridge, Paul

Percival, Paul

Phipps, Kate

Pierce, John

Poirier, Guy

Poletz, Taira

Smith, Don

Thandi, Ranbir

Vaisey, Jacques

Van Aalst, Jan

Waterhouse, John

Weldon, Larry

Yerbury, Cohn

Absent:

Al-Natour, Sameh

Apaak, Clement

Atkins, Stella

Bourke, Brynn

Garcia, Carlos

Grimmett, Peter

Heaney, John

Higgins, Anne

Jensen, Britta

Jones, Cohn

Jones, John

Mauser, Gary

McArthur, James

Naef, Barbara

Peters, Joseph

Russell, Robert

Tyab, Azam

Warren, Joel

Wessel, Silvia

Wong, Milton

Zaichkowsky, Judith

In attendance:

Cameron, Rob

Dench, Sarah

Osborne, Judith

Percival, Graham

Weinberg, Hal

Whittlesea, Bruce

Heath, Nick, Acting Registrar

Watt, Alison, Director, University Secretariat

Grant, Bobbie, Recording Secretary

S.M. 6 January 2003

Page 2

Approval of the Agenda

The Agenda was approved as distributed.

Approval of the Minutes of the Open Session of December 2, 2002

The Minutes of the Open Session of December 2, 2002 were approved as

distributed.

Business Arising from the Minutes

Referring to the inquiry on page 3 concerning the President's authority to

overturn findings of the UBSD as opposed to changing a penalty

recommendation, Senate was informed that the President was not constrained by

policy in that regard. However, the President reiterated that this had happened

only rarely and under extraordinary circumstances.

Report of the Chair

The Chair reported that two key reports had been issued which he felt would

interest Senate - the annual budget submission from The University Presidents'

Council (TUPC) and a report by the special task force of the Premier's Progress

Board regarding education and economic policies of the Government. Both

reports substantially overlap in their content and both address the question of

accessibility to universities. One of the key elements of the Task Force report is

that real investment must be made to address the access problem to higher

education which confirms what universities themselves have stressed to the

Government. The two reports are also in agreement with respect to the research

mission of the universities, namely funding and growth of enrolment in graduate

education and improved funding and capacity for the research community of

B.C. to participate in new research programs funded by the Federal Government.

The Chair indicated he would keep Senate informed as responses are made to the

reports.

Ouestion Period

No questions were submitted.

Reports of Committees

Senate Nominating Committee

i) ?

Paper S.03-1 - Elections

Senate received information that one nomination had been received, and that

Arthur Roberts was therefore elected by acclamation as the Faculty Member at-

large to the Committee to Review University Admissions (CRUA). All other

vacancies would be carried forward to the next meeting.

Research Ethics Board

i) ?

Paper S.03-2 - Annual Report (For Information)

B. Whittlesea, Chair of the Research Ethics Board and H. Weinberg, Director of

the Office of Research Ethics were in attendance in order to respond to questions.

Senate received the Annual Report of Research Ethics Board for information.

Senate Committee on University Priorities

S.M. 6 January 2003

Page 3

• ?

Senate Committee on Universit y

Priorities

i) ?

Paper S.03-3 - External Review - Master's of Pest Management

Moved by J

Waterhouse, seconded by P. Percival

"that Senate concur with the recommendations from the Senate

Committee on University Priorities concerning advice to the Dean

of Science, Department of Biological Sciences and the Master's of

Pest Management Program on priority items resulting from the

external review as outlined in S.03-3"

N. Haunerland, Senator and Chair of the Department of Biological Sciences

expressed concern with respect to SCUP's recommendations. He pointed out

that the report and subsequent responses contained many different

recommendations but none of the groups recommended a strictly course based

program such as the one recommended by SCUP. Senate was advised that there

was little interest within the Department to offer a course based program

without research involvement. The development of such a program would

involve major expense which the Department could not afford without taking

resources from other areas in the Department. If the motion was approved as it

stood, N. Haunerlarid felt that the Department would likely have to terminate

the program. The Department, as a whole, would prefer a research based

•

program with a reduced course involvement.

Senate was advised that SCUP's recommendations were based on presentations

from faculty involved in the Pest Management program, faculty in the

Department of Biological Sciences and from the Dean's office. Conflicting views

were presented and SCUP attempted to come up with a program which was

viable and economically possible within the Department of Biological Sciences.

Senate's attention was drawn to the first bullet in SCUP's recommendations and

it was reiterated that a research based degree with a specialization in Pest

Management was available through the existing M.Sc. program in the

Department. SCUP was told that there was a need in industry for people trained

in pest management and representatives from the Pest Management Program felt

the course based program option was an appropriate approach.

It was pointed out that there was a diversity of opinion among the people who

have historically been involved in teaching the Pest Management Program and

present members of the Department of Biological Sciences. Brief background

information was provided and opinion expressed that students should have the

option of both types of programs depending on how the Department felt it could

best offer the program. An amendment to the wording of the first bullet to add

'or the option of a research based M.Sc.' was suggested. The amendment was

considered out of order since the recommendation was from SCUP and did not

form part of the formal motion before Senate. It was pointed out that SCUP

• recommended the model it deemed appropriate, that it was a recommendation

not a requirement, and it was the prerogative of Departments to propose the

specifics of any academic programs.

S.M. 6 January 2003

Page 4

Opinion was expressed that although the recommendations did not form part of

the motion, the ancillary material was very important and there was a clear

implication that the Department was being asked to act on the recommendations

and report back. An amendment to add the following at the end of the motion

was suggested: "If the Dean and the Department find that these

recommendations can not be followed without a negative impact on its

undergraduate teaching and research program, alternative options should be

considered before terminating the program". It was felt that the amendment was

unnecessary since the recommendation was not intended to be a dictatorial

requirement of SCUP and the need to report back was simply to advise SCUP on

the outcome of its recommendations.

It was noted that the terms of reference of the external review asked whether the

Department should offer a course based professional program, possibly with

differential fees for an MPM degree and/or a research based program with

standard fees for a M.Sc. degree. What SCUP proposed was neither and

appeared to be a course-based program without differential fees. Senate was

advised that SCUP had understood that one of the factors that made the program

very expensive was the summer field program and so the recommendations

were crafted so that cost recovery fees could be charged for that expensive

component of the program. Since it was SCUP's understanding that the salaries

of graduates of the MPM program were similar to those in other M.Sc. programs,

SCUP felt that it was inappropriate to recommend differential fees even though it

was

Considerable

primarily a

discussion

course based

ensued

program.

in which

various suggestions to changes in

wording were considered. It was pointed out that many program options

already exist in other departments and suggestion was made that the

Department work with the Dean of Graduate Studies to explore what the best

option would be to continue the program.

The following change to the wording of the motion was accepted as a

friendly

amendment:

"that Senate

receives

the recommendations from the Senate

Committee on University Priorities concerning advice to the Dean

of Science, Department of Biological Sciences and the Master's of

Pest Management Program on priority items resulting from the

external review as outlined in S.03-3

and requests that the Department

of Biological Sciences consider these recommendations and report to

SCUP by July 2003 on its recommendations for the Pest Management

Program"

Brief discussion followed in which assurance was given by the Chair of the

Department of Biological Sciences that the Department would consult with the

Dean of Graduate Studies with respect to this process.

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

S.M. 6 January 2003

Page 5

• ii) Paper S.03-4 - Terms of Reference for Various Task Forces/Groups to

implement recommendations of Ad Hoc Senate Committee to Review and

Develop the Undergraduate Curricula (For Information)

In response to an inquiry, assurance was given that decisions emanating from the

work of the task force would be considered in accordance with existing

University approval processes and would come forward to Senate for final

approval.

Referring to the membership of the Implementation Task Force, it was pointed

out that faculty representatives were elected but the student representative was

appointed. A suggestion that the student representative be elected by Senate

was accepted.

An inquiry was made as to why each Faculty was not represented on the various

task forces/groups. Senate was advised that Faculty representation was in place

for the overall Task Force, but that more content specific expertise was required

for the support groups.

Following discussion, the document, with amendment, was received by Senate.

iii) ?

Paper S.03-5 - Guidelines for Development of Professional Master's

. ?

Programs at SFLJ

Moved by J. Driver, seconded by J. Waterhouse

"that Senate approve the Guidelines for Development of

Professional Master's Programs as outlined in document S.03-5"

Reference was made to Section IV.h and concern was expressed about the

principle of charging differential fees. Senate was advised that the purpose of

Section (h) was to ensure that Departments in developing new proposals address

funding issues with the appropriate Dean and Vice President.

In response to an inquiry, Senate was advised that the guidelines were primarily

for the development of new programs and that there was no intention to

reclassify existing programs.

Concern was expressed about the wording of Section II.b and the implied

preference for a cohort oriented program in Section IV.b. Senate was advised

that Section ll.b was an attempt to define what a professional program was and

to set out some criteria that would mark it as a professional program. The cohort

structure worked well in many professional programs and was used as an option

but it was stressed that these were guidelines and were not prescriptive.

. Brief discussion took place with respect to the use of the terms 'applied' and

'professional' and whether professional programs at the Ph.D. level should also

be included. Senate was informed that a recent change to legislation allowed

S.M. 6 January 2003

Page 6

BCIT and the University Colleges to offer professional Master's degrees and the

guidelines were established to clarify the programs at the University level and to

ensure that professional programs developed at SFU were consistent with the

University's values, particularly research values. There was suggestion that

guidelines for professional doctorates would likely require different

requirements and the Chair suggested that this issue could be taken up by the

Dean of Graduate Studies if there was sufficient interest.

Question was called, and a vote taken.

MOTION CARRIED

D) ?

Senate Committee on Undergraduate Studies

Paper S.03-6 - Faculty of Applied Sciences - Proposed Changes to BC

Grade 12 Admission Requirements

Moved by B. Lewis, seconded by B. Clayman

"that Senate approve changes to BC 12 Admission Requirements in

the Faculty of Applied Sciences as set forth in S.03-6"

Reference was made to the proposed chart on page 3. Under the column for

Engineering Science, a request to change the wording of the first cell within List 2

or 3 to 'any course' was made by Engineering Science and accepted as a friendly

amendment.

inquiry was

made about the process for informing high schools of this type of

change. Senate was advised that it was standard practice for the information to

be published in recruitment materials and to have a phase in period to permit

schools to adjust. Senate's attention was drawn to the last paragraph on page 4

of the document that sets out the phase-in provision.

Question was called, and a vote taken. ?

MOTION CARRIED

ii)

Paper S.03-7 - Proposed Changes to the Academic Credit Hour Load

Limits

Moved by J

Waterhouse, seconded by A. Horvath

"that Senate approve changes to the Academic Credit Hour load

limits as set forth in S.03-7"

Clarification was requested with respect to the intent of the motion. It was noted

that the motion requested Senate to approve changes but neither the motion nor

the document specified what the changes should be. Senate was advised that the

intent of the motion was to request each Faculty to establish course load limits

consistent with the principles set out in the documentation, and until such time

as Faculties specify this information, there would be no limitations if the motion

were approved.

S.M. 6 January 2003

Page 7

• The necessity of having such prescriptive regulations for students was

questioned and it was pointed out that it would be perfectly acceptable if a

Faculty did not wish to impose limitations.

Following a brief discussion, the following change to the wording of the motion

was accepted as a

friendly amendment

"that Senate approve changes to the

regulations regarding

academic

credit hour load limits as set forth in S.03-7

and recommends that the

credit hour limit by level be eliminated.

If a Faculty so desires a single

credit hour maximum can be set for students in a given Faculty credential

or program"

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

iii) Paper S.03-8 - Faculty of Education - New Course EDUC 311 (For

Information)

Senate received information that the Senate Committee on Undergraduate

Studies, acting under delegated authority, approved a new course - EDUC 311.

iv)

Paper S.03-9 - Faculty of Arts - Calendar Entry Revisions (For

Information)

Senate received information that the Senate Committee on Undergraduate

Studies, acting under delegated authority, approved editorial revisions in

calendar entry for the Faculty of Arts as outlined in S.03-9.

Paper S.03-10 - Deletion of courses not offered /Temporarily Withdrawn

Senate regulation provides that any courses not offered within a six semester

period be deleted from the Calendar unless adequate justification for retaining

the course is presented by the Department. Senate received information that the

Senate Committee on Undergraduate Studies, acting under delegated authority

approved the deletion of fourteen courses under this regulation.

Senate regulation also provides an option for departments to identify courses

that have not been offered as 'temporarily withdrawn' if they do not wish to

delete the course. Senate received information that the Senate Committee on

Undergraduate Studies, acting under delegated authority, identified thirty-three

courses under this category.

Calendar Committee

i) ?

Paper S.03-11 - Academic Calendar of Events for 2003-3 to 2004-2

Moved by B. Krane, seconded by V. Dunsterville

"that Senate approve the proposed Academic Calendar of Events

for 2003-3 to 2004-2, as set forth in S.03-11"

S.M. 6 January 2003

Page 8

It was pointed out that although the documentation before Senate referred to

three academic years, SCAR reminded the Calendar Committee of the need to

evaluate the reading break before Senate considers the schedule for 2004/5 and

2005/6, and consequently, only the first year was before Senate for approval.

Reference was made to the Spring Semester 2004-1 and concern was expressed

about the start of exams one day before Easter break. It was pointed out that

having exams start after the Easter break would extend the exam period by more

than one day and would interfere with the start of the Summer semester.

Although Summer Semester 2006 was not under consideration at this time, May

15th as the date for Victoria Day was questioned and request was made for the

Committee to confirm the exact date.

A senator asked why the deadline dates for graduate grades were not included

in the schedule. Senate was informed that the schedule was presented in the

normal manner and this is the main schedule from which a series of other dates

and deadlines are determined. It was suggested that graduate grades were due

too early and should be due on the same day as all other grades. The Chair of

the Committee advised that the Committee would review this item.

Question was called, and a vote taken.

MOTION CARRIED

Since there was one other invited guest, the Chair suggested that Senate consider

agenda Item G.i at this point so that the guest need not wait any longer. There

were no objections to this suggestion.

G) Senate Committee on Agenda and Rules

i) ?

Paper S.03-16

Confidentiality Polic

- 110.10 (For Information)

J. Osborne, Associate Vice-President, Policy, Equity and Legal was in attendance

in order to respond to questions.

Senate was advised that the policy was a codification of existing University

practice as now required by Provincial Legislation. It was prompted by a recent

ruling of the Information and Privacy Commissioner in which it was suggested

that it would be useful if the University explicitly stated its operating rules with

regard to this issue. The University community was widely consulted in the

draft process and many useful suggestions were received.

A question arose with respect to employment performance versus employment

history. Senate was advised that performance was covered under employment

history as the term was broadly construed.

Following discussion, the paper was received by Senate.

F) ?

Senate Graduate Studies Committee

S.M. 6 January 2003

Page 9

•

i) ?

Paper S.03-12 - Faculty of Applied Sciences - Graduate Curriculum

Revisions (For Information) - Computing Science

The following minor editorial revisions for clarification were made: i) Reduce

M.Sc.

project

option

course requirement from 9 courses to 8 courses; and in ii) the

word 'ensuing' was changed to 'assuring'. Following these changes, Senate

received information that the Senate Graduate Studies Committee, acting under

delegated authority, approved minor revisions to the M.Sc. program

requirements and a slight update of overall wording to the Calendar entry.

ii)

Paper S.03-13 - Facult

of Arts - Graduate Curriculum Revisions (For

Information)

Senate received information that the Senate Graduate Studies Committee, acting

under delegated authority, approved minor revisions to existing courses and

programs in the following Departments /programs: Economics, Gerontology,

History, Linguistics, Political Science, Psychology, and Women's Studies.

Changes include the approval of six new courses ECON 828, ECON 832, ECON

892, GERO 822, PSYC 881, and WS 899; and minor revisions to existing courses

and program requirements.

It was noted that there were a considerable number of typographicalerrors on

pages 1 and 2 that Senate was assured would be corrected.

iii)

Paper S.03-14 - Faculty of Education - Graduate Curriculum Revisions

• ?

(For Information)

Senate received information that the Senate Graduate Studies Committee, acting

under delegated authority, approved a change in grading for five courses, a

change of prerequisite for one course, and identified one course as being

temporarily withdrawn.

iv)

Paper S.03-15 - Faculty

of Science - Graduate Curriculum Revisions (For

Information) - Molecular Biology and Biochemistry

Senate received information that the Senate Graduate Studies Committee, acting

under delegated authority, approved a new course - MBB 838.

G) Senate Committee on Agenda and Rules

ii) ?

Paper S.03-17 - Change in Membership - SCUP

Moved by J. Waterhouse, seconded by M. Kemper

"that Senate approve that the membership of the Senate Committee

on University Priorities be amended to include one Student Senator

Alternate to be elected by Senate"

Senate was informed that the change would allow students a similar process for

an alternate student member as the motion passed at the December meeting with

• ?

regard to alternate faculty members.

Question was called, and a vote taken.

MOTION CARRIED

S.M. 6 January 2003

Page 10

8. ?

Information

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

3,2003.

The Open Session was completed at 8:55 pm and Senate moved directly into Closed

Session without adjournment.

Alison Watt

Director, University Secretariat