DRAFT UNTIL APPROVED BY SENATE

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

Monday, March 3, 2003 at 7:00 pm in Room 3120 WMC

Open Session

Present: Stevenson, Michael

President and Chair of Senate

Al-Natour, Sameh

Aloi, Santa

Andrews, Ian

Apaak, Clement

Atkins, Stella

Beynon, Peter

Bourke, Brynn

Brokenshire, David

Clayman, Bruce

Collinge, Joan (representing C. Yerbury)

Copeland, Lynn

D'Auria, John

Davidson, Willie

Driver, Jon

Dunsterville, Valerie

Garcia, Carlos

Gerson, Carole

Gupta, Kamal

Haunerland, Norbert

Hill, Ross

Horvath, Adam

Jackson, Margaret

Jensen, Britta

Kemper, Michelle

Krane, Bill

Lewis, Brian

Love, Ernie

Naef, Barbara

Percival, Paul

Peters, Joseph

Pierce, John

Poirier, Guy

Russell, Robert

Vaisey, Jacques

Van Aalst, Jan

Waterhouse, John

Weldon, Larry

Wessel, Sylvia

Zaichkowsky, Judith

Absent:

Chen, Danny

Gordon, Robert

Grimmett, Peter

Heaney, John

Higgins, Anne

Jones, Cohn

Jones, John

Mauser, Gary

McArthur, James

McFetridge, Paul

Phipps, Kate

Poletz, Taira

Smith, Don

Thandi, Ranbir

Tyab, Azam

Warren, Joel

Wong, Milton

In attendance:

Angerilli, Nello

Calvert, Tom

Cameron, Rob

Hibbitts, Pat

Laba, Martin

Summers, Laurie

Taylor, Brenda

Wattamaniuk, Walter

Winne, Phil

Heath, Ron, Dean of Student Services/ Registrar

Watt, Alison, Director, University Secretariat

Grant, Bobbie, Recording Secretary

S.M. 3 March 2003

Page 2

Approval of the Agenda

The Agenda was approved as distributed.

Approval of the Minutes of the Open Session of February 3, 2003

The Minutes were approved as distributed.

Business Arising from the Minutes

In response to an inquiry about the outcome of the re-evaluation of the student's

work in the case of academic dishonesty in the Faculty of Education, Senate was

advised that the re-evaluation was in progress and report would be made when

the process was complete.

Report of the Chair

The Chair reported on the Federal and the Provincial budgets which came down

coincidentally.

The federal budget was generally positive for universities and for research and

development in Canada. Rather than one time commitments for indirect costs of

research payments to universities, program expenditures have been entrenched

in the budget on much the same formula as the one-time only payments were

calculated. Also, the funding of granting councils has been considerably

improved and a commitment to graduate education has been made by the

funding of 2000 masters fellowships and 2000 PhD fellowships.

By contrast, the provincial budget made no new announcements with respect to

university education other than a minor item relating to funding for new access

to universities, the details of which were not yet available. Although budget

letters have not been received, a small additional enrolment at SFU, funded at a

lower average grant, was expected. So there was no serious change on the

negative side, but also no important changes on the positive side. Universities

were still faced with problems of capacity in terms of space and infrastructure.

A question arose as to whether any new financial programs would be put in

place at SFU to assist disadvantaged graduate student TAs who might

experience a decrease of income if SFU raises tuition fees. Senate was advised

that an increase in graduate tuition triggers an automatic increase in graduate

student funding of which TA salaries are one component. Recommendations

concerning increases to graduate scholarships, entrance scholarships and new

funding for special graduate entrance scholarships, all of which would assist and

compensate students who experience difficulty with tuition fee increases, were

currently being considered.

Ouestion Period

There were no questions submitted.

Reports of Committees

A) Senate Committee on Agenda and Rules

S.M. 3 March 2003

Page 3

• ?

i) ?

Paper S.03-27 - Policy Revisions GP 25 - Response to Violence and

Threatening Behaviour (For Information)

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

order to respond to questions.

It was noted that Section 3.2. contained confusing language. The case

management team appeared to be composed entirely of staff members and

concern was expressed about the lack of representation from faculty and

students. Inquiry was raised as to why this policy was required when the policy

on human rights covers similar kinds of behaviour and suggestion was made

that perhaps the two policies could be merged in some way. It was also noted

that if a case in which a student was involved was dealt with under this policy,

rather than going before a university disciplinary committee, it would go directly

from the Director of Security to the President. Concern was expressed about the

lack of that intermediate step. Senate was informed that the document was

needed to deal with emergency situations but perhaps there was an

interrelationship with the human rights policy and the student discipline policy.

It was pointed out that when an issue came forward that overlapped more than

one policy, assessment was made as to which policy was best to proceed under.

P. Hibbitts indicated that the points raised would be taken under advisement

Following discussion, the policy was received by Senate for information.

ii)

Paper

- /_

03-28-

I I ?

Proposed

.. %

new Policy GP 32-

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

order to respond to questions.

Senate received the above-noted policy for information.

hi) Paper S.03-29 - Proposed New Policy GP 33 -

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

order to respond to questions.

Reference was made to Section 2.d with respect to the financial and legal

responsibility of pet owners and a question was asked about the applicability of

this policy on visitors to campus with pets. Senate was advised that the

University was simply putting in policy form that pet owners were responsible

for the actions of their pets. In response to an inquiry about enforcement, Senate

was informed that all complaints under the policy would be investigated and the

campus community would be informed about the establishment of the new

policy.

Following discussion, the policy was received by Senate for information.

S.M. 3 March 2003

Page 4

iv)

Paper S.03-30 - Policy Revision GP 18 - Human Rights Policy (For

Information)

B. Taylor, Harassment Resolution Co-Ordinator, was in attendance in order to

respond to questions.

It was noted that Section 4.2 basically stated that the operation of the policy

would be held in confidence unless otherwise required by law. Concern was

expressed that this would mean that members of the university community

would be able to speak freely only if and when a matter went to court. Senate

was advised that the confidentiality requirement would apply to the

complainant, the respondent, and any witnesses and it was unlikely that any of

these people would be comfortable releasing confidential information of another

party into the public realm. In any event, the Freedom of Information/ Protection

of Privacy Act prohibits members of the university from releasing third party

information.

Question arose about how the university community was educated with respect

to this policy. Senate was advised that the Co-ordinator, when invited, speaks to

classes of students and provides seminars for groups of employees as well as

providing information to new employees during their orientation session. All

University policies are accessible on the web.

Opinion was expressed that international students were usually unaware

policies of this kind and suggestion was made that the education/ orientation of

international students with regard to this policy be given priority. B. Taylor

indicated she would follow up on the suggestion.

Referring to Section 5.4, suggestion was made that it might be a good idea to

require at least one person from each group (students, staff, faculty) to be present

in order to make quorum so that decisions were not reached in the absence of

representation from any group. The Vice-President Academic stated he would

take the suggestion under consideration but he wanted to consult with the

committee regarding their experience with attendance and quorum.

Following discussion, the policy was received by Senate for information.

B) ?

Senate Committee on University Priorities

Paper S.03-31 - Program Proposal: PhD in Women's Studies

Moved by J

Pierce, seconded by C. Gerson

"that Senate approve and recommend approval to the Board of

Governors the proposal for a PhD in Women's Studies program in

the Faculty of Arts as outlined in S.03-31"

M. Kimball and S. Wendell, Department of Women's Studies, were in attendance

in order to respond to questions.

S.M. 3 March 2003

Page 5

It was noted that concerns had been expressed by the reviewers that there were

no specifically earmarked PhD courses and there didn't appear to be appropriate

resources for new course development. Senate was advised that the Department

believed that the existing courses were appropriate for program completion at

the PhD level and they were not concerned that both MA and PhD students

would be in the same courses.

Question was called, and a vote taken.

MOTION CARRIED

C) ?

SRi at Surrey Long-Term Academic Planning Committee

Paper S.03-32 - Report (For Discussion)

The following members of the Committee were in attendance in order to respond

to questions: M. Laba (Chair of the sub-committee for academic programming);

P. Winne (Chair of the sub-committee for pedagogy); L. Copeland (member and

representing C. Yerbury, Chair of the sub-committee for campus development);

L. Summers, Director of Academic Planning and Secretary to the Committee; R.

Cameron; T. Calvert.

In order to permit wide-ranging discussion, and subject to the approval of

Senate, the Chair declared that the meeting move into Quasi Committee of the

• Whole. There were no objections from Senate. Discussion started with an

overview of the SFU Surrey Long-Term Planning process by the Committee's

Chair, B. Krane. The following points are a summary of the lengthy discussion:

Section 5 on Pedagogy, as currently constructed, appeared to several

Senators to go beyond the mandate of the Committee. This section raised

several important issues applicable to the other campuses and probably

should be discussed separately and not as part of this report. It was noted

that each of the elements in Section 5 did have relevance and applicability

to Surrey however.

• Science programming options were discussed. The view was expressed

that the provision of wet labs at the Surrey campus was not likely. Other

programming options were being considered in a preliminary manner.

• ?

Education programming options including at the master's level appeared

to have a good fit with SRi Surrey.

• Business programming, one of the three program components at Tech BC,

was also discussed. Questions were raised about the need for Business

programming at Surrey, when there is a heavy emphasis on Business

programs at Harbour Centre. The demand for these programs is expected

to be strong, and consideration is being given to a proposed

•

undergraduate program in Management of Technology, with a possible

MBA program as well.

S.M. 3 March 2003

Page 6

Engineering Science and Computing Science have concerns about overlap

issues, particularly Information Technology in the Surrey programs. It

was also suggested that overlap may also be an issue with Contemporary

Arts and Interactive Arts. A suggestion was made that perhaps Surrey

programs could be housed within existing schools initially, rather than

establishing a separate school at the outset. A separate school might

evolve afterwards.

The commitments envisaged by the Ministry of Advanced Education to

Surrey and the technology focus of the programs were also discussed.

The commitment to the technology focus is linked to the existing students

and SFU has the ability to shape the programs it wishes to deliver. The

Ministry has committed in its initial funding transfers to SFU, its

willingness to fully fund undergraduate and graduate programs. SFU's

interest would be a quality institution with the full complement of

teaching and research opportunities.

The urgent demographic need for the provision of post-secondary

education in the Fraser region was stressed. The region is the fastest

growing urban community in the country, with a significantly lower than

average participation rate in post-secondary education. SFU Surrey is an

opportunity to respond to the demographic and educational concerns of

that community.

Questions were raised about the current relationship between SFU Surrey

and the rest of the University. SFU Surrey students are SFU students and

are treated as such, including being eligible to receive scholarships,

awards and bursaries. A question was posed about the application of the

curricula revisions for Writing, Quantitative and Breadth skills and Senate

was advised that the existing courses have many of these elements already

incorporated into them.

The Chair reiterated the importance of moving forward with respect to decisions

surrounding the Surrey campus and expressed his view that the University has

the opportunity to expand the diversity of its programs, increase the range of

research, and expand the complement of faculty, staff and students with

programs that complement and enhance the core commitments of the Burnaby

campus.

When the speakers' list had been exhausted, the Chair declared discussion closed

and declared that the meeting move out of the Committee of the Whole.

D) ?

Senate Committee on Undergraduate Studies

i) ?

Paper S.03-33 - Faculty of Applied Sciences - Undergraduate Curriculum

Revisions

Moved by B. Lewis, seconded by S. Atkins

S.M. 3 March 2003

Page 7

• ?

"that Senate approve the revised admission requirements for the

Tech One Program as set forth in S.03-33"

Discussion ensued with respect to the Calendar language for the Tech One

program. Concern was expressed that Chemistry was missing from the courses

listed under the Second Semester. However, it was pointed out that Chemistry

101 was not included because of the requirement for wet labs. In response to an

inquiry as to why BISC 100 was chosen over BISC 101, Senate was informed that

BISC 100 was currently available as a Distance Education course. Comment was

made that in the chart listing 9 Tech courses for deletion, six of which dealt with

mathematics and three which dealt with probability and statistics, there were no

courses in probability and statistics in the three replacement courses. It was

pointed out that the goal was to ensure that students who start at the Surrey

campus have math credits that were widely accepted in SFU programs and that

statistics would be included in the development of the second year program. An

error was pointed out regarding CMPT 101; it should be listed as a 4 credit

course rather than a 3 credit course. It was noted however that the intent was

that CMPT 101 when offered at the Surrey campus would be 3 credits, not four.

The intent of the second semester appeared to be to provide students with the

possibility to take additional Science courses that would allow transfer and

instead of specifying specific 100 level courses, suggestion was made that the

requirement be changed to read any 100 level course in the Faculty of Science.

• This would then allow students the option of taking Chemistry courses at the

Burnaby campus if they wished to do so. Senate was advised that the suggestion

would be taken under advisement. If changes result, the changes will be

reported back to Senate for information.

Brief discussion followed with respect to delegation of authority. Senate was

advised that any Senator could give notice of motion either to remove the

delegated authority or to make a revised ruling on curriculum revisions as

passed by the committee under delegated authority.

Concern was expressed about the heavy workload. It was noted however that

this was a cohort based intensive one year program and other programs such as

Engineering also have an 18 credit hour requirement so this was not without

precedent.

Question was called, and a vote taken.

MOTION CARRIED

Senate received information that the Senate Committee on Undergraduate

Studies, acting under delegated authority, approved Tech One Restructuring

Calendar description, including new courses: TECH 117, TECH 124, TECH 114,

BUS 130, BUS 131, TECH 100, TECH 101 and TECH 149. SCUS also approved,

under delegated authority, the following new course in the School of Computing

Science: CMPT 341.

ii) ?

Faculty of Science - Undergraduate Curriculum Revisions

S.M. 3 March 2003

Page 8

a) ?

Paper 5.03-34 -

Changes to MBB Major Program (For Information)

Senate received information that the Senate Committee on Undergraduate

Studies, acting under delegated authority, approved the deletion of the

restriction on math course choice for students undertaking an MBB Major.

E) ?

Senate Committee on Enrolment Management and Planning

Paper S.03-35 - Undergraduate Admission Targets for 2003/04

Motion 1

Moved by J

Waterhouse, seconded by B. Krane

"that Senate approve and recommend approval to the Board of

Governors the undergraduate admission targets for each basis-of-

admission group and for each semester in 2003/04 as set out in

S.03-35, and that SCEMP be delegated authority to make further

adjustments based on actual enrolment experience in 2003-2 and

2003-3"

Senate was advised that plans were to exceed the expected funded

undergraduate FTEs. At present there were approximately 700 FTEs over target

and if the University were to set admissions for the next academic year to bring

down FTEs to the funded targets, admission grade point averages would have to

be significantly increased. In order to smooth the transition to funded targets,

SCEMP recommended having some unfunded FTEs for the coming academic

year. The intent was to gradually bring the FTEs down to the funded target.

Brief discussion followed with respect to FTE enrolment and admission

standards at the Surrey campus.

Question was called, and a vote taken.

MOTION 1 CARRIED

Motion 2

Moved by J

Waterhouse, seconded by I. Andrews

"that Senate approve and recommend approval to the Board of

Governors the undergraduate admission targets to each Faculty as

set out in S.03-35, Table 1, and that SCEMP be delegated authority

to make adjustments based on actual enrolment experience in 2003-

2 and 2003-3"

In response to an inquiry about the adjustment process delegated to SCEMP,

Senate was advised that SCEMP would adjust the admission criteria for each of

the programs and Faculties for the subsequent semesters based on the actual

admissions in the summer and fall semesters. Assurance was sought and

received that additional students would not be accepted after the targets had

been

Question

reached.was

called, and a vote taken.

MOTION 2 CARRIED

S.M. 3 March 2003

Page 9

0 ?

ii) ?

Paper 5.03-36 -

Moved by J. Waterhouse, seconded by B. Krane

"that Senate approve that commencing in 2004-3, the minimum

admission average for Associate Degree students will be allowed to

float above 2.00 and will be established each semester at 0.25 CPA

points less than that required for regular transfer students"

Concern was expressed that more time should be given for advance notice of this

change. Senate was advised that BCCAT had been consulted and they believed

that 2004-3 semester provided adequate warning for students.

Question was called, and a vote taken.

MOTION CARRIED

iii)

Paper S.03-37 - International Undergraduate Students at SFU including

admission targets for 2003 / 4, 2004 / 5, 2005/6

Moved by J

Waterhouse, seconded by I. Andrews

"that Senate approve and recommend approval to the Board of

Governors that a target for the number of international students,

excluding exchange students, who are studying in undergraduate

• ?

programs at SFU be established at 10% of SFU's funded

undergraduate FTE target in the academic years 2003/4, 2004/5,

2005/6"

Concern was expressed that the motion could be used to further escalate

differential fees for international students. Senate was advised that if Senate

approved the motion, the intent was to develop a fee structure for international

students to cover the amount of tuition over the period in which they were

registered in a program.

Reference was made to the proposal that 657o of international students be

recruited from Canadian institutions, and comment was made that the

contribution of international students coming directly from abroad should also

be given high consideration. Senate was advised that plans were to recruit from

overseas by an additional five percent and that the primary reason for

recruitment from Canadian institutions was that the probability of success was

much greater among international students who were already in Canada.

Brief discussion took place with respect to the impact of the proposed 107o on

admission grade point averages for domestic students, and the proposed

countries targeted for recruitment. The recruitment process itself was also

discussed.

A motion to continue the meeting beyond 10:00 p.m. to conclude the open

• ?

agenda was carried.

Question was called, and a vote taken.

MOTION CARRIED

S.M. 3 March 2003

Page 10

Senate Graduate Studies Committee

1) ?

Paper S.03-38 - Annual Report (For Information)

The Annual Report of the Senate Graduate Studies Committee was presented to

Senate for information. Due to time constraints, the Chair requested that any

questions be addressed to the Dean of Graduate Studies and if necessary

reconsideration of the report be brought forward to the next meeting of Senate.

ii) ?

Paper S.03-39 - Proposed New Graduate Regulation - 1.6.5 - Co-

Supervision

Due to time constraints and the complexity of the issue, the Dean of Graduate

Studies requested that the matter be deferred to the next meeting of Senate.

Senate Library

Committee

i) ?

Paper S.03-40 - Annual Report (For Information)

The Annual Report of the Senate Library Committee was presented to Senate for

information. Due to time constraints, the Chair requested that any questions be

addressed to the Vice-President Research and if necessary reconsideration of the

report be brought back to the next meeting of Senate.

Other Business

There was no other business.

Information

The date of the next regularly scheduled meeting of Senate is Monday, April 7,

2003.

The Meeting adjourned at 10:15 p.m. The agenda for the Closed Session was deferred

to the next meeting of Senate.

Alison Watt

Director, University Secretariat