. DRAFT UNTIL APPROVED BY SENATE

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

Monday, April 7, 2003 at 7:00 pm in Room 3210 WMC

Open Session

Present: Stevenson, Michael

President and Chair of Senate

Absent:

Andrews, Ian

Al-Natour, Sameh

Apaak, Clement

Aloi, Santa

Atkins, Stella

Bourke, Brynn

Beynon, Peter

Brokenshire, David

Blackman, Roger (representing J. Pierce)

Chen, Danny

Cameron, Rob (representing B. Lewis)

Dunstervile, Valerie

Clayman, Bruce

Garcia, Carlos

Copeland, Lynn

Grimmett, Peter

D'Auria, John

Gupta, Kamal

Davidson, Willie

Haunerland, Norbert

Driver, Jon

Higgins, Anne

Gerson, Carole

Hill, Ross

Gordon, Robert

Jensen, Britta

Heaney, John

Jones, Cohn

Horvath, Adam

Jones, John

Jackson, Margaret

Kemper, Michelle

Krane, Bill

McArthur, James

Love, Ernie

McFetridge, Paul

Mauser, Gary

Naef, Barbara

Percival, Paul

Phipps, Kate

Peters, Joseph

Poletz, Taira

Poirier, Guy

Thandi, Ranbir

Russell, Robert

Tyab, Azam

Smith, Don

Vaisey, Jacques

Weldon, Larry

Van Aalst, Jan

Wessel, Sylvia

Warren, Joel

Yerbury, Cohn

Waterhouse, John

Wong, Milton

Zaichkowsky, Judith

In attendance

Hibbitts, Pat

Honda, Barry

Martin, Randy

McBride, Stephen

Heath, Ron, Dean of Student Services/Registrar

Watt, Alison, Director, University Secretariat

Grant, Bobbie, Recording Secretary

[]

S.M. Apr 7, 2003

Page 2

Approval of the Agenda

The Agenda was approved as distributed.

Approval of the Minutes of the Open Session of March 3. 2003

The Minutes were approved as distributed.

Business Arising from the Minutes

Referring to the item on page 4 of the Minutes from the last meeting with respect to the

quorum of the Harassment Resolution Board, Senate was advised that inquiries had been

made. The practice of the Board has been to ensure that there was at least one

representative from each of the constituent groups but it was felt that it would not be

appropriate to enshrine this practice in policy.

Report of the Chair

Reporting on the current labour dispute, the Chair reiterated previously made public

statements concerning the pressures on the budget as a result of employee agreements

negotiated under the previous mandate of 2%/2%/2% which the University was

committed to pay even though funding had been withdrawn. Not all members of the

University were covered under this same mandate and unfortunately the mandate has now

been changed by the Government to 0%/0%/0%. Despite the constraints of the new

mandate, the University felt there was room to negotiate agreements that would result in

improvements to compensation. The Chair briefly outlined the process of the

negotiations which had taken place up to the current point which resulted in the existing

job action. The Minister of Labour became involved and as a result of meeting with both

parties, appointed an Industrial Inquiry Commissioner on April 7, 2003 to help resolve

the dispute. The Commission has been given seven days to investigate and help the

parties conclude a collective agreement by making non-binding recommendations to the

Minister and the parties if they cannot themselves come to agreement. CUPE members

are expected to return to work on Tuesday, April 8, 2003.

A question arose with respect to the differences in policy between students and faculty

who respect a picket line. Faculty are required to give advance notice while students

need only to notify the instructor 96 hours afterward. Senate was advised that faculty

were required to give advance notice so that if possible their exams could be administered

by someone else. The policy regarding students who miss exams was developed to deal

with cases of medical or compassionate grounds and was most likely not meant to cover

situations with respect to labour disputes. A suggestion was made that the policy be

reexamined. The Chair requested that the Vice-President Academic undertake to review

this matter.

Question Period

There were no questions.

S.M. Apr 7, 2003

Page 3

6. ?

Reports of Committees

Senate Committee on Agenda and Rules

Paper S.03-41 - Investment Governance Policy (For Information)

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

respond to questions.

According to the document, it was noted that investments could also cover operating

funds. An inquiry was made as to whether Senate would be provided with information

about the investment policy relative to operating funds, annual budgets, or accountability.

In terms of accountability, Senate was advised that the Finance and Administration

Committee of the Board and the Investment Advisory Committee oversee this policy and

their reports were presented to the Board of Governors in the open session and were

therefore available for review. Reference was made to a line with respect to investment

income which was included in the budget information that was presented to Senate and

the suggestion was made that it would be appropriate for Senate to seek more detailed

information at that time.

The Chair informed Senate that as a result of this policy and the advice from the group of

. experts described in the policy, and the oversight of these functions by the Board

committees, SFU's investments have resulted in a level of performance which is far

superior to the record of institutional investments of other institutions.

ii)

Paper S.03-42 - Delegated Authorit y

Issue (For Information

An opinion was expressed that Senate should always reserve the right to make the final

decision on academic matters even in cases under delegated authority, and it was

unfortunate that the mechanism that allowed Senators to ask for further information/full

documentation and consider the matter in detail was no longer available.

Reference was made to the last sentence of the last paragraph on S.03-41 and clarification

was requested as to whether this meant that the delegated authority could be revoked for

a particular item or whether Senate could only completely revoke its delegated authority.

A senator noted that, in his opinion, Senate was generally satisfied with the work of

SCUS, but occasionally there could be an item handled under delegated authority which

Senate felt should be considered and decided upon by Senate itself. In such a case, it was

suggested that Senate could move to direct SCUS to reconsider a particular action and to

bring forth a recommendation with documentation for approval by Senate at its next

meeting, and inquiry was made as to whether this interpretation of process was

acceptable to SCAR. The Chair indicated that he found that interpretation satisfactory.

Request was made that the interpretation be recorded in the Minutes for future reference.

S.M. Apr 7, 2003

Page 4

B) ?

Senate Graduate Studies Committee

i) ?

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

supervision

Moved by J. Driver, seconded by C. Apaak

"that Senate approve the new Graduate General Regulation

1.6.5—

Co-

supervision, as outlined in S.03-39"

Concern was expressed that co-supervision with two faculty members in the same

department was only being recommended under exceptional circumstances. Senate was

informed that the issue had been extensively discussed by the Senate Graduate Studies

Committee. The proposal before Senate was seen as a compromise of the varied opinions

expressed by the Committee and would recognize the extraordinary circumstances in

which a co-supervisor would be appointed rather than making it the norm for any two

faculty members who may be collaborating in research. Opinion was expressed that being

a co-supervisor entailed greater responsibility than being a member of a supervisory

committee and therefore faculty should be given more credit for it.

Amendment moved by W. Davidson, seconded by R. Russell

"that section (a) of the proposed new regulation be changed as follows:

He or she holds an appointment as an adjunct professor (see policy

Al2.08) at SFU in the same department as the student and senior

supervisor; or holds an appointment as an associate member (see policy

Al2.07) at SFU in the same department as the student and senior

supervisor; or holds a primary appointment as a faculty member in the

same department as a student and senior supervisor; and..."

A suggestion to change the phrase 'primary appointment' to 'continuing appointment'

was accepted as a

friendly amendment.

Brief discussion took place with respect to the status of Professor Emeritus in relation to

the above proposal. It was noted that making detailed changes to policies on the floor of

Senate was not always effective and a suggestion was made to the mover/seconder that it

would be better for the issue to be referred back to Committee.

Senate was informed that the proposed amendment was the point of view expressed from

the Faculty of Science at the SGSC meetings. The Faculty of Arts expressed an equally

strong opposing point of view and concern was expressed that if the amendment passed,

the views of one Faculty would dominate the policy. Opinion was expressed that in

order to satisfy the conflicting views of different Faculties, perhaps the SGSC could

consider giving more responsibility to the Faculty Graduate Studies Committees to define

the role that co-supervision would play in their Faculty.

S.M. Apr 7, 2003

Page

SThe motion to amend was withdrawn on the understanding that the matter be referred

back to the Senate Graduate Studies Committee for further consideration, including the

status of Professor Emeritus with respect to the issue.

C) ?

Senate Nominating Committee

Paper S.03-43 - Elections

There were no further nominations received. Senate was advised that Anne Higgins was

therefore elected by acclamation to the Senate Committee on University Honours for term

of office to August 31, 2003.

D) ?

Senate Committee on International Activities

Paper S.03-44 - Annual Report. including report from International Student

Exchange Committee (For Information)

R. Martin, SFU International, was in attendance in order to respond to questions. Senate

received the Annual Report for information.

Senate Committee on Universit

Priorities

i) ?

Paper

S.03-45 -

Centre for Global Political Economy (CGPE

Moved by B. Krane, seconded by R. Blackman

"that Senate approve and recommend approval to the Board of Governors

the establishment of the Centre for Global Political Economy as outlined in

document

S.03-45"

S. McBride, Department of Political Science, was in attendance in order to respond to

questions.

Question was called, and a vote taken.

MOTION CARRIED

ii) ?

Paper S.03-46 - First Nations Guiding Principles

Moved by B. Krane, seconded by R. Russell

"that Senate approve the First Nations Guiding Principles as outlined in

document S.03-46"

R. Russell, Senator and member of the First Nations Advisory Committee was in

attendance in order to respond to questions.

S.M. Apr 7, 2003

Page 6

In response to an inquiry about current access to grants and scholarships, Senate was

informed that while full access to financial support programs was available, it was the

support of non-financial programs and the support of social context which was the force

of the recommendations to develop and improve relationships with First Nations

peoples.

Question was called, and a vote taken.

MOTION CARRIED

iii)

Paper S.03-47 - Report of the Task Force on Undergraduate Student Recruitment

Moved by B. Krane, seconded by E. Love

"that Senate approve the Report of the Task Force on Undergraduate

Student Recruitment as outlined in document S.03-47"

An inquiry was made about tracking the success rate of students finding employment

following graduation and a question posed whether this information could be used as a

recruitment tool. Senate was advised that the University regularly surveys and reports on

the employment history of graduates two years and five years after graduation, and the

success of students getting jobs was part of the assessment in the survey. It was

suggested that this information be used in the recruitment of students and the Chair

suggested that this advice be passed to the Student Recruitment Office.

Concern was expressed that the principal objective was to recruit students with high

academic achievement. Opinion was expressed that the emphasis should be broader and a

suggestion made that the phrase be changed from 'high academic achievement' to 'high

academic ability'.

Reference was made to the specific goals on page 3 of the document. Concern was

expressed about the reference to the 90% or greater high school grade point average

(GPA). It was suggested that students having the same average from different high

schools may perform quite differently at SFU. It was suggested that the 90% GPA

indicator was too simplistic for the basis of a recruiting strategy. It was also noted that

the Ministry of Education was developing a graduation profile which ought to be included

as a way of identifying students who not only were very good academically but who also

had an interest in extra curricular activities. Reference was made to the recently approved

curriculum initiative and suggestion was made that foundation skills and breadth should be

reflected in admissions.

Senate was informed that SFU lagged behind other universities in the recruitment of

students who graduated high school with the highest grade point averages. It was pointed

out that one of the major drawbacks was residence availability but 750 new residence

spaces would be available shortly and the intent was to promote this feature not only

provincially (Interior and Northern BC) but across Canada and internationally as well.

Concern was expressed about the proportion of students admitted from high school with

S.M. Apr 7, 2003

Page 7

• less than 80% averages. It was pointed out that Senate recently approved changes to the

admission process for students with Associate Degrees that addressed an inequity for

that type of admission. It was also noted that admissions under diverse qualifications

would also account for part of the borderline admissions. Opinion was expressed that

the reason for lower GPA's in Faculties such as Applied Sciences and Science might be

the result of the GPA being based on a specific set of Science courses required by a

particular Faculty.

Question was called, and a vote taken.

MOTIN CARRIED

F) ?

Senate Committee on Undergraduate Studies

Paper S.03-48 - New Program: Joint Major in Molecular Biology

and Computing

Science

Moved by R. Cameron, seconded by W. Davidson

"that Senate approve and recommend approval to the Board of Governors

the Joint Major in Molecular Biology and Computing Science, as set forth

in S.0348, effective 2003-3"

B. Honda, Department of Molecular Biology and Biochemistry, was in attendance in

order to respond to questions.

It was noted that this was a very full program with virtually all the credits specified, and

an inquiry arose as to why it was not a Joint Honors rather than a Joint Major program.

Senate was advised that the program was exactly modeled on the MBB/Business Joint

Major that was approved by Senate so there was a clear precedent for such a program.

The Department also felt that some students might not necessarily require an honors

degree because they wished to immediately proceed into industry and other more applied

areas where a research background was not a requirement. Senate was advised that the

Department was currently working on proposal for a Joint Honors.

Referring to the University initiative on quantitative writing and breadth skills, inquiry

was made as to whether this program had been reviewed in that context. Senate was

advised that the program would go through the same review process as other such

programs at the appropriate time.

Question was called, and a vote taken.

MOTION CARRIED

ii)

Paper S.0349 - Proposed Change of DE from Grade to Notation

Moved by R. Blackman, seconded by I. Andrews

0 ?

"that Senate approve the change of the DE grade to a notation as set forth

S.03-49, effective 2003-3"

S.M. Apr 7,2003

Page 8

proposed

Senate was

change.

provided

The following

with a brief

revision

background

to the proposed

with

text

respect

was accepted

to the rationale

as a

friendly

for the

amendment:

DE Notation

The DE notation will be given when a physician's certificate or other document

substantiating a request for deferment on medical or compassionate grounds is received by

the registrar or the chair of the department concerned within four days of the date from

which the final examination was to have been written, or when the course instructor

wishes to defer submitting a final mark pending completion of further work by the

student. The DE notation must be submitted by the instructor with a recommended

length of deferral and approved by the chair. All unchanged DE notations will be

converted automatically to F after the

fifth day of classes of the semester immediately

following the one in which the notation was awarded.

In exceptional cases, an extension

may be granted by the department chair upon petition by the student.

Question was called, and a vote taken. ?

MOTION CARRIED

iii) ?

Paper S.03-50 - Reinstatement of Temporarily Withdrawn Course BUEC

495 ?

(For Information)

Senate received information that SCUS, acting under delegated authority, approved the

reinstatement of BUEC

495

from Temporarily Withdrawn status.

Other Business

There was no other business.

Information

The date of the next regularly scheduled meeting is Monday, May 12, 2003.

Open Session adjourned at 8:40 pm and Senate moved directly into Closed Session.

Alison Watt

Director, University Secretariat