. ?

DRAFT UNTIL APPROVED BY SENATE

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

Monday, September

15,

2003 at 7:00 pm in Room 3210 WMC

Open Session

Present: ?

Stevenson, Michael

President and Chair of Senate

Absent:

Dunsterville, Valerie

Fizzell, Maureen

Gupta, Kamal

Kaila, Pam

McArthur, James

McFetridge, Paul

Naef, Barbara

Wong, Milton

Yoo, Rick

Apaak, Clement

Atkins, Stella

Beynon, Peter

Budd, James

Clayman, Bruce

Collinge, Joan (representing C. Yerbury)

Copeland, Lynn

da Silva, Gisele

Dickinson, John

D'Auria, John

Driver, Jon

Fung, Edward

Giacomantonio, Chris

Gill, Alison

Gordon, Robert

Gregory, Titus

Grimmett, Peter

Haunerland, Norbert

Heaney, John

Higgins, Anne

Hira, Andy

Honda, Barry

Horvath, Adam

Jones, Cohn

Kalanj, Tiffany

Krane, Bill

Lemay, Joanna

Lewis, Brian

Love, Ernie

Mauser, Gary

Percival, Paul

Peters, Joseph

Pierce, John

Plischke, Michael

Rozell, Sara

Sears, Camilla

Shaker, Paul

Smith, Don

Thandi, Ranbir

Vaisey, Jacques

Van Aalst, Jan

Waterhouse, John

Weeks, Dan

Wessel, Sylvia

Wong, Josephine

Woodbury, Rob

In attendance:

Anderson, Gail

Berube, Denis

Blackman, Roger

Brantingham, Paul

Dinning, Mike

Gotfrit, Martin

Hibbitts, Pat

Snitz, Ron

Heath, Ron, Dean of Student Services/Registrar

S ?

Watt, Alison, Director, University Secretariat

Grant, Bobbie, Recording Secretary

S.M. 15 Sept 2003

Page 2

On behalf of Senate, the Chair welcomed the following newly elected Senators to their

first meeting: Andy Hira, Barry Honda, and Dan Weeks.

Approval of the Agenda

The Agenda was approved as distributed.

Approval of the Minutes of the O

pen

Session of July 7. 2003

The Minutes were approved as distributed.

Business Arising from the Minutes

There was no business arising from the Minutes.

Report of the Chair

Referring to the recent announcement from the Provincial Government with

respect to cuts to the operating grant of the university, the Chair explained that it would

be a difficult and challenging year with regard to budget decisions. However, he assured

Senate that the fullest possible information will be made available to the university

community and reiterated his commitment to an intensive consultation process, including

an investigation with respect to the impact of tuition increases on accessibility.

ii)

Paper S. 03-72 - Annual Financial Statements for the Year Ended March 31, 2003

(For Information) ?

P. Hibbitts, Vice President Finance and Administration, and D. Berube, Director of

Accounting Services, Department of Finance were in attendance in order to respond to

questions.

Reference was made to the long term debt and an inquiry was made as to whether the

amount reflected the costs of new student accommodation. Senate was advised that the

outstanding debt for the new student residences was not reflected in the statement since it

fell outside the reporting period and would be included next year's financial statements.

In response to a question about the increase in Provincial revenue, Senate was advised

that the increase resulted from the activities in Surrey and from the Double the

Opportunity funding in which the university was required to admit extra students in

Engineering and Computing Science. Clarification was requested with respect to the

increase in expenses, especially professional fees. It was explained that salaries had

increased and as salaries rose benefits rose and the price charged by the carrier had also

increased. Fees such as audit and legal fees had increased. Professional fees had

significantly increased mainly due to the implementation of the new student record

system.

S.M. 15 Sept 2003

Page 3

Question Period

The following questions submitted by C. Giacomantonio on behalf of the Student Senator

Caucus were read into the Minutes.

Question 1

What is the University's response to the provincial government's "Mandates, Roles and

Responsibilities" paper? In particular, what is the response to the possibilities of:

changing the University governance structure; shifting accountability measures towards

results-based accountability; and a shift from competition between institutions towards

inter-university partnerships and what the paper calls "system initiatives"?

Question 2

Now that SFU will be a central development in the upcoming 2010 Olympics, will the

University be creating an Advisory Committee to oversee or guide the development of

the speed skating oval? When will this committee (or one like it) be created, and will

there be student representatives on this committee?

Response to Question 1

The Chair reported that this issue had been discussed by The University Presidents'

• Council but its official response had not yet been completed and circulated to member

organizations. The Chair indicated that he would try to summarize the nature of TUPC's

response. The Presidents' Council is concerned about imitative behaviour in BC similar

to that in Alberta where the Government is radically restructuring the University Act.

The general response of TUPC will be to oppose significant change and argue that the

University Act is based on long tradition which has allowed both for autonomy and good

governance of universities.

There appears to be an interest on the part of the Government in greater system control

and TUPC's response will be that that would not be in the best interest of the universities

and would represent a step backward. With regard to shifting accountability measures

towards results-based accountability, TUPC has already had considerable debate with the

Ministry on that issue and is generally against a process by which the service plans of a

Government become the guide to performance measurement in the universities with

potential funding and other controls fine-tuned by this kind of performance-based

measurement. However, at the same time, TUPC does not want to shirk the

responsibility of public accountability with respect to performance. As a result TUPC's

response would not be against accountability in principle, but would be opposed to the

specification of university priorities through instruments like the Government service

plan. With respect to inter-university partnerships and system initiatives, BC has a good

record of very successful consortium partnership arrangements amongst institutions and

TUPC 's response will be that universities are not against such incentives in principle but

are opposed to partnerships based solely on savings and system integration.

S.M. 15 Sept 2003

Page 4

In general, TUPC has clearly indicated a suspicion of the process and opposes

Government intrusion on the autonomy of universities to define their own academic

planning priorities.

Response to Question 2

The Chair reported that an Olympic Legacy Committee would be established with

representatives from the most affected users of the building. He asked the Associate Vice

President Academic to provide more detailed information with respect to the envisioned

membership. Senate was advised that Deprtments that would have an interest in the

legacy, such as Kinesiology and Psychology, would be represented. In addition, it was

likely that membership would include representation from Finance and Administration,

the Director of Campus Planning and Development, the Vice President University

Relations, and two student members, possibly a student from Athletics and Recreation

and maybe a Student Senator.

Re ports of Committees

A) ?

Senate Graduate Studies Committee

i) ?

Paper S.03-70 - Changes to Graduate General Regulations resulting from new

tuition fee rules (Referred from July Meeting)

Moved by J. Driver, seconded by J. Pierce

"that Senate approve the changes to Graduate General Regulations 1.4,

1.4.3, 1.4.4, 1.4.5, 1.4.7, 1.8.4,

1.8.5,

and 1. 12.2 described in Senate paper

S.03-70, and that Senate approve any renumbering of regulations required

by these changes"

Moved by C. Sears, seconded by C. Apaak

"that the motion be tabled to the next meeting of Senate"

Question was called, and a vote taken.

MOTION TO TABLE FAILED

Senate was informed that there was considerable concern among graduate students with

respect to the elimination of part-time study. Opinion was expressed that students

needed to be better informed about the changes and the consequences of the change prior

to Senate approval. The Dean of Graduate Studies presented statistics to Senate showing

the number of full-time students versus part-time students in each Faculty. The majority

of students would be able to continue to register as part-time because of the new way of

collecting fees on a per credit basis. However there were a small number of students (9

in Applied Sciences, 24 in Arts, and 10 in Science) that would need to change from part-

S.M. 15 Sept 2003

4 ?

Page

. time status to full-time status but these students could be dealt with on an individual

basis. The effect of the change would therefore potentially disadvantage a very small

percentage of graduate students while providing greater flexibility and more advantage to

a very large number of students. In response to an inquiry as to why the change was

necessary, Senate was advised that part of the reason was the introduction of the new

student information system but ultimately the change would be much fairer and less

cumbersome than the current system.

In response to an inquiry about the 'on leave' option now available to graduate students

and whether the per credit fees would be uniform across the University, Senate was

advised that the 'on leave' option would continue to be available and per credit fees

would be set in consultation with academic departments/programs.

Moved by T. Kalanj, seconded by C. Giacomantonio

"that the motion be severed to allow each section to be considered

seriatim"

Question was called, and a vote taken.

MOTION TO SEVER FAILED

. ?

Question was called on the main motion,

and a vote taken. ?

MAIN MOTION CARRIED

The Chair suggested that a follow up consultation between the Dean of Graduate Studies

and the student caucus take place to clarify the concerns of the students . Senate was

advised that such a meeting had already been scheduled.

B) ?

Senate Committee on Agenda and Rules

Paper S.03-73 - Emergency Plan (For Information)

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

respond to questions.

Senate was informed that the emergency plan was partially motivated by the new

Provincial BCERMS plan and therefore conforms to the standard format.

Following brief discussion, the plan was received by Senate.

ii)

Paper S.03-74 - GP 26 Accessibilit

for Students with Disabilities Policy

Moved by J. Waterhouse, seconded by G. Mauser

S.M. 15 Sept 2003

Page 6

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

the revised policy GP 26 Accessibility for Students with Disabilities as set

forth in S.03-74"

R. Snitz, Learning Specialist from the Centre for Students with Disabilities, and M.

Dinning, Associate Dean of Student Services were in attendance in order to respond to

questions.

Concern was expressed about students having to bear the costs associated with

documentation assessment, and opinion was expressed that this requirement may prohibit

many students from accessing the services. An inquiry was made as to whether

accommodations would be made for students who were not able to afford the tests.

Senate was advised that, aside from the testing for learning disabilities, most other tests

were covered by medicare plans. In the case of learning disabilities, the Provincial

Government had a program in place where students with demonstrated financial need

could receive up to

75%

of the costs of the assessment as long as they were diagnosed

with a moderate degree of learning disability.

Reference was made to Section 4.5, and concern was expressed about the appeal process.

It was felt that having a case go from the Director of the Centre to the Associate Dean

was problematic because of the reporting structure in which the Director ultimately

reports to the Associate Dean. Some senators asked whether a more democratic process

could be put in place to deal with appeals such as an advisory committee with student

representation. In response it was suggested that a committee within the University might

not have the expertise necessary to make qualified evaluations. The role of the Associate

Dean was not to adjudicate appeals but to facilitate their resolution. When resolution was

not possible, past practice was to refer the appeal outside the University to a third party

who had the professional qualifications to evaluate the nature or the extent of the

disability and the kind of accommodation that would be required. Students were given

the choice of one of three individuals outside the University and all identification,

including the University's initial assessment, was eliminated from the file. The

University and the student agreed to abide by the external recommendation with the cost

of the process borne by the University. In response to a question as to why this procedure

was not included in the policy, it was explained that the document was a policy document

rather than an operating document and it was felt that the day to day management of the

policy process should not be included in a general policy statement. It was also noted

that there might be a wide range of solutions available and that the majority of disputes

were resolved to the satisfaction of the student without referral to a third party. Third

party referral was only necessary in instances where resolution could not be reached.

A suggestion to

delete the word 'final' and incorporate the phrase 'who will send the

issue for third party resolution if unresolved"

at the end of Section

4.5

was accepted as

S.M. 15 Sept 2003

Page 7

a friendly amendment

and the Chair indicated that appropriate wording would be

worked out and reported back to Senate.

Secretary's Note: The following wording was substituted for Section

4.5:

Where a

student is dissatisfied or disagrees with the accommodations recommended by the Centre

for Students with Disabilities, s/he should first meet with the Director to review her/his

concerns. If the matter is not resolved at this level, the student can appeal to the

Associate Dean, Student Services. If the Associate Dean is unable to reach an informal

resolution with the student, the Associate Dean will seek a recommendation from an

independent and qualified external third party who is mutually acceptable to both the

student and the Associate Dean. In the event agreement on the third party cannot be

reached between the Associate Dean and the student, the matter will be referred to the

Dean of Student Services and Registrar. The Dean may consult as appropriate to

determine the selection of the independent third party.

Question arose as to why the current policy was being amended and a lack of rationale

for the document was mentioned. It was noted that the proposed policy focussed on

policy issues rather than operating procedures and was much clearer and comprehensive

and would better serve the needs of students.

• It was noted that the policy encouraged faculty members to refer all requests for

accommodation to the Centre rather than dealing with the requests themselves. Question

rose as to how faculty were being informed of this change in process. Senate was

advised that the Director of the Centre is in the process of contacting all academic

departments/programs and asking the Chairs/Directors to inform their faculty members

directly.

Question was called, and a vote taken.

MOTION CARRIED

C) ?

Senate Committee on University Priorities

i) ?

Paper S

.03-75 -

Motion 4, Senate Paper S.03-67 re base-budgeted resources for

CFL positions and TA funding

Motion 1

Moved by J. Waterhouse, seconded by B. Krane

"that Motion 4 of the SCEMP recommendation from the Course

Accessibility Task Force be taken from the table"

Question was called, and a vote taken.

MOTION CARRIED

S.M. 15 Sept 2003

Page 8

Motion 2

Moved by J. Waterhouse, seconded by J. Pierce

"that Senate encourage the Vice-President, Academic to seek additional

base-budgeted resources for CFL positions and TA funding"

A question was directed to the Vice-President Academic as to where he saw the

additional funding coming from and specifically whether it would be taken from existing

operating funds. The Vice-President Academic indicated that the motion simply directed

him to carry out his responsibility to ensure that the quality of education provided to

students was within funding constraints and directed him to ensure that there was an

appropriate division of resources between the teaching and support functions of Faculties.

The Vice-President Academic also assured Senate that whenever possible he has lobbied,

and will continue to lobby, for increased funding for the University, particularly for

teaching in academic programs.

Question was called, and a vote taken.

MOTION CARRIED

ii) ?

Paper S.03-76 - Master's of Pest Management External Review

Moved by J. Waterhouse, seconded by N. Haunerland

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

the proposal for a revised Master's of Pest Management Program in the

Department of Biological Sciences in the Faculty of Science as outlined in

S. 03-76"

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

in attendance in order to respond to questions.

On behalf of Senate, the Chair thanked the Department of Biological Sciences and the

members of SCUP for the successful resolution of the concerns associated with the

previous SCUP recommendations.

Senate was advised that the program was off to a good start because of the generosity of

one of the Founding Members of the original program, Dr. Thelma Finlayson, who has

assured three Entrance Scholarships for graduate students.

Question was called, and a vote taken.

MOTION CARRIED

S.M. 15 Sept 2003

Page

• Senate received information that the Senate Graduate Studies Committee, acting under

delegated authority, approved minor revisions to existing courses in Biological Sciences

as part of the revision of the MPM program.

iii)

Paper S.03-77 - External Review

- School for the Contemporary Arts

Moved by J. Waterhouse, seconded by J. Pierce

"that Senate concur with the recommendations from the Senate Committee

on University Priorities concerning the advice to the School for the

Contemporary Arts on priority items resulting from the external review as

outlined in S.03-77"

M. Gotfrit, Director, School for the Contemporary Arts, was in attendance in order to

respond to questions.

The status of the possible development of facilities in downtown Vancouver was

discussed. Senate was advised that the City of Vancouver had requested proposals for

the future development of the Woodwards site and SFU had submitted a letter of intent

which was very similar to previous submissions. Additionally, Chancellor Wong was in

• the process of assembling a committee to raise funds in support of the proposal. Concern

was expressed that if financial support for the downtown campus option was not

forthcoming by the end of the 2003/2004 academic year, the project would have to be

abandoned. It was noted however that this was only a recommendation that underscored

the urgency of getting a resolution, and the passage of the motion would result in a very

strong requirement to report to Senate and the School at the end of the academic year,

either that real progress was being made with the downtown proposal, or that an

alternative solution needed to be found.

Reference was made to Item 15 of the report and opinion expressed that Interactive Arts

and Technology in Surrey would also be open to partnership and ongoing collaboration

with the School of Contemporary Arts.

Question was called, and a vote taken.

MOTION CARRIED

iv)

Pap

er S.03-78 - External Review

- School of Criminology

Moved by J. Waterhouse, seconded by J. Pierce

"that Senate concur with the recommendations from the Senate Committee

on University Priorities concerning advice to the School of Criminology

on priority items resulting from the external review as outlined in S.03-78"

S.M. 15 Sept 2003

Page 10

R. Gordon, Senator and Director of the School of Criminology, and G. Anderson and P.

J. Brantingham from the School, were in attendance in order to respond to questions.

It was noted that parts of the review had been refuted by the School and discussion

ensued in this regard. Senate was advised that the concern of the reviewers about the

publication rate in the School was questioned, and Senators attention was drawn to the

documentation which shows a breakdown of the publications of faculty members in the

School and demonstrates the productivity of the School. The reviewers also suggested a

decrease in the number of undergraduate students in favour of an increase in graduate

enrolments. The School decided to maintain, and hopefully improve, undergraduate

enrolments while increasing graduate enrolment, and this has already been accomplished.

Question was called, and a vote taken.

MOTION CARRIED

Senate Committee on Enrolment Management and Planning

i) ?

Paper S.03-79 - SCEMP Recommendation re Admission GPA for Associate

Degree Holders

Moved by J. Waterhouse, seconded by P. Beynon

"that the admission GPA for Associate Degree holders be fixed at least

one year in advance, and the information communicated to the-Colleges"

R. Blackman was in attendance in order to respond to questions.

It was noted that the admission GPA for other categories of admission was not fixed in

advance and justification was requested for treating this category differently. The change

was proposed in response to concerns from the Colleges with respect to students leaving

Associate Degree programs before completion in order to transfer to universities.

Colleges felt that students would be less likely to leave early if they had more definitive

information about admission levels, and the proposed change would also provide students

with better advanced information which the Committee felt would be helpful in planning

their programs.

Question was called, and a vote taken.

MOTION CARRIED

Senate Library Committee/Library Penalties Appeal Committee

i) ?

Paper S.03-80 - Annual Reports (For Information)

Following a brief explanation about the decision to delay the external review of the

Library, Senate received the Annual Report for information.

S.M. 15 Sept 2003

Page 11

S7.

Other Business

Paper S.03-81 - Motion from Senator Giacomantonio

Moved by C. Giacomantonio, seconded by C. Sears

"that Senate request that the Board of Governors waive the 2% penalty for

non-payment of tuition and student fees for all students participating in the

tuition fee boycott"

Senate was advised that the motion originated from the Student Senator caucus and had

the support of the Student Senators. A tuition boycott was organized by the students in

order to draw attention to the increases in tuition fees and other issues related to the state

of post-secondary education in BC. It was hoped that public awareness would make

these concerns issues for the next election. Senators were urged to show their support for

the students by approving the motion.

Discussion took place with respect to the purpose of the 2% penalty assessed for non-

payment of fees and the impact of the withdrawal of fees on the finances of the

university.

Sympathy was expressed for what the students were trying to do but-opinion was voiced

that to be truly effective participants of a protest must be willing to suffer whatever

consequences may result from their action and waiving the 2% penalty detracted from the

effectiveness of the action. Comment was also made that waiver of the penalty for late

payment went against established policy and would set an undesirable precedent.

Question was called, and a vote taken.

MOTION FAILED

ii)

Paper S.03-82 (Revised) - Elections - Senate Nominating Committee -

Senate Committee Vacancies

A revised paper showing additions was distributed to Senators along with information

supplied by candidates. There were insufficient nominations received to fill all positions.

Vacancies will be carried forward. The following are the results of elections which took

place by Senate.

Senate Committee on Continuing Studies (SCCS)

One Senator (at-large) to replace S. Atkins for term of office to May 31, 2005.

No nominations received

S.M. 15 Sept 2003

Page 12

Senate Committee on University Priorities (SCUP)

One Faculty Senator (Arts) to replace C. Gerson for term of office to May 31, 2004.

Elected by acclamation: ?

Dan Weeks

Senate Librar

Committee (SLC)/Librar

Penalties Appeal Committee (LPAC - Dual

Position

One Senator (at-large) to replace C. Gerson for term of office to May 31, 2005.

No nominations received

Senate Nominating Committee (SNC)

One Senator (at-large) to replace C. Gerson for term of office to May 31, 2004.

Elected by acclamation: ?

Titus Gregory

Senate Committee on Agenda and Rules (SCAR)

One Senator (at-large) to replace W. Chan for term of office to May 31, 2004.

Candidates: C. Giacomantonio, A. Gill

Elected:

Alison Gill

Senate Committee on University Teaching and Learning (SCUTL

One Faculty Member (Arts) to replace T. Grieve for term of office to May 31, 2005.

No nominations received

iii) ?

Paper S.03-80 - Notice of Senate Vacancies (For Information)

Senate received information about outstanding student and faculty vacancies on Senate

and was informed that by-elections to seek replacements would be issued in September.

Information

The date of the next regularly scheduled meeting is Monday, October 6, 2003.

The Chair referred to the Convocation ceremonies scheduled on October 2

and Y

, 2003

and encouraged members of Senate to attend and support the graduating students on this

very important occasion.

Open Session adjourned at

9:05

pm and moved into Closed Session following a brief recess.

Alison Watt

Director, University Secretariat