As tomended by

DRAFT UNTIL APPROVED BY SENATE ?

f-s

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

Monday, March 3, 2008

7:00 pm

Room 3210 WMC

Open Session

Present: Stevenson, Michael, President and Chair of Senate

Abdulwahab, Kamal

Atkins, Stella

Brennand, Tracy

Copeland, Lynn

Corbett, Kitty

Cormack, Lesley

Dagenais, Diane

Dickinson, Peter

Driver, Jon

Easton, Stephen

Fizzell, Maureen

Frauds, June

Gencay, Ramo

Gordon, Robert

Hannah, David

Harder, Derrick

Harding, Kevin

Hemingway, Alex

Krane, William

Laba, Martin

Lee, Benjamin

Lein, Adam

Letourneau, Michael

Lewis, Brian

Li, Paul

Malcoe, Lorraine Halinka

Nesbit, Tom (replacingJ. LaBrie)

Paling, Joe

Percival, Cohn

Percival, Paul

Peters, Joseph

Pinto, Mario

Plischke, Michael

Popadiuk, Natalee

Russell, Robert

Shaker, Paul

Shapiro, Daniel

Smith, Don

Thompson, Steve

Tiffany, Evan

Tse, Karen

van Baarsen, Amanda

Wakkary, Ron

Warner, D'Arcy

Waterhouse, John

Weeks, Daniel

Williams, Peter

Williams, Tony

Ross, Kate, Registrar and Senior Director Student

Enrolment

Grant, Bobbie, Recording Secretary

Absent

Brebner, Sarah

Fox, Amy

Hayes, Michael

Javed, Waseem

Liljedabl, Peter

Louie, Brandt

McArthur, James

O'Neil, John

Sherxner, Thomas

Vaid, Bhuvinder

In attendance:

Budra, Paul

Chu, Jonathan

Dean, Charmaine

Gobas, Frank

Janes, Craig

Krider, Robert

Liotti, Mario

Martin, Jack

Roppel, Sue

Truong, Van

S.M. 3 March 2008

Page 2

Approval of the Agenda

Senators had received advance notice that the agenda would be amended to add Senate

paper S.08-44 (informational item from SCUS) to the agenda as item 6.C.iv. The Agenda

was approved following this change.

Approval of the Minutes of the Open Session of

anuarv 7. 2008

Following an amendment to add the name of D. Dagenais to the list of Senators present,

the Minutes were approved.

Business Arising from the Minutes

There was no business arising from the Minutes. The Chair thanked S. Easton for his

admirable chairing of Senate during his absence.

Report of the Chair

There was no report from the Chair.

Question Period

There were no questions.

Rerorts of Committees

A) ?

Senate Committee on Universit

Priorities

Paper S.08-27 - Bachelor of Science in Behavioural Neuroscience, Major and

Honors Program in the Faculties of Applied Sciences and Arts and Social Sciences

Moved by J. Waterhouse, seconded by K. Harding

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

proposal for a Bachelor of Science in Behavioural Neuroscience, Major and

Honors Program in the Faculty of Applied Sciences and the Faculty of Arts

and Social Sciences"

M. Liotti, Department of Psychology, was in attendance in order to respond to questions.

Question was called, and a vote taken.

MOTION CARRIED

ii)

Paper S.08-28 - Faculty Structure Task Force Final Report (For Discussion).

Senators were reminded that the report was before Senate for discussion. The Chair

reported that SCAR felt that Senate should move into a Committee of the Whole in

order to allow more open discussion, and that the Vice President Academic intended to

bring forward pieces of the report for formal consideration at future meetings.

Moved by S. Easton, seconded by M. Letoumeau

"that Senate move into a Committee of the Whole to discuss this item"

Question was called, and a vote taken.

MOTION CARRIED

S.M. 3 March 2008

Page

The Chair suggested that a one and a half hour time limit be considered for the discussion.

Before providing Senate with background on this item, J

Waterhouse acknowledged the

work of the Task Force and extended thanks to all members of the Task Force for the

development of the report and for service performed to the community far beyond normal

expectations. Senate was advised that as a result of the Task Force soliciting proposals from

the university community, 25 proposals were received. Because of the significant number

of proposals, the Task Force broke into working groups that included members of the

Task Force and other members of the university community. The working groups met

with interested people throughout the university and held five open forums which were

well attended. The Final Report was developed and another four open forums were held

within the university community. Based on the discussion and feedback from Senate, the

Vice President Academic indicated his intent to bring forward parts of the report through

the various policy-making bodies of the University. Some parts require action of Senate

and the Board of Governors, other recommendations involve negotiation between the

administration and the Faculty Association. Matters requiring revision to existing

university policies will be undertaken in the normal matter in which the University revises

its policies. Senate was provided with brief background information concerning the

reasons and motivation for striking the Task Force and a brief summary of the three main

areas where change has been recommended. It is recognized that the total cost of

all of the

Task Force's recommendations is beyond the financial capacity of the University to fund

• ?

in one year so priorities have been established and suggestions made for different sources

of funding for different recommendations.

A summary of the concerns, comments, questions, and suggestions raised during the

discussion of this issue follows.

General

• There was a concern that too many changes were being proposed, too quickly.

• The process was comprehensive and thoughtful with initiatives coming from faculty

members and departments. The bottom up process was complimented but care was

needed to safeguard the rights of individuals and to treat people fairly who may not

support the new structure.

Faculty of Communication, Arts and Design

• Communication, Arts and Design seems like a reasonable approach for a Faculty but

concern was expressed about the cost.

Kinesiology moving to Science

• Some disappointment was expressed that Kinesiology would be moving to Science

rather than Health Sciences.

New Faculty of the Environment

• Was the new Faculty of the Environment being created to provide a home for

Resource and Environmental Management?

S.M. 3 March 2008

Page 4

• Why was a Faculty [of the Environment] being created as opposed to an Institute or

even a certain number of University Professorships in the environment, especially at a

time when budgets have been cut. No other options appear to have been considered.

• The Faculty structure was being recommended to provide students with a coherent

series of programs that integrate issues around the environment from science, social

sciences and humanities to deal with a current lack of focus for research and teaching

concerning environmental issues. An institute would not be capable of providing such

a focus because the teaching capacity of institutes is limited. The Task Force received

significant feedback that the time was right for SFU to do something with regard to

the environment and the creation of a new Faculty would provide the leadership

necessary to move this area forward.

• A lot of expertise is available among faculty members across Faculties and separating

some of them in a distinct Faculty of the Environment will erode the strong

disciplinary core that the report itself mentions is important to retain and is needed if

interdisciplinarity is going to work. Bringing a small number of faculty members into

one Faculty will not optimize what SFU can accomplish. Perhaps it would be better to

start by bringing all interested faculty together into a research centre or institute to

work on issues and programs which then may evolve into a Faculty rather than

creating a new Faculty from the start.

• There would be difficulties of integrating science-based programs (from Science) with

social science type programs. This difficulty had been recognized and resulted in the

recommendation to establish the Faculty Interdisciplinary Program Planning

Committee which will report to Senate before the Faculty becomes operational.

• The report contains many good ideas, and Government and private funding is

currently available for environmental issues. Good opportunity to create new academic

units that will position SFU for the future. However universities are currently

underfunded, departmental budgets are being cut, and course/program accessibility is a

problem.

Faculty of Applied Sciences

with Engineering Science and Computing Science

• Ties between Mathematics and Computing Science are strong and the

recommendation to put Computing Science and Engineering Science together rather

than include Computing Science in the Faculty of Science was questioned. It was

noted the School of Computing Science voted on this issue and the majority voted to

associate itself with Engineering Science.

Faculty of

Arts

and Social Sciences

• Only growth is contemplated, and there was no discussion about maintaining current

position. There is a need to preserve disciplinary foundations in the University,

especially core areas such as Arts, Sciences, and Social Sciences.

• Concerns within the Faculty of Arts and Social Sciences have not been addressed -

specifically that the growth of the new structures will be at the expense of FASS.

• Many excellent things being done in the Faculty of Arts and Social Sciences but the

document is silent on much of that and faculty, staff and students in FASS would be

much happier with the report if they felt the changes were enhancing their studies,

teaching and research.

S.M. 3 March 2008

Page

College of

Life

Long and Experiential Learning

• The need for the College was questioned. Continuing Studies does a lot of

interdisciplinary work already and with a slight change in mandate could do more,

without creating a whole new structure

The College was an attempt to deal with proposals that were brought to the working

group that included issues around the future changing demographic of the student

body. It was viewed as a good opportunity for life long learning to be an enriching

experience for a different population of students and to provide a different kind of

experiential component to learning such as the Semester in Dialogue, and to provide a

variety of ways in which the SFU student experience might be something exceptional,

and unique in Canada.

It was suggested that the College is being driven by the need to find a home for the

Semester in Dialogue and has resulted in artificial joining of various other work related

experiences. Co-Op Education and Continuing Studies already work well and there is

no need to restructure them by adding an unnecessary level of administrative

complexity.

Other issues

The Centres and Institutes revisions appeared to be too bureaucratic.

A suggestion was made that a separate forum be held to deal with any leftover

questions or concerns from Senate prior to formal consideration by Senate.

Part of the report seem motivated by the complexity of SFU's programming and that

is not a good reason to create a new structure. Changes in advising need to take place.

Restructuring should be based on reasons that are intellectually exciting and

important.

• Restructuring will help to create a more attractive environment to students and attract

students throughout their life. By maintaining the status quo the university becomes

less attractive and less competitive to other institutions.

• Task Force was commended for its attempt to address obstacles to interdisciplinarity,

both in teaching and research, but disappointment was expressed about the lack of

incentives to encourage faculty members to engage in interdisciplinary work. Needs

more conceptualization and development to make interdisciplinarity useful and

workable.

• In the current budget reality, it would be helpful to see the financial aspect of the

proposals linked to other components of the budget.

• Although a cost summary is given and priorities established, no 'balance sheet' is

available with respect to the impact on the current fiscal situation and it is difficult to

support restructuring without knowing the total cost to the university. A request was

made for the details on the actual total cost of the proposed structure including the first

year costs. These were summarized by the Vice President Academic.

Every Senator having had an opportunity to speak at least once, the Chair indicated that

the time limit for discussion had expired. The Chair summarized that much of the

discussion revolved around issues of budget and its impact, especially on the Faculty of

S.M. 3 March 2008

Page

Arts and Social Sciences. He felt that many assertions with respect to presumed unfairness

of the funding for FASS, and questions surrounding the tutorial system and funding for

graduate students, all need open discussion and response. The budget has not yet been

formulated but, as President, the Chair committed to an open discussion of the budget and

its implications on the University. The Chair also suggested that the Vice President

Academic and SCUP give careful consideration to the substance of Senate's discussion

before bringing forward recommendations, especially with respect to providing a financial

rationale with greater detail about the budgeting and costs of the proposals.

Moved by S. Easton, seconded by J. Driver

"that Senate move out of Committee of the Whole"

Question was called, and a vote taken. ?

MOTION CARRIED

On behalf of Senate, the Chair reiterated thanks and appreciation to members of the Task

Force for their extraordinary service to the University and for their thoughtfulness in the

development of the report.

B) ?

Senate Committee on Enrolment Management and Planning

i) ?

Paper S.08-29 - Undergraduate Enrolment Plan 2008/2009

Moved by J

Waterhouse, seconded by M. Fizzell

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

2008/09 enrolment plan as laid out in the document

Enrolment Plan,

February 13, 2008

In response to a question about how to interpret the data, the Associate Vice President

Academic provided a detailed analysis of Senate paper S.08-29 Enrolment Plan, and S.08-

30 Undergraduate Admission Targets for 2008/09, and explained how the Government

targets are set.

was

made to

the

l&fge pfepetiQn

g f mt ma

$f11lrg it,

r-r1

Adxisae,i and eeneern was expressed abeut

hw the Fasulty will

man-ag e

such

x.umbers. It was pointed out that historically Business Administration has always had the

(Y\4 ?

largest proportion of international students and the 2008/09 targets for domestic and

from

international reflected a rollover ?

enrolment experienced by Business last year. The

Gn,'idVb1J%

Associate Dean of Business Administration provided a brief explanation as to why it will

be difficult for Business Administration to meet the international target. A suggestion was

made that if Faculties are having difficulties meeting targets the model used to set the

targets should perhaps be reviewed. It was noted that the targets are monitored very

closely and adjustments are constantly being made during the admission process through

discussions between the Registrar and the Faculty Deans.

S.M. 3 March 2008

Page 7

• ?

The Associate Vice-President Academic reiterated that the targets were simply planning

devices and as enrolment experience developed over the next several semesters,

adjustments would have to be made.

Question was called, and a vote taken.

MOTION CARRIED

ii) ?

Paper S.08-30 - Undergraduate Admission Targets for 2008/2009

Motion 1

Moved by J. Waterhouse, seconded by D. Smith

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

2008/09 Domestic undergraduate admission targets to each Faculty, by

semester and basis of admission category as indicated in Table 1"

Question was called, and a vote taken. ?

MOTION CARRIED

Motion 2

Moved by J. Waterhouse, seconded by D. Smith

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

International undergraduate admission targets to each Faculty and to each

• ? semester as indicated in Table 2"

Question was called, and a vote taken. ?

MOTION CARRIED

C) ?

Senate Committee on Undergraduate Studies

Paper S.08-31 - Curriculum Revisions - Fault

of Applied Sciences (For

Information)

Senate received information that the Senate Committee on Undergraduate Studies, acting

under delegated authority, approved new courses, program changes, and changes to

existing courses in the following areas: Computing Science, Kinesiology, Engineering

Science, and Interactive Arts and Technology.

ii)

Paper S.08-32 - Curriculum Revisions - Facult

of Education (For Information)

Senate received information that the Senate Committee on Undergraduate Studies, acting

under delegated authority, approved changes to program requirements and changes to

existing courses in the Faculty of Education.

iii)

Paper S.08-33 - Curriculum Revisions - Faculty of Science (For Information)

•

Senate received information that the Senate Committee on Undergraduate Studies, acting

under delegated authority, approved deletion of courses, new courses, program changes,

S.M. 3 March 2008

Page

and changes to existing courses in the following areas: Management & Systems Science,

Biological Sciences, Mathematics, Physics, Earth Sciences, and Statistics and Actuarial

Science.

iv) ?

Paper S.08-44 - Revision to Admission Process for BC 12 (For Information)

Senate received information with respect to a revision to the Admission Process for BC

12. The process was revised in order to recruit more top students to the university and to

provide all other applicants with a greater measure of certainty. The Admission office will

strengthen offers made to high school students and introduce a separate process for two

cohorts of students: Cohort A: Top Students, 90%+, Major Entrance Scholarship

Applicants, and Cohort B: General Admission.

D) ?

Senate Graduate Studies Committee

1) ?

Paper S.08-34 - Annual Report (For Information)

The Annual Report of the Senate Graduate Studies Committee for 2007 was received by

Senate for information.

ii)

Paper S.08-35 - Revisions to Graduate Regulations

Senate was informed that items 5, 6 and 7 concerning graduate fee administration were

not to be included in the motion and should be deleted from the paper.

Moved by J. Driver, seconded by M. Letoumeau

"that Senate approve changes to the following Graduate General

Regulations: 1.4.3 Continuity of Enrolment; 1.4.6 Course Audit; 1.7.6

Courses in Master's and Doctoral Programs; and 1.12.4 Graduate

Regulation"

Question was called, and a vote taken.

MOTION CARRIED

iii.a) Paper S.08-36 - Curriculum Revisions - Political Science (For Information)