.
As tomended by
DRAFT UNTIL APPROVED BY SENATE ?
f-s
fr
ô
Minutes of a Meeting of the Senate of Simon Fraser University held on
Monday, March 3, 2008
at
7:00 pm
in
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.
2.
Approval of the Minutes of the Open Session of
J
anuarv 7. 2008
Following an amendment to add the name of D. Dagenais to the list of Senators present,
the Minutes were approved.
3.
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.
4.
Report of the Chair
There was no report from the Chair.
5.
Question Period
There were no questions.
6.
Rerorts of Committees
A) ?
Senate Committee on Universit
y
Priorities
i)
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
3
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
5
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.
S
.
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
6
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
1
$f11lrg it,
T
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 ?
tO
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%
E.
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
i)
Paper S.08-31 - Curriculum Revisions - Fault
y
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
y
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
8
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.
?
0
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)
Senate received information that the Senate Graduate Studies Committee, acting under
delegated authority, approved a course deletion, new courses, and changes to existing
courses.
iii.b) Paper S.08-37 - Curriculum Revisions - Urban Studies (For Information)
Senate received information that the Senate Graduate Studies Committee, acting under
delegated authority, approved a new course.
0
S
a
S.M. 3 March 2008
Page 9
iv.a) Paper S.08-38 - Curriculum Revisions - Computing Science (For Information)
Senate received information that the Senate Graduate Studies Committee, acting under
delegated authority, approved course deletions, new courses, breadth and course
requirements, and changes to existing courses.
iv.b) Paper S.08-39 - Curriculum Revision - Resource and Environmental
Management (For Information)
Senate received information that the Senate Graduate Studies Committee, acting under
delegated authority, approved a change to an existing course.
iv.c) Paper S.08-40 - Curriculum Revisions - Faculty of Applied Sciences To
Information)
Senate received information that the Senate Graduate Studies Committee, acting under
delegated authority, approved course deletions, new courses, changes to program
requirements, and changes to existing courses in the following areas: Communication,
Kinesiology, and Interactive Arts and Technology.
v)
Paper S.08-41 - Curriculum Revisions - Faculty of Education (For Information)
Senate received information that the Senate Graduate Studies Committee, acting under
delegated authority, approved changes to existing courses.
vi)
Paper S.08-42 - Curriculum Revisions - Faculty of Science (For Information)
Senate received information that the Senate Graduate Studies Committee, acting under
delegated authority, approved new courses in the Department of Mathematics.
E)
?
Senate Nominating Committee
i) ?
Paper S.08-43— Elections
Senate was advised no nominations were received thus the vacancy on the International
Student Exchange Committee for the Faculty of Applied Sciences remains unfilled.
7.
Other Business
There was no other business.
8.
Information
The date of the next regularly scheduled meeting of Senate is Monday, April 7, 2008.
The Open Session adjourned at 9:20 pm, and Senate moved directly into Closed Session.
.
?
Kate Ross
Registrar and Senior Director, Enrolment Services