DRAFT UNTIL APPROVED BY SENATE

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

Monday, June 2, 2008 at 5:30 pm in Room 3210 WMC

Open Session

Present: Stevenson, Michael, President and Chair of Senate

Arsenault-Antolick, Haida

Bains, Aman

Bart, Brad

Bocking, Natalie

Chapman, Glenn

Copeland, Lynn

Cormack, Lesley

Dow, Greg

Driver, Jon

Easton, Stephen

Fergusson, Andrew

Fizzell, Maureen

Francis, June

Hannah, David

Harding, Kevin

Haunerland, N. (representing M. Pinto)

Hayes, Michael

Janes, Craig

Joffies, Michel

Jones, John (representing B. Lewis)

Krane, Bill

LaBrie, John

Lee, Benjamin

Letourneau, Michael

Leznoff, Daniel

MacDonald, Camille

Mathewes, Rolf (representing M. Plischke)

O'Neil, John

Paling, Joseph

Patel, Ravi

Pavsek, Christopher

Percival, Colin

Percival, Paul

Peters, Joseph

Popadiuk, Natalee

Shapiro, Daniel

Tapia, Earl Von

Tiffany, Evan

Van Baarsen, Amanda

Wakkary, Ron

Warner, D'Arcy

Waterhouse, John

Williams, Tony

Ross, Kate, Registrar & Senior Director Student Enrolment

Watt, Alison, Director, University Secretariat

Grant, Bobbie, Recording Secretary

Absent:

Brennand, Tracy

Gencay, Ramo

Golnaraghi, Farid

Gordon, Robert

Laba, Martin

Liljedahl, Peter

Louie, Brandt

McArthur, James

Russell, Robert

Shaker, Paul

Shermer, Thomas

Thompson, Steve

Vaid, Bhuvinder

van der Wey, Dolores

In attendance:

Johnston, Nancy

Khan Hemani, Rummana

Kiai, Mehran

MacLeod, Richard

S.M. 2 June 2008

Page 2

Approval of the Agenda

The Agenda was approved as distributed.

Approval of the Minutes of the Open Session of May 12, 2008

Reference was made to the note on page 5 at the end of the Minutes concerning retiring

Senators. Following clarification that M. Letoumeau had in fact 'retired' as a Student

Senator but was now on Senate in another position, the Minutes were approved.

Business Arising from the Minutes

Reference was made to page 2 under 6.b.1 concerning a question which arose as to

whether there was a place of reference to find out what standard was required for medical

documentation. Senators were referred to the Student Services Web site

(www.students.sfu.ca/forms) where a specific 'Health Care Providers' form was available.

Report of the Chair

On behalf of Senate, the Chair welcomed guests from Kwantlen University College who

were present to observe the operation of a University Senate.

The Chair also welcomed and thanked the newly elected and re-elected Faculty Senators,

Convocation Senators and Student Senators for undertaking service to the University and

acknowledged the following individuals: Faculty Senators - Glenn Chapman, Christopher

Pavsek, Greg Dow, Dolores van der Wey, Craig Janes, Daniel Leznoff, Tracy Brennand,

Robert Gordon, Michel Joffies, and June Francis; Convocation Senators - Michael

Letoumeau, James McArthur, Cohn Percival, and D'Arcy Warner; Student Senators -

Haida Arseneault-Antolick, Aman Bains, Natalee Bocking, Andrew Fergusson, Camille

MacDonald, Ravi Patel, Earl Von Tapia; Kevin Harding, Benjamin Lee, Joseph Paling,

Bhuvinder Vaid, and Amanada van Baarsen.

The Chair reported that the recent Open House had been excellent with good

attendance, and he particularly wanted to express thanks and appreciation to the large

number of student volunteers and the many members of Faculty and Staff for their efforts

in making the event such a success. With regard to criticisms about the timing of the

event at the same time as the Congress of the Academic Societies and so close to

Convocation, Senate was advised that the event was planned so that some of the costs

associated with preparation of the campus for Open House and Convocation could be

combined.

Senators were reminded of upcoming Convocation Ceremonies and were encouraged by

the Chair to participate.

Referring to a recent email to Senate from a former Senator expressing distress at the

legislative change to the University Act with respect to the selection of a Chancellor, the

Chair informed Senate that the change resulted from a unanimous recommendation by

The University Presidents' Council quite some time ago. The recommendation, which

also included appointment of Convocation Senators, was based on consideration of factors

such as the high costs of conducting an election, notifying all members of Convocation of

S.M. 2 June 2008

Page 3

. ?

the candidacies, staff time and logistics required for the electoral process, and the limited

democratic participation by eligible voters. In addition, there was not much effective

involvement of the Alumni Association in the current process and the revised legislation

empowers the Alumni Associations to mobilize interest in Convocation elections and to

make strong recommendations. The consultation with Senate was also recommended due

to the importance of the shared responsibilities in the governance of the University. It was

noted that the change from election to appoint only applied to the Chancellor;

Convocation Senators will still be subject to election.

5. ?

Question Period

A question arose with respect to the results of the recent election of students to Senate. It

was noted that one of the Student Senators was elected as representing the Faculty of

Science when in fact they should have been elected as a member of the Faculty of Applied

Sciences. It was noted there were currently two vacant positions - one for a student from

Applied Sciences, and one for a student from Business Administration. Suggestion was

made that this issue be reviewed and if a mistake had been made the student in question

be declared as representing Applied Sciences and the additional vacancies be filled by the

appropriate Faculties. The Registrar was asked to review the situation.

Registrar's Note: The Faculty designation was correct at the time of election. As normal practice,

review will be made prior to the califor nominations in the Fall term to fill the remaining positions to

see if any changes are warranted.

Reports of Committees

Senate Committee on University Teaching

i) ?

Paper S.08-78 - Annual Report (For Information)

P. Neufeld, Chair of the Committee, was in attendance in order to respond to questions.

The Annual Report of the Senate Committee on University Teaching was received by

Senate for information.

Senate Committee on University Priorities

i) ?

Paper S.08-79 - Course Scheduling Policy

Moved by J. Waterhouse, seconded by J. Paling

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

revised Course Scheduling Policy T 30.01"

K. Ross, Registrar and Senior Director Student Enrolment, and R. MacLeod, Associate

Registrar, Information, Records and Registration were in attendance in order to respond

to questions.

S.M. 2 June 2008

Page 4

The Registrar, Associate Registrar and staff in Student Services were commended for the

open and consultative process and the large amount of work which went into revising the

document.

An opinion was expressed that the revised document was an important step forward

towards solving at least part of the course accessibility problem facing the University.

It was noted that concerns were raised at the open forum that the revised policy may in

fact create more conflicts than the current scheduling process and the issue of modeling

the proposed changes was discussed. If the intent was to model the changes, a suggestion

was made that it would seem more prudent to table the motion until the results of the

modeling exercise were known. Senate was advised that at the open forum the Registrar

and the Vice President Academic undertook to request from departments the proposed

timetable for Spring 2009 term which would permit a mock up to be done to test the

hypothesis of whether the number of conflicts would be increased or decreased. However,

rather than tabling the motion it was suggested that if problems were observed with the

mock up, amendments could then come forward. Tabling the motion at this point would

delay scheduling for Spring whereas if the motion passed with the understanding that

amendments could be made if necessary, departments would be able to move forward

with Spring 09 timetables.

Question was called, and a vote taken. ?

MOTION CARRIED

ii) ?

Paper S.08- . 80 - Timelines for Consideration of Remaining Recommendations

from the Report of Phase 2 Faculty Structure Task Force (For Information)

A concern was expressed that this was before Senate for information because it sets in

motion the implementation of the remaining recommendations in the report, some of

which have implications for funding. It was noted that the units responsible for developing

whatever next steps were necessary will move forward in such a way as to take into

consideration the financial constraints of the university. It was pointed out that some of

the next steps are not costly and in some cases only involve policy changes. Senate was

also advised that this process was discussed at length by SCAR and that SCAR felt that

since the document referred to timelines rather than specific recommendations, it should

be forwarded to Senate for information.

Reference was made to Recommendation 18 concerning the Tech One program and

opinion was expressed that the proposed timeline was not possible. The suggestion is that

the Steering Committee put forward a recommendation by December and mentions

involvement of three Deans, two of which were not even appointed yet because the

Faculties would not be in place until April 2009. It was pointed out by the Vice President

Academic that there were pressures to deal with this issue before the full administrative

structure of the new Faculties were in place because a number of areas appeared to be

interested in having Tech One under their purview, and this needed to be sorted out

soon. ?

S.M. 2 June 2008

Page 5

. ?

When the original report of the Task Force was discussed, there was a lot of opposition by

a lot of people about the need for the College of Lifelong and Experiential Learning yet

Recommendation 9 proposes that this item move forward as if everyone is happy with it.

A suggestion was made that this particular aspect needs further discussion and consultation

with the University community before it proceeds any further. Senate was advised that

nothing specific was being proposed, only that discussions and planning would begin in

September 2008.

In response to an inquiry about when the names of the new Faculties would be discussed,

Senate was advised that the proposal for the new Faculty that includes Contemporary Arts,

Communication and SlAT would come forward soon; the new Faculty that includes

Engineering and Computing Science would remain as the Faculty of Applied Sciences;

and the proposed Faculty of the Environment would determine a name as it proceeds

through the program planning process over the next several months.

C) ?

Senate Committee on Undergraduate Studies

Paper S.08-81 - Extension of Student Success Program

Moved by J. Waterhouse, seconded by K. Harding

"that Senate approve the extension of exemptions made to existing

Standing and Continuance policies, as related to the Student Success

program, for two years; from April 2008 to August 2010, and approve the

expansion of target groups to the Faculty of Science"

R. Khan Hemani, Director, Academic Advising and Student Success, and N. Johnston,

Senior Director, Student Learning and Retention were in attendance in order to respond

to questions.

It was noted that the current motion includes two distinct issues and it may well be that

some Senators support one part of the motion but not the other. A suggestion was made

that it would be helpful if the motion were divided.

Moved by P. Percvial, seconded by D. Leznoff

"that the motion be divided"

Question was called and a vote taken.

MOTION TO DIVIDE CARRIED

The following motion was first on the floor for discussion.

Motion 1:

• ?

"that Senate approve the extension of exemptions made to existing

Standing and Continuance policies, as related to the Student Success

program, for two years; from April 2008 to August 2010"

S.M. 2 June 2008

Page 6

A concern was expressed about the inclusion of students still on academic probation in the

statistics of those who achieved success. It was pointed out that those students, in their first

term of the program, achieved a 2.0 GPA and were actually meeting satisfactory academic

standing in that semester. It was also pointed out that the goal of the program was for

students to achieve good academic standing after two semesters but these students were

actually going into good academic standing after one semester which implied success. Brief

discussion ensued with respect to the definition of success and how the percentage figures

were determined.

It was acknowledged that this program would be very useful to students coming from

other cultures and other academic systems and the statistics for international students look

very encouraging. However, in view of the small number of overall statistics, concern was

expressed at extending the program for two years rather than the one year which was

originally requested. Senate was advised that SCUS had discussed this issue at length and

felt that there would not be sufficient data available at the end of a one year period to

come to meaningful conclusion about whether the program was working or not and

therefore changed the recommendation to two years.

Concerns were raised about the financing and the budget of the Student Success program.

In response to a suggestion that this type of program should be able to fully recover its

costs, it was pointed Out that the tuition that students pay after successfully completing the

program more than covers the program costs. It was also noted that the $250 tuition credit

was being eliminated. A question arose as to whether the considerable cost per student for

this extra assistance might be better spent in other areas of the university in helping a

wider population of undergraduate students, particularly in light of the reduced funding

from the Government.

An opinion was expressed that it would be useful to see how well students in this program

were doing relative to students in the same circumstances who were not in the program. It

was pointed out that since students on RTW were no longer at SFU a comparative figure

was not possible. An inquiry arose as to what percentages of students who are put on

academic probation manage to get back to good academic standing on their own. Senate

was advised that this data could be produced but was not available for the meeting.

Brief discussion ensued with respect to possible success and retention programming for

other groups of students (scholarship, undeclared. 3.0+) that are also part of SFU's attrition

rate.

Question was called, and a vote taken.

MOTION 1 CARRIED

Motion 2

Moved by J. Waterhouse, seconded by K. Harding

"that Senate approve the expansion of target groups to the Faculty of

Science"

S.M. 2 June 2008

Page 7

A concern was expressed about introducing another variable of students from a different

Faculty and suggestion was made that the pilot project should be carried on with the

current set of students.

It was noted that the pilot program was originally proposed for the Faculty of Applied

Sciences because that Faculty had a problem with retention. Since some units currently in

the Faculty of Applied Sciences will be moving to other Faculties, suggestion was made

that instead of expanding to the Faculty of Science, the expansion should include those

departments which are not going to be in the Faculty of Applied Sciences in the future.

Senate was reminded that the request was for a policy exemption to allow the pilot to

continue without having to seek permission at the end of April where there was a really

small time frame to catch students that are RTW and invite them into the program. Next

to Applied Sciences, Science had the highest percentage of students in academic difficulty

and based on determination of what the program could handle, decision was made to

recommend expansion to Science. It was pointed out that some of the curriculum already

developed for Applied Sciences could also be used for Science students which was another

reason why it was decided to expand to Science. The addition of Science would increase

the program from approximately 200 to 300 students. A question was posed about

expanding to the Faculty of Arts and Social Sciences in order to get a larger cross section

of students in the program but the size of that group would overwhelm the resources that

were available to run the program so that was not feasible at this time.

In response to an inquiry about whether costs would rise if expanded to Science, Senate

was advised that the total cost increases but the cost per student starts to decrease at around.

300 students. Student Services was also looking at other retention initiatives around

students on probation and entrance scholarship students experiencing difficulties. Without

a more careful costing and some increase in revenue from the students a concern was

expressed about expanding the program. It was stressed by the Registrar that it costs more

to recruit a new student than to retain a student and if more students can be retained that

helps to increase admission averages which in turn may affect the retention rate.

Question was called, and a vote taken.

MOTION 2 CARRIED

ii) ?

Paper S.08-82 - Admission Requirement Revision - English 12 First Peoples

(EFP 12)

Moved by B. Krane, seconded by K. Harding

"that Senate approve English 12 First Peoples (EFP 12) as equivalent to

English 12 for admission purposes"

Question was called, and a vote taken.

MOTION CARRIED

S.M. 2Jurie 2008

Page 8

iii) ?

Paper S.08-83 - Exchange Credit Proposal

Moved by B. Krane, seconded by R. Pate!

"that Senate approve that the residency requirement for completing a

credential at SFU may include up to 15 exchange credits"

M. Kiai, Director, Enrolment Services, was in attendance in order to respond to questions.

Question was called, and a vote taken. ?

MOTION CARRIED

D) ?

Senate Nominating Committee

i) ?

Paper S.08-84 Revised - Elections

Senate's attention was drawn to Senate Paper S.08-84 Revised which was distributed at

the meeting and showed all positions which were elected by acclamation and those

positions which required balloting. Senators were reminded that voting would take place

on-line. Senators would receive an email with information and links to both the ballot and

the candidate statements that are on-line. A copy of S.08-84 Revised would also be

attached to the email so Senators have complete electoral information. To access the on-

line ballot, Senators were reminded that they must use their SFU Computing ID. It was

pointed out that balloting was required for some committees to determine Regular versus

Alternate positions in which case the candidate receiving the higher number of votes holds

the Regular position, the runner-up the Alternate position. Voting on-line would be

accessible for approximately two days and all Senators were encouraged to vote.

Names of candidates elected by acclamation can be found on Senate Paper S.08-84

Revised. The results of on-line voting are as follows.

Calendar Committee (CC)

One Student for term of office to May 31, 2009:

Elected:

Amanda van Baarsen

Research Ethics Board (REB)

Two members of the University Community for terms of office to May 31, 2011:

Elected: ?

Kim Bartholomew

Earl Von Tapia

Two Student members (1 Regular, 1 Alternate) for terms of office to May 31, 2010:

Elected:

Senate Appeals Board (SAB)

Two Faculty Members (1 Regular,

Elected:

Bhuvinder Vaid (Regular)

Sean Robertson (Alternate)

1 Alternate) for terms of office to May 31, 2010:

Peter Liljedahl (Regular)

Richard Yates (Alternate)

S.M. 2 June 2008

Page 9

Two Undergraduate Students (1 Regular, 1 Alternate) for terms of office to May 31,

2009:

Elected:

All Godson (Regular)

Natalie Bocking (Alternate)

Senate Committee on Enrolment Mana g

ement and Planning (SCEMP)

Two Faculty Senators for terms of office to May 31, 2010:

Elected:

Greg Dow

Maureen Fizzell

Senate Committee on Disciplinar y Appeals (SCODA)

Two Faculty Members (Alternates) for terms of office to May 31, 2009:

Elected:

Luis Goddyn

Jodi Viljoen

Five Students (3 Regular, 2 Alternate) for terms of office to May 31, 2009:

Elected:

Aman Balm (Regular)

Kathy McKay (Regular)

Ravi Patel (Regular)

Natalie Bocking (Alternate)

Thomas Unsoeld (Alternate)

Senate Committee on Undergraduate Studies (SCUS

Three Undergraduate Students (2 Regular, 1 Alternate) for terms of office to May 31,

2009:

Elected: ?

Haida Arsenault-Antolick (Regular)

Kevin Harding (Regular)

Joe Paling (Alternate)

Senate Committee on University Honours (SCUH)

Two Convocation Senators for terms of office to May 31, 2011:

Elected:

Colin Percival

D'Arcy Warner

Senate Committee on University Priorities (SCUP)

Four Student Senators (3 Regular, 1 Alternate) for terms of office to May 31, 2009:

Elected: ?

Haida Arsenault-Antolick (Regular)

Kevin Harding (Regular)

Amanda van Baarsen (Regular)

Natalie Bocking (Alternate)

One Convocation Senator for term of office to May 31, 2010:

Elected:

Michael Letourneau

S.M. 2 June 2008

Page 10

Senate Committee on Universit y

Teaching and Learning (SCUTL)

One Undergraduate Student for term of office to May 31, 2009:

Elected:

Benjamin Lee

Senate Graduate Studies Committee (SGSC)

Three graduate students (1 Regular, 2 Alternate) for terms of office to May 31, 2009:

Elected: ?

Ursula Arndt (Regular)

Eli Gibson (Alternate)

Graham Lyons (Alternate)

Senate Policy Committee on Scholarships. Awards and Bursaries (SPCSAB)/Senate

Undergraduate Awards Adjudication Committee (SUAAC) - dual position

Two Undergraduate Students (1 Regular, 1 Alternate) for terms of office to May 31,

2009:

Elected:

Haida Arsenault-Antolick (Regular)

Balloting resulted in a tied vote between J. Paling and R. Patel for the Alternate position.

The Rules of Senate state that "In elections at Senate if there is a tied vote between two

candidates for one position, the winner shall be determined by a toss of the coin

conducted by the Registrar at a time set by the Registrar and in the presence of the

affected candidates or their representatives". Prior to the toss of the coin, R. Patel was

designated as 'heads' andJ. Paling was designated as 'tails'. The coin was tossed and landed

'heads'. ?

Elected:

Ravi Patel (Alternate)

7. ?

Other Business

i) ?

Paper S.08-74 - Senate Time and Senate Dinner

Moved by J. Waterhouse, seconded by R. Patel

"that Senate approve that Senate dinners be eliminated and that the normal

meeting time for Senate be changed from 7:00 pm to 4:30 pm, effective

July 2008"

Amendment moved by J. Paling, seconded by A. van Baarsen

"that the meeting time for Senate be changed from 7:00 pm to 5:30 pm"

Opinion was expressed that since Senators were already used to meeting at 5:30 pm it was

more appropriate than 4:30 pm because many Senators would find it easier to arrive by

5:30 pm rather than 4:30 pm, especially if coming from off campus.

Question was called, and a vote taken.

AMENDMENT CARRIED

The rationale that moving Senate to an earlier start time would make Senate more

accessible was questioned. It was noted that there was no argument to support this and

S.M. 2 June 2008

Page 11

opinion was expressed that it was likely that more faculty and students were available at

7:00 pm than at 4:30 or 5:30 pm. The main rationale for an early start time appeared to be

the question of reducing costs by removing Senate dinners. It was noted that the savings

would be purely symbolic and the symbolic gesture would likely go unnoticed. Senate

should be allowed adequate time to debate and reflect on the matters coming before it and

having a 7:00 o'clock meeting after dinner provides sufficient opportunity for this to

occur. Having an early start time without dinner would likely result in shorter meetings

with less time for debate and discussion. Senate dinners provide networking opportunities

and opportunity for informal interaction between administrators, faculty and students to

share information, discuss issues, and to get to know one another. The cost is a small price

to pay for the congeniality and interaction of those who have volunteered service to the

University. Brief discussion followed with respect to the specific costs associated with

Senate dinners.

Question was called, and a vote taken.

MOTION AS AMENDED FAILED

ii) ?

Paper S.08-76 - Revisions to the Rules of Senate

Motion 1

Moved by J. Waterhouse, seconded by M. Letoumeau

"that Senate approve the revision to the Rules of Senate, Section E.1

(Students; Student Association), sub-sections (a) and (c)"

Question was called, and a vote taken.

MOTION 1 CARRIED

Motion 2

Moved by J. Waterhouse, seconded by R. Patel

"that Senate approve the revision to the Rules of Senate, Section E.1

(Students; Student Association), sub-section b.ii"

In response to an inquiry, the Registrar confirmed that this change makes it impossible for

a student who took courses in the summer and fall but was not registered in the spring to

stand for Senate elections. It was pointed out that the University Act in regards to Senate

elections requires students to be part of the Student Society, so if students not registered

for the Spring were to be included, the Act would have to be revised.

Question was called, and a vote taken.

MOTION 2 CARRIED

Motion 3

Moved by J. Waterhouse, seconded by R. Patel

"that Senate approve the revision to the Rules of Senate, Section D.3

(Nominations)"

Question was called, and a vote taken.

? MOTION 3 CARRIED

S.M. 2 June 2008

Page 12

8. ?

Information ?

The date of the next regularly scheduled meeting of Senate is Monday, July 7, 2008.

Since this was their last meeting of Senate, the Chair wished to recognize J. LaBrie, Dean

of Continuing Studies and J. Waterhouse, Vice-President Academic.

The Chair noted thatJ. LaBrie's considerable experience and understanding of continuing

studies and lifelong learning has been beneficial to the University and the innovation in

terms of new programs such as the Weekend University was acknowledged. On behalf of

Senate and the University, the Chair extended thanks and appreciation to the Dean for his

service at SPU.

Waterhouse's second term as Vice-President Academic and Provost ends in August

2008. The Chair noted that he leaves a great legacy of academic innovation and

organizational change ranging from the systematic and far ranging curriculum review that

repositioned SFU at the lead in terms of providing a liberal education and more recently

the very ambitious and comprehensive review on the structure of the University resulting

in very significant changes. In between there have been a host of initiatives which have

transformed not only the Burnaby campus but the Vancouver campus downtown and

resulted in the addition and expansion of the Surrey campus. The Chair recognizedthat

these initiatives have been well managed under the leadership ofJ. Waterhouse and that

he has been a great colleague to members of the senior administration, faculty and

students. On behalf of Senate and the University, the Chair extended sincere thanks for all

he has done for SFU.

The Open Session adjourned at 7:15 pm, and Senate moved directly into Closed Session.

Alison Watt

Director, University Secretariat