Amended by Senate

S.M. 2 November 2009

DRAFT UNTIL APPROVED BY SENATE

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

Monday, October 5, 2009 at 5:30 pm in Room 3210 WMC

Open Session

Present

Stevenson, Michael, President and Chair of Senate

Beale, Alison

Bezglasnyy, Anton

Brennand, Tracy

Chapman, Glenn

Chiu, Christina

Copeland, Lynn

Cormack, Lesley

Dow, Greg

Driver, Jon

Easton, Stephen

Francis, June

Geisler, Cheryl

Gibson, Eli

Gordon, Robert

Hiscocks, Graham

Janes, Craig

Laba, Martin

Lee, Shara

Leznoff, Daniel

MacGrotty, Alysia

Magnusson, Kris

Myers, Gordon

Nadison, Ada

Parkhouse, Wade

Patel, Ravi

Paterson, David

Percival, Colin

Percival, Paul

Peters, Joseph

Pierce, John

Pinto, Mario

Plischke, Michael

Rajapakse, Nimal

Russell, Robert

Sahinalp, Cenk

Scott, Jamie

Sahpiro, Daniel

Tabin, Yvonne (representing T. Nesbit)

Tiffany, Evan

van der Wey, Dolores

Warner, D'Arcy

Williams, Tony

Zelezny, Joseph

Absent

Fizzell, Maureen

Funt, Elliott

Godson, All

Golnaraghi, Farid

Hannah, David

Harding, Kevin

Joffies, Michel

Krane, Bill

Li, Fiona

Louie, Brandt

Marshall, Beth

McArthur, James

Moubarak, Cristel

Noble, Cameron

O'Neil, John

Pavsek, Christopher

Ruben, Peter

Thompson, Steve

Underhill, Owen

Wakkary, Ron

Woodbury, Rob

Ross, Kate, Registrar and Secretary of Senate

Grant, Bobbie, Recording Secretary

S.M. 5 October 2009

Page 2

Approval of the Agenda

The Agenda was approved as distributed.

Approval of the Minutes of the Open Session of September 14, 2009

Reference was made to the fourth paragraph on page 3. Opinion was expressed that

although the Chair's statement was recorded correctly, it was somewhat incorrect and

should be clarified. The Senate Policy Committee on Scholarships, Awards & Bursaries

was aware last year at the beginning of the fiscal year that the scholarship budget would be

overspent. Although the Chair felt that his statement was not inconsistent with the

opinion expressed, the difference of view would be noted for clarification. In reference to

the same paragraph, the Secretary of Senate was asked to make corrections to the

grammar. A misspelling of Senator Francis' name on page 4 was also noted for correction.

Following the above-noted corrections and clarification, the Minutes were approved.

Business Arising from the Minutes

There was no business arising from the Minutes.

Report of the Chair

There was no report from the Chair.

Question Period

i) ?

Paper S.09-114 - Report on Enrolment

The Vice-President Academic introduced the report by providing background

information with respect to the situation which resulted in over enrolment for the current

semester. Senate was advised that there were a number of unpredictable factors which

affected the University's ability to estimate the targets, particularly the number of domestic

and international students accepting offers and the number of returning students from the

previous year.

Reference was made to Table 4 and inquiry was made as to the reason why the number of

domestic students going into the Faculty of Science appeared to be lower than the target

for Science. It was pointed out that the grade point cutoff between Health Sciences and

Science was not harmonized. Therefore, students whose first choice was Science but could

not get into Science entered Health Sciences instead. Since many of these students take

the same Science courses the FTE course enrolments in Science were at capacity. In future

semesters, the GPA cutoff in Science and Health Sciences would be harmonized which

hopefully would correct some of the imbalance.

A concern was expressed about the impact of over enrolment on existing students who

were already struggling to get the courses they need. Senate was informed that the increase

in enrolment resulted in an increase of tuition fees. Some of this revenue would be

allotted to Faculties in the Spring and Summer semesters in order to increase course

capacity to help deal with the bulge in enrolment for this year. However, Senate was

reminded that this bulge in enrolment will have to work its way through the system over

the next several years so this will be an ongoing problem.

S.M. 5 October 2009

Page 3

In response to an inquiry as to whether there were any plans to increase the entry GPA,

Senate was informed that there were no current plans but the issue needs to be reviewed.

A small change of even one percent can have significant impact on whether enrolment is

under or over target so some modeling exercises need to be done before SCEMP can

make any recommendation in this regard.

In response to requests for additional enrolment data on issues such as gender balance,

anomalies by Faculty, and distribution on GPA averages and ranges, Senate was reminded

that much of this information is already available on the web site of Institutional Research

and Planning (IRP). The web site provides a wide range of updated information about

students and their participation in various areas of the University, and Senators were

encouraged to review the IRP web site for the information they were seeking.

Brief discussion took place with respect to GPA averages and grading. It was pointed out

that there is a 'grading report' on the IRP web site which provides information about

grading in different departments and Faculties. The data also provides a sense of what the

trends are in the University.

Post Meeting Note: Clarification was made that the discussion on grades related to information on

averages for high school grades which was not currently available on the IRP webs ite.

6. ?

Reports of Committees

A) ?

Senate Library Committee and Library Penalties Appeal Committee

i) ?

Paper S.09-109 - Annual Report (For Information)

Senate received the 2008/2009 Annual Report of the Senate Library Committee,

including a report from the Library Penalties Appeal Committee, for information.

B) ?

Senate Graduate Studies Committee

i) ?

Paper S.09-110 - Faculty of Applied Sciences - Curriculum Revisions (For

Information)

Senate's attention was drawn to the first bullet in the document. It was noted that the

specific name of the program - Computing Science - which was essential information was

missing from the documentation. In addition, opinion was expressed that this item was a

major change to a program and should have been brought to Senate for approval. The

Dean of Graduate Studies advised Senate that consultation about this issue with SCUP had

determined that this was a repackaging of existing courses which did not require approval

and therefore it was forwarded to Senate for information. P. Percival wished to register his

disagreement on the point.

• Following the above-noted discussion, the curriculum changes to Computing Science

approved by the Senate Graduate Studies Committee under delegated authority were

received by Senate.

S.M. 5 October 2009

Page 4

ii) ?

Paper S.09-111 - Facult

of Education - Curriculum Revisions (For Information) ?

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

delegated authority, approved curriculum changes to existing courses and programs in the

Faculty of Education.

C) ?

Senate Nominating Committee

i) ?

Paper S.09-112 Revised - Elections

Senate's attention was drawn to the revised Senate paper which had been distributed prior

to the start of the meeting. The Secretary reported that additional nominations were noted

on the paper and that an election was required for an undergraduate student to DQAC.

An online ballot would take place following the Senate meeting. All other names as

shown on Senate Paper S.09-112 Revised were declared elected by acclamation.

Outstanding vacancies would be carried forward to the next meeting of Senate.

Post-meeting note: The online ballot resulted in the election of Anna Shoemaker for the

Undergraduate Student position on the Diverse Qualifications Adjudication Committee

(DQAC) for term of office to May 31, 2010.

Other Business

i) ?

Paper S.09-113 - Process to Review Agreement with Fraser International College

(For Information)

The Vice-President, Academic introduced the paper by providing brief background

information. In March 2006 Senate approved the academic affiliation with FTC and

required the Vice-President, Academic to prepare a report due in June 2010 prior to

renewal of the affiliation. A list of review topics requested by Senate are outlined in the

document before Senate, as are a number of additional issues which the VPA felt needed

to be addressed. The review process was also described in the document. Essentially, an

external review analogous to the process used for external reviews of academic

departments will be used. The review will be initiated by a self study which will primarily

be prepared by the Vice-President Academic's office and the review team will then be

given the self study and a set of terms of reference. Expectations are that the review will

be sent to Senate by next June or earlier, and the list of documents which Senate will

receive are listed in the last paragraph on page 3.

Clarification was requested with respect to what was meant by the specification that

members of the review team must have expertise in international education, and by the

condition that members have no previous involvement with FTC. Senate was advised that

the specification for expertise in international education was deliberately vague and could

relate to a number of things such as people involved in recruitment of international

students, or people doing research on international students in North America. With

regard to the condition about no previous involvement with FIC, the intent was to have

people on the review team that are as far removed from the relationship with FTC as

S.M. 5 October 2009

Page 5

S ?

possible. Ideally it would not include faculty members in departments that have a lot of

interaction with FIC and would not include anyone in any kind of administrative or

oversight position.

Concern was expressed that excluding faculty from departments that are closely associated

with FIC, eliminates people with the most expertise in areas where the majority of

students are coming from. It was pointed out that academic units involved with FIC will

be consulted with regard to their relationship and experience with FIG so the opinion and

experience of these units will be given serious consideration in the review process.

Support was expressed for modeling the review process on the external review process of

other academic units, and the Vice-President, Academic was complimented on what

appears to be a very sound approach to this review.

Returning to the issue of qualifications for review team members, the Vice-President,

Academic wished to seek the advice of Senate on having non-faculty as members of the

review team. He explained that in anticipation of getting the process started, he had begun

looking for potential members and, going outside the University, had been referred to

individuals who are not faculty members but are heavily involved in international post

secondary education. The document before Senate specifies that the review team would

consist of faculty members. Senate's advice was sought on the advisability of including

non-faculty individuals who have a professional interest in international education, such as

• a Director of the Office of International Students at a university, or someone who works

for a major national or international development agency. Following a brief discussion, it

was determined that the majority view of Senate was that the review team should consist

of faculty members.

Information

The date of the next regularly scheduled meeting of Senate is Monday, November 2,

2009.

The Chair reminded Senators of the upcoming Convocation ceremonies on October 8'

and

9th,

2009 and encouraged as many Senators as possible to attend.

The Open Session adjourned at 6:09 pm, and Senate moved directly into Closed Session.

Kate Ross

Registrar and Secretary of Senate