17 _^

• /7

STATEMENT BY THEACTING ACADEMIC VICE-PRESIDENT

Introduction

My remarks on the state of SFU and its administrative structure

are based on observations I have made during the past five months as Acting

Academic Vice-President. I would like to preface these remarks by stating

that on April 9, I sent a letter to Acting President Strand in which I

expressed my desire to resign immediately from my position as Academic

Vice-President. Nothing which may

or may not happen here tonight will change

my position and my remarks can therefore not be construed as an attempt to

feather my own bed.

II.

The Nature of University Administration

see

it there are three conceivable systems for administering

a university: authoritarianism, participatory democracy and representative

democracy.

(a)

Authoritarianism - The idea of an autocratic system of University

administration is repulsive to me. This system is characterisad by a

number of Board appointed and selected administrative officers whose

responsibility to their constituency is minimal or non-existent.

SFU was close to this system in 1965 and it might be argued that the

extreme centralization

decision making which

the authoritarian system

implies was desirable at that time. However, as a continuing system

of administration I cannot condone autocracy at a University and for

this reason I have been one of the strong supporters of the

conversion

of departmental headships to.chairmanships. An autocratic system of

University administration does not use the universities' resources to

the fullest extent, stifles creativity and initiative except for a

select few and produces undesirable substructures (dukedoms) within

the University.

•

(b)

- This is the

system

under which everybody

has a direct hand in everything. This system is characterized

above all by an incredible inefficiency. In the words of

Mr. Fotheringham of the Vancouver Sun it is "democracy-running

wild". Participatory democracy is unacceptable to me both from

the point of view of a University administrator and from the point

of view of a faculty member. This system reduces the role of

the administrator to that of a paper pusher and it involves the faculty

member in too many activities which are not related to his primary

interests in teaching and research. In the long term, this system

will adversely affect the quality of scholarship and teaching at

the institution. In my view, participatory democracy is the

system which most closely describes the present situation at SPU.

I shall illustrate this later.

(President, Deans Chairmen, Senators, Committee members) are chosen

by their constituencies. Their selection is a mandate to get on

with the job. If in the view of the majority the job is not well

done, you replace the decision maker by someone else. In my'

view, this is the only viable system of University government and

one which SFU must adopt immediately, if we are 'to stop spinning

our wheels

and if we are to be successful in finding capable

senior administrators. I'will elaborate on this later.

III.

Policies and Procedures

(a) Policies - As a result of the rapid growth of SFU

und as a result

•

of the nature of the original SFU

administrativ structure, we

presently find ourselves in the position of having virtually no

established policies. This situation would be cause for alarm

at any university, but represents an outright disaster at a

trimester institution. The trimester system produces a great deal

of turnover in the administrative bodies of the University.

Continuity can only be provided through established policies and

these are lacking at SFIJ. How are we to work ourselves out of this

dilemma? Clearly we need to establish the missing policies.

I do not think that we can do this by having everyone participate

in the generation of first approximation policies. This process

will take too long and in the interim more ad hoc decisions will

have to be made and the gap will never close. I prefer this task to

be tackled by the administrative decision makers and I know that they

will .not produce a perfect set

' of documents. I am, however, of

the opinion that imperfect policies are better than no policies

and it could be understood that the first approximation pdlicies

so generated would be subject to early review and modification.

(b) Procedures

When I agreed to stand for .

election to the offte of

Acting Academic Vice-President I included the following paragraph

in a statement circulated to all faculty:

"In the past, I have at times been frustrated by

•

the manner in which the faculty has conducted its affairs.

•

I am of the opinion bat meaningful discussion and

common sense have often taken second place to

•

procedural wrangles. If elected, I would attempt to

reverse this trend by calling upon the good sense of

faculty rather than calling on the "rule book". This

•

approach has served me well in the past and I would

only abandon it with great reluctance".

•

I believe I have succeeded in avoiding procedural wrangles

in a number of areas but Senate has notably not been one of

these. In my view, Senate would function more effectively if

Senators would refrain from demonstrating their intimate knowledge

of Robert's Rules of Order. These rules, presumably formulated

to encourage the orderly conduct of business, are now being used to

disrupt business. I would favour 'a system o rulings from the

Chair, with the understanding that these might be challenged -

on the basis that they appear unreasonable to a majority, not on

the basis that they contradict Mr. Robert.

Implication of Senate Action, April 8, 1969.

At its meeting of April 8, Senate had before it a discussion paper

on Academic Planning initiated by the Acting President. In its wisdom,

Senate decided that it could not discuss this issue before the matter

had been referred to the faculties. The item inquestion was part of the

report of the chairman - a standard agenda item. Frankly, I viewed this

as the President's first real opportunity to provide some philosophical

leadership on a matter of great importance to SFU. I urged the Acting President

to speak on this subject and I felt certain that Senate would ceicome

the opportunity to corñe to grips with this issue. I suggest to you that

something is wrong when the President, as chairman of Senate, cannot bring

before that body a paper on academic planning as part of his regular report.

Consider for a moment the implications of this kind of situation on the

search for a permanent President and/or permanent Acaderaic.Vice-Presider1t.

Do you really believe that under these circumstances, we can hope to attract

good persons to these positions? The possibility of providing philosophical

leadership is one of the few attractions of a presidency or vice-presidency;

remove this possibility and you will not find and need not look for

outstanding candidates.

I have tried to make my views known in words of one syllable.

I believe that it is high time we abandoned our present chaotic approach

to governing ourselves. We must be critical in selecting those who will

make decisions on our behalf and we must allow these people to get the job

done - they are doing it for us.

R.R. Haering

April 14, 1969.