Mr. H. N. Evans

Secretary of Senate

Simon Fraser University

Burnaby 2, B. C.

#11.10 -- 1111 W. Hastings

Vancouver 1, B. C.

April 14, 1969

lPR

i 4 1969

r:r.

..A.

•

.•

•

Dear Mr. Evans:

I regret my inability to attend the Senate meeting tonight. Normally that

would be the end of my association with a particular meeting because I feel

the expression of one's views in written form at a meeting because of absence

is quite improper. The paper should be previously circulated.

In this instance, the marked shortness of time makes such a course impossible.

Thus, should Senate discuss its procedures, the members might be asked if they

would care to hear the views herein expressed. ^ iVot,

Some of the criticism directed at Senate's inability to process material is

unfair. The policies and procedures of most universities have developed

gradually over a score of years or more; Simon Fraser must try to produce an

equivalent set of decisions applicable to its peculiar circumstances in a far

shorter period of time. The quantity of decision-naking is enormous, our

body of historical precedent is being built concurrently, and thus much that

needs doing must be delayed to a later date even if Senate were functioning

effectively.

But Senate is not functioning effectively. Why this is so, and the way in

which itmight function more effectively is the principal purpose of this 1,etter,

I believe certain procedural weaknesses, and certain personal attitudes, are

responsible for the malaise of Senate. Procedurally, the following are significant:

(a)

We often allow considerable discussion before any specific motion is

placed before us. In effect, this means the meeting is discussing

nothing specific, so confusion can hardly be avoided.

(b)

Our motions often call for approval of a lengthy and complicated report

and discussion takes place on all aspects of the report simultaneously.

We should require reports to be drafted, or redrafted, so

discussion

can take place seriatim on individual points.

(c)

Many times each meeting we allow completely improper and/or irrelevant

questions of privilege and points of order to interrupt debate.

I turn now to the way in which I feel the per attitudes of those around

our table have shaped our present situation. Some will call this dealing in

personalities. However, if hundreds of groups about our size, in and out of

academia, successfully operate their meetings and we don't, it seems obvious

that a major factor must be the manner of our own participation.

Mr. Evans

In this regard, by far most important is the weakness and ineffectiveness

of the presiding officer's role. In part this reflects personality, in part

a philosophy inconsistent with that role and, in large part, a willingness

by the majority of the present Senate to avoid decision in any situation where

differences of opinion, even minor differences, exist. The alternative, so

far rejected in practice, is for Senate to accept leadership and reach a

decision which may be wrong and which does not carry universal approval but

to reach that decision in a reasonably direct, straightforward manner with

limited debate.

Senate is only in part a parliament where discussion at length is basic.

Most of the decisions required of Senate smack of the administrative process,

a process of trial and error in which it is more important that a rational

decision based on a reasonable assortment of knowledge be reached in ten

cases than that a rational decision based on every last iota of opinion and

knowledge be reached in one case. This requires strong leadership---a

willingness on the part of the presiding officer to allow his own opinion

of when debate has progressed to the point where reasonable pro and con

opinion has been expressed to prevail, and then to use the force of his

personality and the power of his office to bring the assembly to a quick

decision. This will certainly cut off some who wish to enter the debate, and

if the assembly feels that unfairness is being exhibited, there are procedural

ways to restrain the chairman. My point is, however, that so far with neither

of our presidants have we seen any consistent attempt (particularly with Dr.

Strand) to shorten debate by such perfectly valid measures as refusing to see

a succession of speakers on one side when the contrary side has exhausted its

support or by refusing to allow speakers to speak several times, either directly

or by some procedural pretext.

Equally conducive to repetitious argument is the practice of delaying the

presentation of a motion which would bring a subject to a vote because the

chairman has a list of other people who would like to participate in the debate.

The very purpose of the motion is to cut off debate, and the meeting should

decide such a point immediately a senator asks it to do so.

In short, it is my view that in the sort of body which constitutes the Senate,

a perceptive chairman can, and should, exercise much more leadership and

authority than has been shown to date to bring debate to an intelligent

conclusion. To do this, he will have to accept the responsibility, and Senate

will have to support him, for arbitrarily eliminating a good deal of perfectly

intelligent comment and debate. This last point should be emphasized because

much which is eliminated, while it is probably repetitious, is nonetheless

sensible, sound, and may well contain a further thought or two. However, I

would rather bath four or five babies reasonably well than scrub the same

one endlessly for fear of throwing him out with the bathwater.

My second point concerns the tendency of Senate to be played for suckers by

the two student senators who have informed us they despise us, plan our

destruction, and will not accept the normal rules of a body such as ours.

These two student senators are perfectly free, in my view, to express such

Mr. Evans

opinion and to initiate---with initiate emphasized---whatever course of

action they wish. It amazes me, however, that so many faculty members play

the dissidents' game by accepting obviously unreasonable motions seriously,

debating them at length, and using up valuable time in the process.

I believe the two student senators in question have had little to do with

Senate's present impotence; we would probably have achieved this without

their aid. Nonetheless, we contribute nothing to the demratic tradition

and we make ourselves little less than fools in the eyes of the community

by seriously debating at length the completely impossible propositions they

advance.

I suggest strongly that senators who are prepared to vote for such Conway-

Corbin motions as opening Simon Fraser to highschool failures, academic

rejects from other universities, American draftdodgers without academic

qualifications for university entrance, and so on, or for a parallel Senate

half-students half-faculty, the decisions of which we would automatically

undertake to approve---I suggest that those senators who would vote for

these things should by all manner of means speak in their support.

Unless such support is forthcoming in substantial measure, and Senator Sperling

by himself in my opinion does not constitute substantial measure, senators'

silence would soon bring a vote to decide such matters in accepted demeratic

fashion.

Third, and finally, we have among our Senate members a limited number who

occupy a completely disproportionate amount of time.

Excluding those who use every opportunity to intervene In debate as deliberately

destructive tactics, we have several senators who intervene far more frequently

than others. Certainly every Senator has the right of maximum intervention,

and this right must not be denied. It would be a revealing exercise, however,

and I make this suggestion in all seriousness, if for a few meetings we record

the frequency of intervention by each senator and the length of that intervention.

I believe a few senators are unrealistic in the extent of their intervention in

Senate debate, and they themselves might well rethink their role and control

their participation if this became apparent.

In the four years I have spent in Senate this has certainly been the longest

use of its time I have made, and for that I apologize. I do not apologize

for the. direct personal references to either the chairman or Individual senate

members. By their hundreds and thousands, deliberative groups about our size

make effective decisions. We don't.

It thus becomes obvious that it is something within Senate and not outside this

body which is at the root of our problem. I, hope my observations may be helpful

in finding a solution, and I thank my fellow members for their patience in

• hearing me out.

•

Respectfully,

•

Copy: Dr. K. Strand

William Hamilton