Open Collections

 9846.
November 14, 1990
The Third Regular Meeting of the Senate of The University of British
Columbia for the Session 1990-91 was held on Wednesday, November 14, 1990 at
8.00 p.m. in Room 102, George F. Curtis Building.
Present: President D. W. Strangway, (Chairman), Chancellor L. R.
Peterson, Vice-President D. R. Birch, Mr. S. Alsgard, Mr. D. A. Anderson,
Miss M. D. Bain, Mr. R. Bush, Mr. J. A. Banfield, Dr. M. A. Boyd, Dr. D. M.
Brunette, Professor P. L. Bryden, Rev. P. C. Burns, Miss A. L. Callegari,
Dr. D. G. A. Carter, Dr. R. L. Chase, Dr. S. Cherry, Dr. T. S. Cook, Dr. K.
Dawson, Dr. J. D. Dennison, Dr. A. J. Elder, Mr. E. B. Goehring, Dean J. R.
Grace, Dr. S. E. Grace, Dr. R. D. Guy, Dr. S. W. Hamilton, Ms. A. Ironside,
Dr. M. Isaacson, Dr. S. Katz, Dr. J. G. T. Kelsey, Miss w. A. King, Dr. M.
M. Klawe, Mr. 0. C. W. Lau, Dr. S. C. Lindstrom, Dean P. A. Lusztig, Miss S.
A. Mair, Dean M. P. Marchak, Dean B. C. McBride, Mr. R. H. McGowan, Mr. B.
V. McGuinness, Dr. J. A. McLean, Dean J. H. McNeill, Dr. A. G. Mitchell, Mr.
J. A. Moss, Mr. M. D. Nikkei, Dr. L. Paszner, Dr. R. J. Patrick, Ms. B. M.
Peterson, Mr. B. D. Prins, Professor R. S. Reid, Dr. P. Resnick, Dean J. F.
Richards, Mr. M. M. Ryan, Mr. A. J. Scow, Dr. G. G. E. Scudder, Dean N.
Sheehan, Dr. C. E. Slonecker, Dr. L. de Sobrino, Mr. M. Sugimoto, Ms. H.
Swinkels, Mr. B. Taylor, Dr. R. C. Tees, Mr. G. A. Thorn, Dr. A. Van Seters,
Dr. J. Vanderstoep, Dr. J. M. Varah, Dr. D. A. Wehrung, Dr. R. M. Will, Dr.
D. Ll. Williams, Ms. N. E. Woo, Dr. W. C. Wright, Jr.
Messages of regret for their inability to attend were received from Dr.
A. P. Autor, Dean c S. Binkley, Dean P. T. Burns, Professor E. A. Carty,
Mr. N. A. Davidson, Dr. G. W. Eaton, Dr. J. F. Helliwell, Dean M. J.
Hollenberg, Mrs. L. Lohia, Mr. W. B. McNulty, Mr. J. R. G. McQueen, Dean A.
Meisen, Dean P. B. Robertson, Ms. P. F. Silver, Dr. L. J. Stan.
Minutes of previous meeting
Dr. Tees      )  That the minutes of the Second regular
Dr. McLean    )  meeting of Senate for the Session 1990-91,
having been circulated, be taken as read
and adopted.
Dr. Grace drew attention to the emeritus status on page 9843 of the
minutes. Dr. Grace noted that there was an inconsistency in that males
without Ph.d's were referred to as professors, whereas females on this list
were referred to as Mrs. It was agreed that the minutes be changed to
reflect consistency.
The motion was put and carried. 9847.
November 14, 1990
Business arising from the minutes
Student participation in matters of appointments, promotion and tenure
(p.9837)
Notice of the following motion had been given at the previous meeting:
"Be it moved that an ad hoc committee be instructed to consult faculty
and students with regard to the existing Senate guidelines barring
student participation from department decision-making on appointments,
promotion, and tenure, and report back to Senate on whether changes may
be required to these guidelines."
The following relevant section from the Collective Agreement, and the
specific guideline to Faculties addressed in the above motion, had been
circulated for information:
Procedures for the Appointment, Promotion and Tenure of Faculty
In the Agreement on Conditions of Appointment for Faculty, the
University and the Faculty Association have agreed on conditions of
appointment, promotion and tenure of faculty.
So far as consultation is concerned, the following are the two
particularly relevant sections:
5.02 Departmental Consultation
(a) The Department Head shall consult formally at meetings convened for
that purpose with eligible members of the Department in order to
ascertain their views and to obtain their recommendation concerning
appointment, reappointment, appointment without term and
promotion. Informal consultation with other faculty members is not
precluded.
(c)  Faculty members eligible to be consulted are:
(i) In the case of initial appointments, those of a rank equal to
or higher than the rank at which the appointment is to be
made.
(ii)  In the case of reappointments and promotions, those higher in
rank  than  the  candidate,  except  that  in  the  case of
reappointment of a Professor those holding the rank of
Professor are eligible to be consulted.
(iii) In the case of appointments without term, those holding an
appointment without term and being of equal or higher rank.
Principles concerning student membership in Faculties were approved by
Senate on January 17, 1973 and rescinded in April 1977. However, Senate
recommended that the Faculties adopt the Principles as guidelines until
further review.  Most Faculties have reaffirmed Principle 3 below: 9848.
November 14, 1990
Business arising from the minutes
Student participation in matters of appointments, promotion and tenure
(continued)
Principle 3
Although student opinions shall be sought, and wherever practicable in a
formal way, student representation shall not be permitted at Faculty
meetings and/or Faculty committees dealing with the following matters:
budget, salaries and other financial business; scholarships and other
student awards; adjudication of marks and academic standing, and
appointments, tenure and promotion (in this particular case student
opinions must be obtained by means of appropriate course and instruction
evaluations).
President  Strangway  explained  that  it was  important  that  Senate
understand the actual procedures that had to be dealt with since the
issues being raised were specifically contained within the Agreement on
Conditions of Appointment for Faculty.  He then read to Senate the
following statement:
"The procedures for the appointment, promotion and tenure of faculty
are contained in an agreement on conditions of appointment of faculty
entered into between the University and the Faculty Association. The
agreement was approved by the Board of Governors on behalf of the
University pursuant to the Board's authority under the University
Act. That agreement cannot be altered except by the agreement of the
University and the Association. The Senate has no direct authority
to deal with the appointment of faculty, thus any expression of
Senate's view would constitute advice to the University on what might
or might not be included in any re-negotiation of the agreement with
the Faculty Association."
Dr. Resnick   )  Be it moved that an ad hoc committee be
Dr. Katz      )  instructed to consult faculty and students
with regard to the existing Senate guidelines
barring student participation from department
decision-making on appointments, promotion, and
tenure, and report back to Senate on whether
changes may be required to these guidelines.
Dr. Resnick explained that he had initiated the motion because it had
been brought to his attention that while students were represented on
search  committees   for   Presidents,  Deans,   and  Senior  Academic
Administrators, the Senate guidelines exclude student participation in
matters dealing with budget,  salaries,  scholarships,  adjudication of 9849.
November 14, 1990
Business arising from the minutes
Student participation in matters of appointments, promotion and tenure
(continued)
marks, appointments, tenure, and promotion.  He noted that on looking
through the minutes of various Faculties with respect to these guidelines,
some Faculties had not adopted guidelines and some had.  Also, each
Faculty's interpretation of the guidelines varied, resulting in a great
deal of inconsistency across the campus.  Dr. Resnick emphasized that the
motion did not commit Senate to any course of action, and that if the
motion passed it would be the ad hoc committee's responsibility to consult
broadly with Faculties and Departments and report back to Senate with a
set of recommendations, which might or might not suggest changes.  He also
acknowledged that the proposed committee would have to be involved in
discussions with the Faculty Association and the administration.
In conclusion, Dr. Resnick stated that there were three major arguments
to be borne in mind; the question of equity, the advantages of student
participation, and democracy.
Speaking on behalf of the Faculty Association, Professor Bryden
expressed appreciation for the clarification of the situation vis-a-vis
the collective agreement since the Faculty Association would take the
position that this was a bargainable issue and the University could not
unilaterally change the terms of conditions of appointment in the existing
framework agreement without some negotiation process taking place.
Professor Bryden also stated that, in his opinion, there was a substantial
distinction between the selection of people for administrative positions
and the selection of faculty whose employment is subject to the conditions
of a collective agreement. He also maintained that there was a
substantial distinction between the process of hiring and the process of
tenure evaluation and promotion. 9850.
November 14, 1990
Business arising from the minutes
Student participation in matters of appointments, promotion and tenure
(continued)
Dr. Chase informed Senate that department heads in the Faculty of
Science recently agreed that search committees should include women and
that this could be a faculty member or, in the event that there was not a
woman faculty member, this could be a graduate or undergraduate student.
Dean Lusztig pointed out that Faculties do obtain input from students
and yet stay within the collective agreement. He stated that there was no
reason why students could not be consulted extensively by any group of
faculty conducting deliberations. Dean Lusztig said it was important that
people understand that for many years Faculties have acknowledged the
important input that students can make, particularly in relation to
teaching and supervision of theses and dissertations. He stated that the
difficulty is that when it comes to actually voting on a particular issue,
just as faculty who are junior to a candidate cannot exercise a vote, so
too students are excluded from that.
Dr. slonecker stated that in the selection of Deans and Department
Heads, the committees were advisory and were not involved in the actual
appointment.
Dr. will pointed out that as far as appointments were concerned, even
under the collective agreement not all faculty participate in decisions on
tenure.
The motion was put and carried.
Chairman's remarks and related questions
President Strangway asked Dr. slonecker to comment on the University's
1990 Fall Congregation Ceremonies. 9850.
November 14, 1990
Business arising from the minutes
Student participation in matters of appointments, promotion and tenure
(continued)
Dr. Chase informed Senate that department heads in the Faculty of
Science recently agreed that search committees should include women and
that this could be a faculty member or, in the event that there was not a
woman faculty member, this could be a graduate or undergraduate student.
Dean Lusztig pointed out that Faculties do obtain input from students
and yet stay within the collective agreement. He stated that there was no
reason why students could not be consulted extensively by any group of
faculty conducting deliberations. Dean Lusztig said it was important that
people understand that for many years Faculties have acknowledged the
important input that students can make, particularly in relation to
teaching and supervision of theses and dissertations. He stated that the
difficulty is that when it comes to actually voting on a particular issue,
just as faculty who are junior to a candidate cannot exercise a vote, so
too students are excluded from that.
Dr. Slonecker stated that in the selection of Deans and Department
Heads, the committees were advisory and were not involved in the actual
appointment.
Dean will pointed out that as far as appointments were concerned, even
under the collective agreement not all faculty participate in decisions on
tenure.
The motion was put and carried.
Chairman's remarks and related questions
President Strangway asked Dr. Slonecker to comment on the University's
1990 Fall Congregation Ceremonies. 9851.
November 14, 1990
Chairman's remarks and related questions (continued)
Dr. Slonecker stated that this special ceremony had been instituted to
commemorate UBC's 75th Anniversary. He stated that three honorary degrees
and degrees in course were to be presented at the ceremony, and that 75
anniversary medals were to be awarded in recognition of the contributions
made by staff, faculty and people involved in university life over recent
years. Dr. slonecker encouraged Senate members to take part in the
ceremonies.
President Strangway drew Senate's attention to the official opening of
the Koerner Ceramic Gallery on December 10th and invited members to
participate in the opening ceremonies. He noted that the gallery contained
a collection of 15th and 16th century ceramics of incredible beauty.
Correspondence
The Secretary read to Senate a letter from Mrs. Blythe Eagles expressing
appreciation for the kind tribute paid in memory of her late husband.
Candidates for Degrees
Lists of candidates for degrees, as approved by the various Faculties
and Schools, were made available for inspection by Senate members prior to
the meeting.
Dean McBride  ) That the candidates for degrees and diplomas,
Mr. Carter    ) as approved by the Faculties and Schools, be
granted the degree or diploma for which they
were recommended, and that the Registrar, in
consultation with the Deans and the Chairman
of Senate, make any necessary adjustments.
Carried 9852.
November 14, 1990
Reports of Committees of Senate
Admissions Committee
General Policy on Admissions - revised Calendar statement
Dr. Will, Chair of the Committee, presented the following proposed
revision to the Calendar statement on General Policy on Admission under
"Admission to the University":
General Policy on Admission
The University of British Columbia seeks applications from students who
can benefit from and contribute to the varied and stimulating academic
life at this University. The University's admission regulations and
procedures are intended to identify such students and to ensure that
they enter programs at a level which will allow them to get the maximum
benefit from their university studies.
The admission requirements in this section refer to the minimum
educational level necessary for admission to the University. Reference
must also be made to those sections of the calendar giving specific
requirements for admission to the various programs of study in the
Faculties and Schools.
Excellent students who do not meet all of the published admission
requirements may be considered for admission in exceptional cases.
The University reserves the right, the published regulations
notwithstanding, to deny admission on the basis of overall academic
record and to limit enrolment by selecting from among qualified
applicants those who will be admitted.
An applicant must be able to undertake studies in the medium of the
English language and produce evidence of competence to do so; where
there is doubt an applicant may be required to take a test of facility
in the English language prior to admission to the University and, if
admitted, to take English language training.
Advance Credit or Placement
Advance credit and/or placement may be given... (no change in the
existing two paragraph entry on advanced credit).
Students with Disabilities
(no change in the existing two paragraph entry on students with
disabilities)"
Dr. Will      )  That the proposed revision to the Calendar
Dr. Elder     )  statement on General Policy on Admission
be approved. 9853.
November 14, 1990
Reports of Committees of Senate
Admissions Committee
General Policy on Admissions - revised Calendar statement (continued)
Dr. Will informed Senate that the following statement had been
removed from the Calendar: "Except in exceptional circumstances no
student under the age of 16 is admitted."
Dean Lusztig drew attention to the statement which says: "excellent
students who do not meet all of the published admission requirements may
be considered for admission in exceptional cases." He stated that he
was supportive of the notion that excellent students who do not meet all
of the published admission requirements be considered for admission in
exceptional cases. However, the statement did not say who would
consider such cases, and he therefore proposed the following amendment:
In amendment:
Dean Lusztig  )  That the sentence:  "Excellent students
Dean McBride  )  who do not meet all of the published
admission requirements may be considered
for admission in exceptional cases."
be changed to read:  "Excellent...exceptional
cases by the Dean of the Faculty or the Dean's
designate."
Dr. Elder spoke against the amendment stating that the Senate
Admissions Committee has the responsibility to admit students who may or
may not meet the guidelines and she saw no reason to change the regular
procedure.
Dean Lusztig argued that Faculties would be more likely to attract
good students if such students were not forced to go through the Senate
Admissions Committee appeal procedure, and that his amendment would
allow Faculties the necessary flexibility when dealing with exceptional
students who do not meet all the admissions requirements.
After further discussion the amendment was put and carried. 9854.
November 14, 1990
Reports of Committees of Senate
Admissions Committee
General Policy on Admissions - revised Calendar statement  (continued)
In response to a query by Dean Marchak, the Registrar read to Senate
a paragraph from the Calendar concerning fees for remedial work in
connection with the English language requirement, and confirmed that
students were responsible for the payment of such fees.
The motion was put and carried.
Dr. Will informed Senate that the Faculties of Arts, Science and
Applied Science had established a joint committee to review their
admissions criteria and that they would be recommending changes in due
course.
Committee on Appeals on Academic Standing
Dr. Hickling, Chair of the 1987-90 Committee, had been invited to
present the following annual report which had been circulated for
information:
"1. Introduction
Under s.2.07 of the Policies and Procedures set out on pages 21 and 22 of
the University Calendar for 1990-91, the Committee is required to make an
annual report to Senate. That report must state "the number of appeals
heard, their disposition, and the general nature of the appeals". The
Committee is also required to "draw the Senate's attention to any other
matters of general significance in the University which have arisen out of
the Committee's work".
In recent years the practice has been to submit the annual report in April
or May. That precedent was not followed this year for two reasons.
First, the Committee was required to dispose of a number of appeals
scheduled for April and May. The timinq of those cases rendered it
impossible to meet the deadline for either the April or May meetings of
Senate. Secondly, since this was the final year of Senate for a number of
the Committee members (including the chairperson), it was felt desirable
to issue a report covering the period up to the September meeting of
Senate, at which point the existing Committee's jurisdiction expired. The
final award of the Committee was issued on 12th September, 1990, the date
of the first meeting of the new Senate. 9854.
November 14, 1990
Reports of Committees of Senate
Admissions Committee
General Policy on Admissions - revised Calendar statement (continued)
In response to a query by Dean Marchak, the Registrar read to Senate
a paragraph from the Calendar concerning fees for remedial work in
connection with the English language requirement, and confirmed that
students were responsible for the payment of such fees.
The motion was put and carried.
Dean Will informed Senate that the Faculties of Arts, Science and
Applied Science had established a joint committee to review their
admissions criteria and that they would be recommending changes in due
course.
Committee on Appeals on Academic Standing
Dr. Hickling, Chair of the 1987-90 Committee, had been invited to
present the following annual report which had been circulated for
information:
"1. Introduction
Under s.2.07 of the Policies and Procedures set out on pages 21 and 22 of
the University Calendar for 1990-91, the Committee is required to make an
annual report to Senate. That report must state "the number of appeals
heard, their disposition, and the general nature of the appeals". The
Committee is also required to "draw the Senate's attention to any other
matters of general significance in the University which have arisen out of
the Committee's work".
In recent years the practice has been to submit the annual report in April
or May. That precedent was not followed this year for two reasons.
First, the Committee was required to dispose of a number of appeals
scheduled for April and May. The timing of those cases rendered it
impossible to meet the deadline for either the April or May meetings of
Senate. Secondly, since this was the final year of Senate for a number of
the Committee members (including the chairperson), it was felt desirable
to issue a report covering the period up to the September meeting of
Senate, at which point the existing Committee's jurisdiction expired. The
final award of the Committee was issued on 12th September, 1990, the date
of the first meeting of the new Senate. 9855.
November 14, 1990
Reports of Committees of Senate
Committee on Appeals on Academic Standing  (continued)
2. The Number, Nature and Disposition of Cases
(i)  Total number
Since the last report on 5th April 1989, the Committee has heard and
disposed of twelve appeals. Although the number may be relatively
small in comparison with that processed by other committees, the
hearings were sometimes quite lengthy. The longest hearing lasted a
total of ten sitting hours, spread over three days. Another took
five and a half hours, ending at 11.24 p.m. The total number of
appeals appears to be comparable to that of the previous year when
allowance is made for the extended period covered by the present
report.
(ii) The Jurisdiction of the Committee and the Disposition of cases
The opening words of s.2.01(1) of the Committee's terms of reference
may suggest that the Committee has an all-encompassing jurisdiction
where the decision appealed may have an impact upon the appellant's
academic standing. It states that "The Committee shall hear and
dispose of appeals by students from the decision of Faculties on
matters of academic standing...". However, that has to be read in
the light of the remainder of s.2. It will be noted, first, that the
Committee has no jurisdiction at all if the sole issue raised in an
appeal turns on the exercise of academic judgement. Secondly, in
order to succeed, an appellant has to persuade the Committee that the
decision under appeal was arrived at through "unfair or improper
procedures". That phrase is defined as including "the consideration
of information which ought not to have been considered, and the
failure to consider information that ought properly to have been
considered". Thirdly, whilst it is sufficient to show that a wrong
decision on the merits may have been arrived at, the appellant must
establish a causal relationship between the decision and the alleged
unfair or improper procedure. Failure to establish any of those
elements means that the Committee must dismiss the appeal: see
s.2.04(1).
In the period covered by this report, the appellants succeeded in
only three cases.
When it allows an appeal the Committee may either reverse the
decision and grant such academic standing as it deems appropriate or
quash the decision and send it back to the Faculty to be dealt with
in accordance with proper procedures. The Senate Committee chose the
latter course in one case where there had been a failure to obtain or
consider information. In one case it was held that on the particular
facts the Faculty concerned was precluded from denying that the
student concerned had fulfilled the degree requirements. In the
other successful appeal, the Committee directed that the student be
allowed to sit an examination as an unclassified student after the
majority of the Committee had concluded that insufficient steps had
been taken to bring home to her the policies and practices governing
her admission to the course. 9856.
November 14, 1990
Reports of Committees of Senate
Committee on Appeals on Academic Standing
2. The Number, Nature and Disposition of Cases
(ii) The Jurisdiction of the Committee and the Disposition of cases
(continued)
The significance of the very limited success rate has to be weighed
in the light of the limited jurisdiction of the Committee. It does
not possess a roving commission to deal with student complaints of
every kind that may remotely relate to the appellant's academic
standing. In particular, it has no jurisdiction over the content of
courses, the manner in which they are taught, or the competency of
instructors - matters which were the real, underlying complaints in
some of the appeals brought before the Committee.
Thus dismissal of an appeal under s.2.04(1) does not necessarily mean
that in the Senate Committee's opinion the matter had been handled
properly. In several of the cases brought before the Senate
Committee the gist of the complaint was that the Faculty or
Department concerned had failed either to listen to or to deal
effectively with grievances about which the students felt strongly.
The complaints were brought before the Senate Committee because there
appeared to be no other mechanism by which the grievance could be
ventilated. Whilst the Senate Committee was compelled to allow a
hearing into the alleged procedural errors involved, it lacked the
authority to deal with or remedy the real complaint. Had there been
adequate alternative machinery in place, it seems likely that the
Senate Committee's load would have reduced by at least 25%.
It has been suggested by several members of the Senate Committee that
the creation of the office of a University Ombudsperson might well
provide a more satisfactory method of dealing with such complaints
than an appeal to the Senate Committee. Indeed, the creation of such
an office could well obviate the necessity of an appeal in some cases
that clearly do fall within the Senate Committee's jurisdiction. It
could help to ensure that fair procedures are followed in situations
in which the Faculty or Department concerned has no procedure or no
adequate procedure for dealing with appeals or complaints. That is a
matter of continuing concern to the Senate Committee. It will be
recalled that it was raised by the Senate Committee in its last
report  (see 1989 Report, p.3).
3. The Right to Legal Representation
In one of the appeals, the Senate Committee was invited to disqualify
itself from sittinq on the ground that it was biased against students
appearing with lawyers. The application was rejected as unfounded. The
Committee has no objection to students appearing before it with counsel.
In the past year, twenty five percent have done so.
Where the appellant is not represented, it is a common practice of the
Senate Committee to relax the procedures set out in part IV of the
Policies and Procedures of the Committee. The student appellant is
allowed  the maximum  latitude consistent with a  fair  hearing.   The 9857.
November 14, 1990
Reports of Committees of Senate
Committee on Appeals on Academic Standing
3. The Right to Legal Representation  (continued)
Committee tends to administer the rules more strictly where the appellant
is represented by counsel, though even in such a case it will relax the
normal rules rather than leave the appellant with the impression that a
full and fair opportunity to present the case was not allowed.
The presence of counsel usually results in the alleged procedural errors
being defined with greater particularity than when the student is
unrepresented. The Senate Committee is also very conscious of the fact
that in some of the cases coming before it the student's chosen career is
in issue. Five of the cases heard by the Committee since April 1989
involved students from professional Faculties who had been denied
promotion or the right to proceed further. De facto a negative decision
by the Senate Committee would spell the end of the student's career. In
each of those cases, the appeal was lost. In two of them, the appellant
was represented by counsel.
In short, it is not the policy of the Senate Committee to discourage legal
representation if that is the appellant's wish. Cost is often a
deterrent, though students should be aware that legal assistance can be
provided free of charge through the Law Students Legal Advice Program
(L.S.L.A.P.) under which the student counsel are supervised by a salaried
legal aid lawyer. Legal advice may result in the screening out of
unmeritorious cases, though there is nothing to prevent a student from
pursuing an appeal even if there is no chance of success.
4. Relationship between Applications for Review of Assigned Standing and
Policies and Procedures of Senate Committee
Page 24 of the 1990-91 Calendar prescribes the procedure to be followed in
applying for a review of assigned standing. The first paragraph under the
heading of Policies and Procedures for Senate Appeals on Academic Standing
(p.21 of the Calendar), sets out the steps the student should follow in
appealing decisions relating to their academic studies. It appears that
some degree of confusion has arisen over the relationship between these
Calendar entries. Whilst in this report the Senate Committee does not
propose a change, it is suggested that the newly constituted Senate
Committee may wish to consider the two paragraphs, with a view to
clarifying the relationship between them.
5. The Functioning of the Committee
It would be remiss of the Committee not to record its thanks to the Office
of the Registrar, and to Mrs. Frances Medley in particular, for the
assistance rendered to the Committee over the course of the year. To Mrs.
Medley fell the task of scheduling the hearings - a task always discharged
with tolerance and good humour."
Prof. Bryden  )  That the report be received for information
Dr. Sobrino   )
Carried 9858.
November 14, 1990
Reports of Committees of Senate (continued)
Nominating Committee
Dr. Elder, Chair of the Committee, presented the following report:
1.  Proposed membership of Ad Hoc Committee on Teaching Evaluation
At its meeting of October 10, 1990, Senate agreed to the
establishment of an ad hoc committee to review the policy,
administration and the use of teaching evaluations, in consultation
with the Faculties and students, and to report back to Senate on its
recommendations.
The Nominating Committee recommends the following membership:
Dr. R. L. Chase
Dr. J. G. T. Kelsey
Miss W. A. King
Mr. 0. C. W. Lau
Mr. B. D. Prins
Dr. P. Resnick
Mr. M. Sugimoto
Dr. J. Vanderstoep
2. Vacancies on Senate Committees
The Nominating Committee nominates the following persons to fill
vacancies on Senate Committees:
Agenda Committee
Dr. C. E. Slonecker     - replacing Dr. A. J. Elder
Academic Policy Committee
Miss S. A. Mair        - replacing Ms. T. L. Jackson
Admissions
Mr. J. A. Moss - replacing Miss W. A. King
Dr. Elder     )  That the recommendations of the
Mr. Banfield  ) Nominating Committee be approved.
Carried
Committee on Student Awards
Dr. Cook, Chair of the Committee, presented the report.
Dr. Cook ) That the new awards (listed in the Appendix)
Chancellor Peterson) be accepted subject to the approval of the
Board of Governors and that letters of
thanks be sent to the donors.
Carried 9859.
November 14, 1990
Reports of Committees of Senate
Committee on Student Awards (continued)
Dr. Cook      )  That the Van-Tel Credit Union - Sadie
Dr. Varah     ) Mcllwaine Memorial Bursary be received
for discussion.
Carried
It was explained in the material circulated that the Committee wished to
seek Senate's advice on matters related to the application of its policy
and guidelines included in the document entitled Conditions of Acceptance
of Student Awards approved by Senate on May 23, 1990.
It was stated that in October 1973, Senate approved two similar awards
offered by this donor. (The Van-Tel Credit Union - Les King Memorial
Bursary and the Van-Tel Credit Union - Leo Morris Memorial Bursary), and
that although the University no longer accepts new awards which are
tenable at other post secondary institutions, Senate has previously
accepted such new awards where similar awards offered by the same donor
are already in place. It was noted that this new award and many existing
awards contain non-academic restrictions which fall outside the
"affirmative action" context of Senate's policy and guidelines.
Dr. Cook reported that the Senate Committee on Student Awards had
considered the award on three occasions. The Committee was unable to
reach consensus as to whether the award was consistent with the policy
adopted by Senate last May. The discussion that followed focused on the
fact that the award was tenable at several institutions. It was noted
that the University no longer accepts new awards that are open to students
at other institutions but it has accepted such awards where similar awards
offered by the same donor are already in place. There was considerable
discussion about the ability of the University to evaluate applicants who
are attending other institutions.  It was suggested that these awards 9860.
November 14, 1990
Reports of Committees of Senate
Committee on Student Awards (continued)
should be administered by the donors, however many donors would have
difficulty in evaluating transcripts and in many cases the donors wanted
to isolate themselves from the selection process. Dr. Dawson suggested
that the University might continue to administer the awards but that the
donors should be charged for this service. It was also suggested that UBC
should not only consider whether it ought to accept new "affiliation
awards" but that it should consider the possibility of handing back
existing ones.
Dean Lusztig stated that although the University had accepted such
awards in the past, now that guidelines had been established there was no
obligation to continue to accept such awards. He also pointed out that
since this was a bursary for sons, daughters and legal dependents of
members of the Van-Tel Credit Union, the University was not in the best
position to evaluate applicants.
Dean Lusztig  ) That Senate reaffirm its guidelines and
Mr. Scow      )  that the Committee indicate to the donors
that the University is unable to accept
this bursary.
Carried
Tributes Committee
Criteria for awarding Honorary Degrees
Dr. Dennison, Chair of the Committee, presented the following report
which had been circulated at the meeting:
"The Tributes Committee considered the motion approved by Senate on
December 13, 1989 (Hill/Auld, p.9637) regarding the criteria used in
nominating candidates for Honorary Degrees.
In response, the Tributes Committee wishes to amend and reaffirm the
statement of criteria, as follows: 9861.
November 14, 1990
Reports of Committees of Senate
Tributes Committee
Criteria for awarding Honorary Degrees (continued)
The award of an honorary degree is a recognition by The University
of British Columbia of distinguished achievement or of outstanding
service.
The criteria for the award of an honorary degree are excellence,
eminence, and accomplishment.
Nominees are distinguished scholars, creative artists, public
servants, persons prominent in the community and the professions,
and others who have made significant contributions to the life of
the University, the Province, or nationally or internationally.
For the information of Senate, the following elaboration is provided:
"In determining the final list of nominees, the Tributes Committee
recognizes that contributions fitting these criteria of excellence
cover a wide range of service and may come from many groups in
society.
Normally, the Tributes Committee does not nominate individuals
currently holding political office, or current members of granting
councils and similar organizations."
Dr. Dennison  ) That Senate reaffirm the criteria in its
Mr. Thorn      ) amended form.
Carried
Faculty of Science
Faculty membership - proposed revisions
Dean McBride withdrew the proposed revisions to the Faculty membership
list pending further modifications.
Endowed Programs and Professorships
The following list of programs and professorships, endowed through the
UBC Fundraising Campaign, had been circulated for information:
Arts
Joan Carlisle-Irving Artist-in-Residence Program
Arnold and Nancy Cliff Writer-in-Residence Program 9862.
November 14, 1990
Endowed Programs and Professorships  (continued)
Commerce
B. I. Ghert Family Foundation Junior Professorship in Finance and Policy
Canfor Corporation Professorship in Management Information Systems
Finning Ltd. Junior Professorship in Finance
Finning Ltd. Junior Professorship in Marketing
R. L. Cliff Junior Professorship in Accounting
Real Estate Foundation Junior Professorship in Real Estate Finance
Real Estate Foundation Junior Professorship in Urban Land Economics
Pharmaceutical Sciences
Shoppers Drug Mart Professorship in Pharmaceutical Sciences
Dr. Birch informed Senate that donors and the matching program of the
province of B.C. were endowing programs of this sort which have a
significant impact on the academic enterprise. He noted that the
distinction between a professorship and a chair, under current University
policy, is that a chair is endowed with a minimum of a million dollar
endowment. A professorship consists of an endowment somewhat less than that
which is added to an operating budget position.
Academic Terms - Endowed Chairs
Dr. Birch presented for approval the following chairs, which had been
endowed through UBC's Fundraising Campaign:
Applied Science
Chair in Mining and the Environment
Clifford Frame Chair in Mining and Mineral Process Engineering
Comineo Chair in Minerals and the Environment (with Science)
Arts
Maclean Hunter Chair in Non-Fiction and Business Writing
Patricia F. Rodgers Chair in Applied Ethics
Medicine
Jack Bell Chair in Schizophrenia
Louise A. Brown Chair in Neuroscience
E. W. Hamber Chair in Medicine
Sauder Family Chair in Paediatric Infectious Diseases 9863.
November 14, 1990
Academic Terms - Endowed Chairs (continued)
Science
Comineo Chair in Minerals and the Environment (with Applied Science)
Sauder Family Chair in Viral Diseases of Children
Warren chair in Nuclear Physics
Dr. Birch explained that the Nathan T. Nemetz Chair in Conflict
Resolution was being withdrawn for the time being.
Dr. Birch     )  That the Chairs listed be approved.
Dean McBride  )
In response to a query, Dean Lusztig explained that junior
professorships were being established in order to assist Faculties in the
recruitment process.
The motion was put and carried.
Report on the Status of Degree Programs with the Colleges
Dr. Birch presented the following report, which had been circulated:
"This is the second year of UBC's partnership with Okanagan and Cariboo
Colleges in offering third and fourth year courses in Arts and Science
and the UBC Elementary Teacher Education Program (Cariboo only).
As reported to Senate in September 1989, agreements were reached in the
spring of 1989 to offer UBC courses leading to the UBC degree of B.A. ,
B.Sc. and B.Ed. (Elem.) at these two interior colleges, as UBC's
contribution to increasing access for undergraduate education in the
province. The intention of the joint venture is to assist the colleges
to become independent degree granting institutions within the next nine
years. The courses and programs are UBC's. The instructors must be
approved to teach our third and fourth year courses by the UBC
department and dean. The students are college students, paying college
tuition, receiving college transcripts, but a UBC degree. The diploma
will be amended to include the notation "in association with Okanagan
College" or "in association with Cariboo College" and space for college
official signatures. A draft degree certificate is attached.
Convocation ceremonies at which our Chancellor will confer the UBC
degrees will be held for the first cohort at the college locations in
the spring 1991. 9864.
November 14, 1990
Report on the Status of Degree Programs with the Colleges (continued)
"All courses conform to UBC standards. Instructors have been
interviewed by representatives of the UBC departments and their
credentials evaluated. All instructional assignments have been approved
by the relevant UBC department and office of the dean. A list of
instructors is attached.
Funding for UBC's participation in these joint ventures has been
provided by the Province of British Columbia under the Access program.
Arts received $232,000, Science $261,000 and Education $125,300 to
defray costs for liaison. In addition, the University was provided
$65,500 to cover expenses relating to the colleges incurred by
supporting departments such as the Library and Registrar's Office. No
UBC operating funds are being used to service our participation.
Liaison coordinators for the Faculties are now dealing with the
continuing development of the program at the colleges. Arts is
discussing the development of majors (notably history and international
relations) at Okanagan College, and working with Cariboo College on
thematic options within the General B.A. degree. The measures which
Arts is insisting on to assure academic quality are that the range of
courses at the third and fourth year level offer the student a
significant amount of choice (as a guideline, twice the number of
courses required in a two-year cycle), and that the library be adequate
to support the work of students undertaking a major. Education is
discussing the possible expansion of its program at Cariboo to include
the preparation of secondary teachers. On October 25, 1990, the Faculty
of Science approved the motion that Cariboo and Okanagan Colleges be
granted permission to offer UBC courses and programs leading to B.Sc.
major degrees in Animal Biology, General Biology, Chemistry, Mathematics
and Physics effective the 1991/2 academic year.
There is a concern that the colleges are having difficulty retaining
students to complete their degrees in the Arts and Science programs.
Although information is sketchy at present, the colleges appear to be
losing students to the universities because the students want to have a
major or because they had planned to transfer to a professional
program.  The offering of majors at the colleges may reduce this problem.
Support for scholarship is another area of concern. The libraries must
be developed so that they become useful resources for research
purposes. Also, the resources necessary for limited research, including
time, funding, space and equipment, must be provided. The intentions of
those at the colleges appear to be on the right track, and earlier this
fall I wrote to our Ministry to request that it provide further support
for research activities.
For Education at Cariboo, space is an issue which needs to be resolved
for next year. It is important that the college provide regular
instructional space within the mainstream of the college milieu.
The liaison activities have been extremely important to the on-going
development of the colleges. During this past summer, both Arts and
Science offered fellowships, funded by the Access grant, for college
instructors to work collaboratively at UBC;  13 instructors received the 9865.
November 14, 1990
Report on the Status of Degree Programs with the Colleges  (continued)
awards. The college Education instructors all spend time with instructors
of the same courses on the UBC campus. There continues to be a steady
flow of visitors from UBC for lectures and seminars; all are
well-received at the colleges and we believe their visits have a
favourable impact on the academic environment. Many departments worked
hard in recruiting last spring and a heavy recruiting load is anticipated
next year as the programs expand. The general liaison is reasonably good,
with designated faculty members within departments for particular courses
and continual liaison by the department heads and the Faculty
Coordinators. I would like at this time to recognize the fine efforts of
the Faculty Coordinators: Dr. Ronald Shearer, Dr. John Sams and Dr. David
Thomas, of Arts, Science and Education, respectively."
In discussion, Dr. Dennison reminded Senate that the university-colleges,
while accruing many benefits from their association with the universities,
also face a number of challenges.  One task being to ensure the retention of
the comprehensive community college concept, which incorporates a wide range
of non-degree programs, while under pressure from new instructors to
inculcate university values.  Dr. Dennison stated that a second challenge
which will confront college instructors will be in meeting expectations from
the university for scholarly activity.  The opportunities which exist for
university faculty  in this  regard,  library and laboratory facilities,
support services and lower teaching loads etc., are not available to the
same extent in the colleges.  Dr. Dennison urged the university to be
sensitive to these problems in their dealings with the university-colleges.
In commenting on Library services to the colleges, Dr. Patrick noted
that over the two year period there had been an increase from 700 loans to
2,500. Dr. Patrick also drew attention to an item in the guidelines which
states that a special commitment must be made to fund the development of
additional library resources, and asked if colleges were receiving enough
resources for the development of their libraries. Dr. Patrick also
expressed concern that if, as it appeared, faculty at the colleges were
going to have to participate in scholarly research there would be a further
demand which the Library had not considered. 9866.
November 14, 1990
Report on the Status of Degree Programs with the Colleges (continued)
Dr. Birch responded that funding for the development of additional
library resources for the colleges was being given priority both by the
colleges and the province.
In response to a query concerning procedures for appeals on academic
standing from students at the colleges, Dr. Birch stated that provision had
been made whereby students would be dealt with at the colleges.
Report on Enrolment 1990-91
The report of the Registrar on enrolment for 1990-91 had been circulated
for information. The Registrar commented that graduate enrolment was 12.1%
higher than at this time last year. In contrast, undergraduate enrolment
was up by 3.3%, and overall, as a consequence of those two numbers,
enrolment was up by 4.5%.
The meeting adjourned at 10.00 p.m.
The next regular meeting of Senate will be held on Wednesday, December
12, 1990.
Secretary
Confirmed
Chairman 9867.
November 14, 1990
APPENDIX
Awards recommended for acceptance by Senate
B.C. Directors of Occupational Therapy Book Prize - A book prize is offered
by the B.C. Directors of Occupational Therapy. The award is made on the
recommendation of the School of Rehabilitation Medicine to a student in the
graduating class who demonstrates excellence in the fourth year courses in
management and administration, and shows qualities of leadership,
creativity, and the ability to motivate others. (Available 1990/91 winter
Session)
Phyllis Ellen Driver Memorial Bursary - Bursaries totalling $500 in memory
of Phyllis Ellen Driver have been endowed by her brother David, family and
friends. After graduating from St. Joseph's School of Nursing, Victoria,
1938 and McGill University, Montreal, 1963, Phyllis returned to Victoria and
was a dedicated teacher of nursing until her retirement. The bursaries are
available for students in graduate programs in nursing. (Available 1991/92
Winter Session)
Joy Messaros Memorial Bursary - A $750 bursary is available for a student
with a physical disability who demonstrates financial need and determination
to overcome obstacles caused by physical disability. Part-time students are
considered. Physical disability is defined as a severe ambulatory/mobility
impairment resulting in functional limitation. (This does not include those
with sensory loss of sight or hearing or learning disabilities alone.) when
more than one applicant qualifies, academic achievement is considered.
(Available 1990/91 Winter Session)