The Open Collections website will be unavailable July 27 from 2100-2200 PST ahead of planned usability and performance enhancements on July 28. More information here.

Open Collections

UBC Publications

UBC Publications

UBC Publications

[Meeting minutes of the Senate of The University of British Columbia] 2006-10-18

Item Metadata


JSON: senmin-1.0390147.json
JSON-LD: senmin-1.0390147-ld.json
RDF/XML (Pretty): senmin-1.0390147-rdf.xml
RDF/JSON: senmin-1.0390147-rdf.json
Turtle: senmin-1.0390147-turtle.txt
N-Triples: senmin-1.0390147-rdf-ntriples.txt
Original Record: senmin-1.0390147-source.json
Full Text

Full Text

UBC     Vancouver Senate Secretariat
Senate and Curriculum Services
Enrolment Services
2016-1874 East Mall
Vancouver, BC V6T 1Z1
Vancouver Senate
Present: President S. J. Toope (Chair), Mr. B. J. Silzer (Registrar and Secretary), Dr. A.
McEachern (Chancellor), Dr. L. A. Whitehead (Vice-President, Academic & Provost), Dr.
P. Adebar, Mr. B. Ahmadian, Mr. T. Ahmed, Dr. B. Arneil, Dr. N. Banthia, Dr. J. D.
Berger, Dr. G. Bluman, Dean M. A. Bobinski, Dr. J. Brander, Dr. H. Burt, Dr. L. Chui, Mr.
B. Danin, Dr. E. Dean, Dr. J. Dennison, Dr. W. Dunford, Ms. G. Eom, Dr. D. Fielding, Dr.
I. Franks, Ms. M. Friesen, Mr. C. Funnell, Dean N. Gallini, Dr. S. Grayston, Dr. D. Griffin, Dr. P. G. Harrison, Associate Vice-President J. Hutton, Dr. R. Irwin, Dean M. Isaacson, Dr. J. Johnson, Ms. J. Khangura, Dr. S. B. Knight, Dr. B. S. Lalli, Mr. R. Lam, Mr.
M. Lane, Dr. M. MacEntee, Dr. P. L. Marshall, Ms. K. McAllister, Dr. W. McKee, Dr. D.
McLean, Mr. P. Orchard, Dean S. Peacock, Dean pro tem. A. Rose, Dean J. Saddler, Dr. J.
Sarra, Ms. E. Segal, Dr. B. Stelck, Dr. D. Steyn, Dr. S. Thorne, Dean R. Tierney, Dr. M.
Upadhyaya, Dr. R. Windsor-Liscombe, Dr. R. A. Yaworsky.
By Invitation: Prof. R. Gardiner, Head, Dept. of Theatre, Film, and Creative Writing; Mr.
A. Glynn, Manager, Research and Trust Accounting, Financial Services; Dr. A. Kindler,
Associate Vice-President, Academic Programs; Ms. N. Knight, Associate Vice-President,
Campus & Community Planning; Ms. D. Merritt, Associate Vice-President, Finance; Mr.
M. Pochurko, Director, Financial Reporting and Budgeting, Budget Office; Mr. J. Stott,
Vice-Chair, Campus & Community Planning Project.
Regrets: Principal pro tem. L. Bainbridge, Prof. C. Boyle, Mr. P. T. Brady, Ms. S.
Brkanovic, Mr. F. Fan, Dr. W Fletcher, Dr. C. Friedrichs, Mr. C. L. Gorman, Dr. L. Gunderson, Dr. R. Harrison, Dr. R. Helsley, Dean pro tem. M. Isman, Ms. W King, Mr. K.
Liu, Mr. R. Lowe, Dr. A. McAfee, Mr. J. Mergens, Dean D. Muzyka, Dr. D. Paterson, Dr.
P. Potter, Ms. C. Quinlan, Mr. B. Simpson, Dean R. Sindelar, Dean G. Stuart, Ms. A.
Thamboo, Dr. S. Thorne, Mr. B. Toosi, Dr. D. Weary, Dr. R. Wilson, Dean E. H. K. Yen,
Dr. J. Young.
Recording Secretary: Ms. L. M. Collins.
Note: The full text of some reports to Senate is not included in the Minutes. Copies are
available from the Assistant Registrar, Senate & Curriculum Services.
Vol. 2006/2007 26
 Vancouver Senate 06-07 - 27
Minutes of October 18, 2006
Call to Order
Minutes of the Previous Meeting
Dean Tierney l     That the minutes of the meeting of
Dr. Steyn J     September 20, 2006 be adopted as
The Senate
without a vote
Remarks from the Chair and Related Questions
2005/2006 Financial Statements
Ms. Dana Merritt, Associate Vice-President, Finance, presented the highlights of the
Financial Statements for the 2005/2006 fiscal year. She introduced Mr. Andrew Glynn,
Manager, Research and Trust Accounting, and Mr. Martin Pochurko, Director, Financial
Reporting and Budgeting.
The Financial Statements had been approved by the Board of Governors on May 23,
2006, and had received an unqualified audit opinion from the Auditor General. Fiscal
highlights included:
• Significant institutional and residential construction;
• The opening of the UBC Okanagan campus;
• Donations of $102 million;
• The upgrading of UBC's long-term debt rating by Moody's from Aa2 to Aal;
• The market value of the Endowment Fund at $829 million.
The total consolidated revenue for the University was $1.57 billion, compared to $1.25
billion in the previous year. Expenses were $1.45 billion, compared to $1.24 billion in the
previous year. Total assets were $3.1 billion, compared to $2.5 billion in the previous year.
 Vancouver Senate 06-07 - 28
Minutes of October 18, 2006
Financial Statements, continued
In response to a question from Dr. Bluman, Ms. Merritt confirmed that the expenditure
for student awards had increased in 2005/2006 as compared to the previous year. A calculation error in 2004/2005 was to blame for the apparent decrease in the circulated document.
In response to a question from Dr. Bluman, Ms. Merritt explained that the increase in
interest expense was primarily related to two bond issues.
Dean Tierney and several other Senators noted that the Financial Statements reflected
prosperity at the University in its entirety at the same time that the academic enterprise
had been asked to absorb budget cuts. Dean Tierney asked about budgetary futures for
the academic side of the University, and whether consideration was being given to sharing
some of the relative prosperity. Ms. Merritt noted that, while research activities brought
large revenues and expenses, the teaching and learning enterprise was funded in large part
by General Purpose Operating (GPO) fund. GPO funding was restricted due to provincial
limits on tuition fees and government funding. Ms. Merritt reported that, following discussions with the provincial government, the University could more reliably estimate
grant amounts for future years. The provincial government had also made the commitment to fund expenses associated with salary increases. Ms. Merritt stated that she could
not predict the budgetary future for the Faculties for the following year, as those allocations were to result from an upcoming budgetary process.
Dr. McKee expressed interest in receiving data on actual and projected revenue and
expenses focusing on the teaching and learning aspects of the University. Ms. Merritt
stated that the circulated document consolidated data across the entire institution; she
noted that the teaching and learning enterprise had finished the 2005/2006 academic year
 Vancouver Senate 06-07 - 29
Minutes of October 18, 2006
Financial Statements, continued
with a surplus in the amount of $300 000. Ms. Merritt noted that the Council of Senates
Budget Committee customarily received the data requested by Dr. McKee, and suggested
that this information could be made available to Senators.
In response to a question from Dr. Windsor-Liscombe about funding for undergraduate as
compared to graduate students, Ms. Merritt stated that it remained a significant challenge
to secure adequate funding for graduate students. Some student spaces unfortunately
remained unfunded.
Responding to Dean Tierney, President Toope agreed that the financial situation for the
academic portion of the University was not as positive as the consolidated statements
appeared to suggest. He noted that the statements had been prepared for presentation to
the Board of Governors and the provincial government. President Toope stated that the
senior administration was about to engage in wide consultation about GPO funding and
the relationship between GPO and capital, ancillary, and other funding. The provincial
government had indicated that there would be no increase in base operating funds for the
following fiscal year, with the exception of funds associated with salary increases, and
possibly additional funded spaces for graduate students. President Toope stated that the
budgetary situation would present significant challenges. He committed to bring more
information to the Senate as it became available, and to seek the advice of Senators about
how to move forward. President Toope thanked Ms. Merritt for her presentation.
Academic Building Needs Committee
Dr. Adebar requested that the Chair recognize guest presenter Ms. Nancy Knight, Associate Vice-President, Campus and Community Planning. He suggested that Senators focus
for the purposes of the present meeting on the process for formulating the campus plan,
 Vancouver Senate 06-07 - 30
Minutes of October 18, 2006
rather than the content of the plan. He indicated that the Academic Building Needs Committee would be working very closely with the Project Team and would ensure that the
Senate remained informed and was offered opportunities to contribute. The Academic
Building Needs Committee planned to request time on a future Senate meeting agenda to
discuss the content of the plan.
Ms. Knight gave an overview of the process that would ultimately determine the UBC
Vancouver Campus Plan. She described the process as consultative and inclusive. She
acknowledged the existence of some cynicism about the benefits of planning, and committed to addressing those issues. The Campus Plan would include room for growth in academic and research activities, as well as provisions for a more complete campus life. Ms.
Knight stated that increasing the number of student, faculty, staff, and market residences
on campus would greatly enhance the community. Ms. Knight invited Senators to visit the
website at and to participate in upcoming workshops.
Ms. Knight stated that the Campus Plan would cover approximately 60 percent of the
campus. Some areas were designated as "housing reserve," meaning that residential development could only proceed after it had been determined that the land was not required
for academic and research activities. Ms. Knight noted that, compared to other urban universities such as McGill University and the University of Toronto, the Point Grey campus
suffered from suburban sprawl due to its relatively generous size.
Ms. Knight gave an overview of the following six phases of the process, along with projected completion dates:
Phase 1: Background (complete);
Phase 2: Ideas and Issues (current phase);
Phase 3: Talking About the Future (Winter - Spring 2007);
Phase 4: Review Options (Spring - Summer 2007);
 Vancouver Senate 06-07 - 31
Minutes of October 18, 2006
Academic Building Needs Committee, continued
Phase 5: The Preferred Option (Summer - Fall 2007);
Phase 6: Here's the Plan (Fall 2007 - Winter 2008).
Ms. Knight reiterated that consultation with the Senate would be important and was
Dr. Steyn stated that he was disturbed to find that some neighbours of UBC were cynical
and disgusted with past UBC behaviour, and asked how these issues would be addressed.
Dr. Dunford agreed, stating that local residents were skeptical that their participation
would make any difference to the final outcome. Dr. Dennison also agreed, adding that
the University had appeared to be unconcerned about disturbing its neighbours during
construction. Ms. Knight agreed that the attitudes of surrounding residents were of significant concern and hoped that, with improved community relations efforts, those people
would come to see the value of residing proximate to the University. A number of public
presentations and forums were planned to broaden the connection with neighbouring
In response to a question from Dr. Steyn about engaging resident academic experts in the
planning process, Ms. Knight stated that conversations had been initiated with the Directors of the School of Community and Regional Planning and the School of Architecture
and Landscape Architecture. Ms. Knight was hopeful that both schools would find ways
to integrate parts of the planning project into their curricula. She planned to also explore
connections with the Civil Engineering Department.
In response to a question from Dean Isaacson, Ms. Knight stated that the target was to
submit the final plan to the Board of Governors in the spring of 2008. In the interim
period, there would be no development on the land designated as housing reserve.
 Vancouver Senate 06-07 - 32
Minutes of October 18, 2006
Academic Building Needs Committee, continued
Dr. MacEntee requested clarification about the mechanism for consultation with the Senate. He was concerned that members of the Project Team would return to simply inform
the Senate, rather than to seek meaningful input. Ms. Knight noted that there was one
Senate representative on each of the Campus and Community Planning Project Steering
Committee and the Technical Advisory Committee, and that the Academic Building
Needs Committee would also be involved. She asked for advice from Senators about what
forms of additional participation the Senate would prefer. Ms. Knight noted that many
groups on campus felt they should be directing the plan, and that her job would be to
ensure that all voices were heard. The Vice-President, External and Legal Affairs and the
Board of Governors would be the ultimate directors of the plan. Dr. Adebar stated that
the Academic Building Needs Committee believed participation in the planning project
was one of their most important tasks, and that the Committee would report to Senate.
There were suggestions from several Senators that the project team conduct some consultation on how to best conduct effective community consultation before proceeding.
Dr. Stanley Knight thanked Ms. Knight for her presentation, and expressed hope for
future consultation with the Senate. He noted the lack of overall campus ambience, the
difficulty of moving people around campus, as well as the lack of protection from the rain
and sun in outdoor spaces as areas needing attention in the plan.
Dr. Stelck suggested that, for improved community relations, the University might consider distancing itself from the UBC Properties Trust as the group responsible for controversial construction projects.
Dr. Adebar thanked Ms. Knight for her presentation and for her thoughtful responses to
some difficult questions.
 Vancouver Senate 06-07 - 33
Minutes of October 18, 2006
Academic Policy Committee
The meeting agenda was rearranged by consent such that reports from this Committee
followed the report from the Ad hoc Committee to Consider Universitas 21 and U21 Global.
Admissions Committee
Committee Chair Dr. Berger presented the report, which proposed changes to admissions
for College/University Transfer students effective September 2007 and for BC College
Commerce Transfer students effective September 2008.
Dr. Berger l     That the admissions changes for the
Dr. R. Harrison        J     Bachelor of Commerce be approved.
Agenda Committee
Dean Isaacson presented the following report for the information of Senators. The
Agenda Committee had been made aware of some concerns about the length of time it
had taken in the past for Senate materials to be approved by the Board and the Senate
notified, and the report suggested ways that communications between the two bodies
might be enhanced. Dean Isaacson emphasized that the report contained words like "sug
gest" and "request," and that the Agenda Committee was keenly aware that the Board
would make its own decisions about its processes.
Communications Between the Senate and the Board of Governors
Senators may already be aware that the Senate Secretariat forwards certain items
approved by Senate at each meeting to the Board of Governors for approval. The
Agenda Committee has prepared this report for the information of Senators.
 Vancouver Senate 06-07 - 34
Minutes of October 18, 2006
Agenda Committee, continued
Current Process
Items approved by Senate that require Board of Governors approval include such
matters as new and changed curriculum, the establishment or renaming of academic units, and the establishment of chairs. For a complete list of Senate items
that require approval by the Board of Governors, Senators may consult the University Act, Sections 37 (1) (i), (o), (r), and 38.
Following Senate approval, the Senate Secretariat sends copies of these items to
the Office of the Vice-President Academic for inclusion on a Board of Governors
meeting agenda. Soon after Board approval, the Secretary to the Board of Governors sends a letter of confirmation to the Senate Secretariat, and the Secretariat
places a list of approved items on the following Senate meeting agenda to confirm
final approval.
Enhancements to the Current Process
Some enhancements to this process have been suggested to the Secretariat. Given
current procedures and timelines, Senators are not always informed in a timely
manner about the status of items sent to the Board. In fact, the scheduling of
meetings of Senate the Board of Governors is such that the notification back to
Senate may take several months after Senate's initial approval of an item. The
approval status of an item during this interim period is often unclear. For cases
such as new programs, when Board approval is a prerequisite for submission to
the provincial government for approval, this delay causes notable academic hardship for the Faculty or Faculties concerned.
Proposed Process
Accordingly, the Senate Agenda Committee has considered the matter and has
requested that the Senate Secretariat to adopt the following procedures:
1. hat the Secretariat forward to the Secretary of the Board, copied to the Office
of the Vice-President, Academic & Provost, all items requiring Board
approval. Under the University Act, the Board must receive the Senate materials within ten days of Senate approval.
2. That the Secretariat recommend to the Secretary to the Board that Senate
items be presented to the Board as reports from the Senate, rather than as
reports from the Vice President Academic, and that communication about the
approval status of these items take place between the Board and Senate secretariats.
3. That the Secretariat request that the Secretary to the Board convey to the Secretariat the scheduling of the Board's consideration of all items brought to it
by the Senate, and continue the practice of conveying to the Secretariat the
disposition of all Senate items immediately following these decisions.
4. That the Senate Secretariat request the Secretary to the Board of Governors to
seek all routine Senate business to be considered by the Board of Governors
 Vancouver Senate 06-07 - 35
Minutes of October 18, 2006
Agenda Committee, continued
using the Board's established "approval by consent" procedure, which would
see materials circulated to Board members independently of Board meeting
agendas, and thus expedite the approval process.
cc Mrs. Nina Robinson, Secretary, Board of Governors and Ms. Charlotte Pass-
more, Office of the Vice-President, Academic & Provost
President Toope reported that he would convey the suggestions to the Board of Governors, consult with the two secretariats, and report back to Senate on the matter. In
response to a question from Dr. P. G. Harrison regarding the submission of materials to
the Board, Dean Isaacson indicated expressed the opinion that communications from the
the Senate to the Office of the Vice-President, Academic & Provost and to the Board
would most efficiently proceed in parallel, rather than in sequence. Vice-President Whitehead stated that, when presenting Senate items to the Board, Board members frequently
asked him to comment on the nature of Senate discussion on a given topic. He added that
the Board of Governors were open to suggestions about possible improvements.
Nominating Committee
Committee Chair Dr. Windsor-Liscombe presented the following report.
Appointment of Senators to the Council of Senates
Senators have been canvassed for nominations and volunteers to serve on the
Council of Senates. Several faculty members and one student have agreed to
stand. As such, the Nominating Committee recommends the following to Senate:
"That the following Standing  Committee appointments  be
Council of Senates Vancouver
Representative Committee One
Dr Perry Adebar
 Vancouver Senate
Minutes of October 18, 2006
Nominating Committee, continued
Council of Senates Vancouver
Representative Committee
Dr George Bluman
Council of Senates Vancouver
Representative Committee
Dr Sue Grayston
Council of Senates Vancouver
Representative Committee
Ms Gina Eom
That these appointments made are until the conclusion of this
Senate (August 31 2008), except in the case of Ms Eom, whose
appointment is until March 31 2007, and are made with the
understanding that should one of the above persons cease to be
a member of Senate, he or she will be replaced on the relevant
Committee by Senate at its earliest convenience."
Senators are reminded that despite the terms set above, Senators do serve on their
Committees until a successor is appointed in accordance with Section 34 of the
Rules and Procedures of Senate.
At this time, no nominee or volunteer has emerged from the cohort of deans on
Senate. The Nominating Committee renews its call for a dean to volunteer or
nominate one of his or her colleagues. A recommendation on how to proceed to
fill this position will be made at the November 2006 meeting of Senate.
Dr. Windsor-
Dr. Young
That Senate accept the recommendations of
the Nominating Committee with respect to
appointments to the Council of Senates.
Tributes Committee
Committee Chair Dr. Thorne presented the report.
 Vancouver Senate
Minutes of October 18, 2006
Dr. Thorne
Dr. Dennison
That Senate approve the regalia colours for
the Bachelor of Business in Real Estate
(BBRE) as:
Hood: light grey
Cord: black and red.
Ad Hoc Committee to Consider Universitas 21 and U21 Global
On behalf of absent Committee Chair Dr. Helsley, President Toope indicated that the ad
hoc Committee was consulting with Associate Vice-President Craig Klafter about his
availability to attend a future meeting of the Senate. The Committee planned to deliver its
report to Senate by December 2006.
Academic Policy Committee
Committee Chair Dr. P. G. Harrison presented the reports.
Note: the full text of this report is not included in the Minutes. It is available from Senate
& Curriculum Services or for download as part of the October 18 2006 meeting package
Dr. Harrison introduced the report and its associated motion as a "bold yet cautious
step." Because the document belonged to all four consortium partners collectively, the
Committee had been unable to amend the document as they might have wished. The doc-
 Vancouver Senate 06-07 - 38
Minutes of October 18, 2006
Academic Policy Committee, continued
ument embodied a statement of general principles that would allow for the development
of exciting new kinds of degree programs.
Dr. P. G. Harrison    l     That Senate approve the general principles
Dr. Burt J     set out in the report entitled Academic
Governance and Administration of Degree
Programs with the proviso that Senate have
ongoing oversight and right of approval for
all academic programs, courses, regulations,
and policies applicable to students who are
candidates for degrees offered in part by the
University of British Columbia at the Great
Northern Way campus.
Dean Isaacson pointed out that the Committee report indicated that all activities and
degree programs would necessarily involve all four partner institutions. He noted that
there might be areas where one or more of the partners had no expertise. After some discussion, Prof. Robert Gardiner, upon recognition by the Chair, confirmed that this was an
error in the covering report. In fact, while the first collaborative degree would involve all
four institutions, other collaborative arrangements involving fewer institutions could
come forward in future.
A Student Senator asked about the bureaucracy involved in having four institutions
approve a common proposal. Dr. Harrison agreed that the approval process could be
The motion was
put and carried
 Vancouver Senate 06-07 - 39
Minutes of October 18, 2006
Academic Policy Committee, continued
Dr. Harrison presented a proposed revision to the Academic Concession policy that added
"military service" to the list of circumstances that might prompt a student to request academic concession under the policy published in the Calendar.
Dr. P. G. Harrison    l     That the Senate approve the proposed
Dr. Burt J     revision to the Calendar entry on Academic
There was discussion about whether the list of circumstances should be expanded to
include things like parental or family responsibilities or varsity athletics. Dr. Arneil suggested a broader discussion on the topic and was hesitant to support military service as
taking priority over other circumstances. Dr. Bluman suggested that, while it would make
sense to make accommodation for active military service, it seemed less reasonable to
grant concession for reserves activities. In response to a question from Dr. Brander, Dr.
Harrison confirmed that the list of circumstances was not intended to be exclusive.
After further discussion, Dr. Harrison recommended that the Senate proceed to approve
the revision as presented, but agreed that the Academic Policy Committee would undertake further discussion about additional circumstances and any other desirable changes to
the policy.
Mr. Silzer stated that he had been approached about this issue because students in the military reserves reported difficulty in having instructors recognize their requests for concession as legitimate. He noted that the proposed policy did not entail an automatic
concession, but signalled military service as one legitimate circumstance that instructors
might consider.
 Vancouver Senate 06-07 - 40
Minutes of October 18, 2006
Academic Policy Committee, continued
There was general consensus that the statement should be modified to read "or military
service" instead of "and military service."
Dr. Bluman l     That the matter be laid on the table.
Dr. Young J
The motion to lay
on the table was
The main motion,
with the
amendment, was
put and carried.
Dr. Harrison presented a proposed revision to the Calendar entry entitled Viewing
Marked Examinations. Student Senators had requested that the Committee consider
revising the policy because some students had reported difficulty in implementing the current policy.
Dr. P. G. Harrison    l     That the Senate approve the revisions to the
Dean Isaacson J     Calendar entry on Viewing Marked
Senators made the following comments:
• "reasonable time" was too vague;
• while this revision would work well for examinations, it might be problematic if
extended to all marked work;
• implementation by all instructors was an unrealistic expectation; and
• permitting students to view and handle all marked work would entail additional photocopying to prevent alteration and resubmission for additional marks.
 Vancouver Senate 06-07 - 41
Minutes of October 18, 2006
Academic Policy Committee, continued
In response to general discomfort, President Toope suggested that the Committee further
consider that paragraph of the proposed revised policy.
By consent, the first paragraph of the proposed revised policy was amended as follows:
Any examination, essay, problem set, laboratory report or other assignment
should be marked in a reasonable time and although the work may be retained by
the University the student shall receive feedback on expected and achieved outcomes. If there is a provision for marked work to be returned to the student and
then re submitted for the correction of marking errors or omissions, the instruc
tor must provide clear guidelines in advance to ensure that the academic integrity
of the work is maintained.
The main motion,
including the
amendment, was
put and carried.
There being no further business, the meeting was adjourned. The following regular meeting of the Vancouver Senate was scheduled to take place on November 15, 2006.


Citation Scheme:


Citations by CSL (citeproc-js)

Usage Statistics



Customize your widget with the following options, then copy and paste the code below into the HTML of your page to embed this item in your website.
                            <div id="ubcOpenCollectionsWidgetDisplay">
                            <script id="ubcOpenCollectionsWidget"
                            async >
IIIF logo Our image viewer uses the IIIF 2.0 standard. To load this item in other compatible viewers, use this url:


Related Items