"CONTENTdm"@en . "University Publications"@en . "2020-04-24"@en . "1991-09-11"@en . "https://open.library.ubc.ca/collections/senmin/items/1.0390142/source.json"@en . "application/pdf"@en . " THE UNIVERSITY OF BRITISH COLUMBIA\nVancouver Senate Secretariat\nSenate and Curriculum Services\nEnrolment Services\n2016-1874 East Mall\nVancouver, BC V6T 1Z1\nwww.senate.ubc.ca\nVANCOUVER SENATE\nMINUTES OF SEPTEMBER 11, 1991\nAttendance\nPresent: President D. W. Strangway (Chairman), Chancellor L. R. Peterson, Vice-President D. R. Birch,\nMr. S. Alsgard, Mr. D. A. Anderson, Dr. A. P. Autor, Mr. J. A. Banfield, Miss K. Bentsen, Dr. L. L.\nBongie, Professor P. L. Bryden, Mr. R. Bush, Professor E. A. Carty, Dr. R. L. Chase, Dr. S. Cherry, Dr. T.\nS. Cook, Dr. J. D. Dennison, Dr. G. W. Eaton, Dr. A. J. Elder, Mr. C. Fung, Mr. E. B. Goehring, Dean M.\nA. Goldberg, Dean J. R. Grace, Dr. S. E. Grace, Dr. R. D. Guy, Dr. S. W. Hamilton, Mr. M. L. Hanik,\nRev. J. Hanrahan, Dr. M. Isaacson, Mr. J. Jacob, Dr. J. G. E. Kelsey, Dr. M. M. Klawe, Ms. J. Lahey, Mr.\nO. C. W. Lau, Mr. D. K. Leung, Dr. S. C. Lindstrom, Mr. S. Lu, Mr. S. W. E. Mak, Dean B. C McBride,\nDr. H. McDonald, Dr. J. A. McLean, Mr. W. B. McNulty, Dean A. Meisen, Dr. A. G. Mitchell, Ms. E.\nOnno, Dr. L. Paszner, Dr. R. J. Patrick, Ms. B. M. Peterson, Mrs. S. K. Prpic, Miss C. L. Rankel,\nProfessor R. S. Reid, Dr. P. Resnick, Dean P. B. Robertson, Dr. M. M. Ryan, Mr. A. J. Scow, Dean N.\nSheehan, Dr. C. E. Slonecker, Dean C. L. Smith, Dr. L. de Sobrino, Miss S. Sterling, Mr. M. Sugimoto,\nDr. R. C. Lees, Dr. W. Uegama, Dr. A. Van Seters, Dr. J. Vanderstoep, Mr. L. Waldman, Miss R. Walia,\nDr. D. A. Wehrung, Dr. R. M. Will, Ms. N. E. Woo, Dr. W. C. Wright, Jr.\nRegrets: Dean C. S. Binkley, Dr. M. A. Boyd, Dr. D. M. Brunette, Dr. D. G. A. Carter, Mr. N. A.\nDavidson, Dr. K. Dawson, Dean M. J. Hollenberg, Dean J. H. McNeill, Dean J. F. Richards, Dr. G. G. E.\nScudder, Dr. L. J. Stan, Mr. G. A. Ehom, Dr. J. M. Varah, Dr. D. Ll. Williams.\nSenate Membership\nThe Secretary announced the following Senate membership changes:\ni) Declaration of Vacancy (University Act, section 35(6))\nMs. L. B. W. Drummond, student senator at-large\nDr. S. Katz, representative of the Faculty of Pharmaceutical Sciences\nii) Replacement\nDr. L. L. Bongie, replaces Dr. Helliwell as Faculty of Arts representative\n(this vacancy was declared at the May meeting).\nThere are no replacements as yet for Ms. Drummond and Dr. Katz.\niii) Ex-Officio Members\nDean M. A. Goldberg, Faculty of Commerce and Business Administration,\nreplaces Dean P. A. Lusztig.\nRev. J. Hanrahan, Principal, St. Mark's College, replaces Rev. P. C. Burns.\n Vancouver Senate 10084\nMinutes of September 11,1991\nMinutes of the Previous Meeting\nDean C. L. Smith, Faculty of Law, replaces Dean P. T. Burns.\nDr. W. Uegama, Director of Continuing Education, replaces Ms. A. Ironside.\nMinutes of the Previous Meeting\nDr. Tees l That the minutes of the eighth and ninth\nDr. Birch J regular meetings of Senate for the Session\n1990-91, having been circulated, be taken as\nread and adopted.\nCarried.\nChairman's Remarks and Related Questions\nBIOMEDICAL RESEARCH CENTRE\nIn commenting on the recent publicity concerning the Biomedical Research Centre\nlocated on campus, President Strangway pointed out that the Centre is not a UBC\nventure. He explained that the University had a lease agreement with the Centre and\nsome agreements with individuals but that it was not an operation of The University of\nBritish Columbia. In response to a request to name a representative to the Board of the\nCentre eighteen months ago, the University had recommended Dr. R. M. Miller, Vice-\nPresident Research, and that, stated President Strangway, is the extent of the\nconnections the University has with the Biomedical Research Centre. He noted that\nmany of the controversial decisions that had been made were decisions of the\nBiomedical Research Centre Board and of the Terry Fox Foundation Board.\nPresident Strangway informed Senate that a proposal to run and operate the Biomedical\nResearch Centre was being developed by the University. As a consequence of the\nproposal there may well be items that require Senate approval. For example, if\n Vancouver Senate 10085\nMinutes of September 11,1991\nChairman's Remarks and Related Questions\nthe proposal were to be that the Centre should become an academic unit or a unit\nwithin the University it would be brought to Senate for consideration.\nRITSUMEIKAN/UBC JOINT VENTURE\nAt the request of the President, Vice-President Birch reported to Senate on the\nRitsumeikan/UBC joint program and the physical facility on campus. He stated that the\nconstruction of the residence, which will be ready for occupation before Christmas, will\nprovide 200 places; 100 for Ritsumeikan students and 100 for UBC students.\nReferring to the academic program, Vice-President Birch explained that the joint\nprogram is a program for 100 of Ritsumeikan University's best students, and that they\nhave taken one and a half year's of academic work in their Ritsumeikan degree program\nbefore coming to UBC for eight months to take courses for UBC credit towards their\ndegrees at Ritsumeikan University. He stated that the program has three major\ncomponents, the first being a language component taught by the Language Education\nDepartment in the Faculty of Education, the second is a core Arts component being\nhandled by two departments in the Faculty of Arts, and the third is the opportunity for\nelective course work in any Faculty within the University appropriate to the student's\nacademic objectives at Ritsumeikan and for which the student has the relevant\nbackground requirements for admission. Both the language education component and\nthe arts component are this year using the rubric of existing courses because of the\ntiming, but both Faculties have underway, in joint planning with Ritsumeikan\nUniversity, the planning for ways in which they will deliver their portions of the\nprogram in future years. As far as the Arts component is concerned, the intention is to\nuse an Arts I style of approach with the emphasis varying from year to year depending\n Vancouver Senate 10086\nMnutes of September 11,1991\nChairman's Remarks and Related Questions\non the faculty members participating in the program. It is a joint program co-chaired by\nfaculty members from Ritsumeikan and UBC. The program is restricted to those\nstudents who fully meet the TOEFL requirements for participation in courses in the\nFaculty of Arts with the possibility of those students within hailing distance of that\nrequirement auditing courses. The Education component, taught by the Language\nEducation Department, again under a set of rubric courses and as an experimental\napproach for this year, which will be carefully evaluated and reviewed to determine how\nit is handled in the future, has two sets of objectives; one is the enhancement of language\nskills, the other is the study and the use of language, particularly the study of academic\ndiscourse within a North American context. This portion of the program has not at any\npoint had as a requirement a particular TOEFL score. The program is led by people who\nare bilingual and is an experimental program in which the content is the vehicle for the\ndevelopment of language skills. The third component is one in which individual students\nwill seek admission to individual courses in appropriate departments and Faculties.\nVice-President Birch noted that there are many visiting international students within the\nUniversity, most of whom have not in the past been required to take a TOEFL test.\nHowever, they present a different situation than students in the Ritsumeikan program in\nthat there is never a large concentration of those students in an individual course.\nConsequently, if a student lacks the language facility it is their own progress that is at\nrisk not the progress of the other students in the course. The Faculty of Arts in\ndeveloping its portion of this program has been very concerned that the Ritsumeikan\nstudents not hold back UBC students, and consequently that Faculty has been very\nrigorous about the TOEFL requirement.\n Vancouver Senate 10087\nMnutes of September 11,1991\nChairman's Remarks and Related Questions\nIn conclusion, Vice-President Birch stated that 100 Ritsumeikan students are now at\nUBC, and that the joint governance committee for the program, which has substantial\nUBC and Ritsumeikan membership on it, had reviewed all of the issues related to the\nprogram. He stated that the approach for this year is largely an experimental one and\nthat the expectation is that as the program becomes more established, future participants\nin the program will be very much better prepared in English than the current group.\nHowever, the University was pleased to be engaged in the experiment, and had found it\ninteresting and challenging. The program was being examined very carefully at every\nstage and Senate will be kept informed of its progress.\n1991-92 FIRST YEAR ENROLMENT AS AT SEPTEMBER 3,1991\nThe President asked the Registrar to comment on the enrolment figures which had been\ncirculated at the meeting. Dr. Spencer informed Senate that the detailed report on\nenrolment was not available for this meeting. However, he was able to report that\nundergraduate enrolment stands at 23,850 students which is an increase of 2.4% over\nthe equivalent number last year. He stated that it was difficult to report on graduate\nenrolment because approximately 1300 graduate students were moved to a new fee\npayment system on September 1, and that the majority would probably not have\nregistered under the old payment system and would not have been included in the\nSeptember figures. Including those students, there are 6171 registered graduate students,\nwhich is an increase of 40% over the same figure in the previous year. Dr. Spencer\nestimated that the increase in graduate student enrolment was approximately 350,\nexcluding those who were showing up because of the change in the fee system, which is\nan increase of about 8%. He stated that the total undergraduate and graduate enrolment\nis 28,601 which is an increase of 3.3%. Dr. Spencer noted that future\n Vancouver Senate 10088\nMnutes of September 11,1991\nChairman's Remarks and Related Questions\nreports will include Guided Independent Study students, of whom there are\napproximately 600.\nRELATED QUESTIONS\nDr. Sobrino expressed concern that the courses being taken by the Ritsumeikan students\nappeared to be specially designed courses which include teaching the English language,\nfor which, in the past, students have not received credit. He also felt that courses passed\nby Senate for a particular purpose should be used for that particular purpose. He\npointed out that if the content of a course is to be changed then it should go through the\nappropriate channels and be approved by Senate.\nVice President Birch responded that one of the courses being used was a course\napproved by Senate for a one year offering of an experimental course which will be\nbrought to Senate for approval if it is going to be offered beyond this year. He stated\nthat what is being done under the course labels is different from what has been done\nbefore.\nIn response to a query by Dr. Tees as to what percentage of the 100 Ritsumeikan\nstudents had TOEFL scores that meet the University's admission requirements, Vice\nPresident Birch stated that the number of students who met the Faculty of Arts TOEFL\nrequirement, which is slightly higher than the general University requirement, is 1%.\nIn response to a query by Dr. Elder, Vice President Birch explained that until\nRitsumeikan House was ready for occupation, the students were being accommodated\nin UBC housing. He agreed that this would leave vacancies in UBC housing when the\n Vancouver Senate 10089\nMnutes of September 11,1991\nChairman's Remarks and Related Questions\nstudents moved but felt that many of these vacancies would be filled by other students\nlooking for accommodation on campus.\nDr. Elder queried Vice President Birch's statement that visiting students were not\nrequired to have the TOEFL admission score. The Registrar stated that he would check\nwith the Admissions Office to find out the current practice with regard to visiting\nstudents and report back to Senate at the next meeting.\nDr. Tees stated that visiting graduate students had to meet the TOEFL admission\nrequirement and was puzzled by the notion that visitors, as well as people admitted to\nall courses, are not required to meet the University's TOEFL admission requirement.\nDr. Hamilton expressed concern at the surprisingly low percentage of Ritsumeikan\nstudents who had met the TOEFL admission requirement, and expressed the hope that\nby next year those admitted would meet UBC standards.\nIn response to a query by Dr. Sobrino, Vice President Birch stated that the courses being\ntaken by the Ritsumeikan students went far beyond the learning of English, the courses\nare defined with a set of objectives for the study of language use and not merely the\nlearning of the language.\nDr. Grace asked how the University can be sure that it will be able to recruit enough\nRitsumeikan students in future that meet the TOEFL admission requirement. Vice\nPresident Birch responded that the University expected substantial progress in this\nregard. He noted that those courses which are taught in a form for which English\nlanguage competence is essential will be restricted to people who have that competence.\n Vancouver Senate 10090\nMnutes of September 11,1991\nChairman's Remarks and Related Questions\nIn response to a query, Vice President Birch stated that the language fluency requirement\nin Japanese for UBC students going to Ritsumeikan is that they have passed the second\nlevel Japanese language course at UBC.\nDr. Will referred to the comment that an open rubric was being used in the Faculty of\nEducation for courses being taken by Ritsumeikan students, and expressed concern as to\nwhether the rubric is being used for what is recognized as University level work,\nparticularly since Senate had gone on record as saying that UBC students who have\ndeficiencies in English would not get credit for remedial English, and since 1979 the\nUniversity has neither taught, nor given credit for, courses in remedial English.\nIn response to comments by Dr. Chase and the Registrar, Vice President Birch stated\nthat the intent is that Ritsumeikan students will be registered in designated sections of\nspecial courses for credit and that these courses will appear on a UBC transcript but\nwould be specifically for credit towards a Ritsumeikan degree.\nDean Sheehan stated that the Faculty of Education was delighted to be involved in the\nRitsumeikan project and to have the opportunity to help students from another culture\nlearn English, cultural understanding and cultural awareness. She stated that the Faculty\nlooked upon this as an opportunity for research, creative teaching, and to be in the\nforefront of new program development, new ideas in linguistics and English as a second\nlanguage teaching. Dean Sheehan stated that the Faculty was not involved in remedial\nteaching or in the teaching of English even though the students would learn English as\nthey are involved in academic discourse. She stated that the courses being used were\nregular Education courses, although the students will be in sections in which the other\nstudents are not at risk. She noted that one of the courses, Topics in\n Vancouver Senate 10091\nMnutes of September 11,1991\nChairman's Remarks and Related Questions\nEducation, had been subtitled, for this year, Academic Discourse and Second Language\nEducation. The other courses being offered, which the Faculty thinks are appropriate for\nthe Ritsumeikan students, are Communication Skills and Education which focuses on\nthe development of oral skills, and Education of Immigrant Students which will look at\ninter-cultural communication and approaches to learning language in a multi-cultural\nsociety. Dean Sheehan felt that the Faculty had the expertise and the capacity to offer\nvery good programs to the Ritsumeikan students and reiterated that the Faculty was\ndelighted to have the opportunity to be involved in the Ritsumeikan project.\nDr. Klawe stated that she did not question the integrity of the people putting on the\ncourses in the Faculty of Education, but was concerned that the level of changes that the\nFaculty of Education had undertaken to meet the challenges of the Ritsumeikan students\nhad not gone through the established procedures for course changes.\nDr. Bongie queried the necessity of going to a credit system as opposed to the\nestablishment of courses for foreigners with no credit or with audit status, as many\nuniversities do, and why the University had given assurance that there is a portability to\na UBC transcript which is only portable to Ritsumeikan University.\nProfessor Bryden drew attention to the enrolment figures circulated at the meeting and\nnoted that where there were quotas, enrolment in most of the programs exceeded the\nquotas established by Senate.\nThe Registrar responded that the Admissions Office and the Faculty concerned attempt,\nwith very little data, to make a guess as to an admission GPA above which they can\noffer admission with a degree of certainty that those offers will be at or under the quota.\nLater on in the admission process a few more places are offered, as necessary,\n Vancouver Senate 10092\nMnutes of September 11,1991\nChairman's Remarks and Related Questions\nin order to meet the targets. This year the process broke down, firstly because the\nnumber of applicants was much higher than expected. In fact there has been a 10%\nincrease in the number of applications processed by the Admissions Office. Secondly, the\nGPA's of the applicants was higher, and finally, the percentage of students who took up\ntheir eligibilities had increased over last year. He stated that the Admissions Office was\nconsidering what changes could be made in the process to improve the ability to register\na number of students that is closer to the quotas.\nPresident Strangway commented that the University would have to look closely at\nperhaps decreasing quotas not only because of first year admissions overshoots but also\nbecause of second, third and fourth year registrations which are up substantially.\nReferring to the Ritsumeikan project, Dean Marchak informed Senate that the Faculty\nof Arts had not created special courses for Ritsumeikan students under other rubrics but\nhad retained a course that they had not intended to teach this year, Anthropology and\nSociology 100, which is well within the course description although it has more of an\ninternational content than it might otherwise have had. She also noted that the only\nchange concerning the Political Science course, which was already being taught prior to\nthis year, is that one of the teachers will be from Japan. Dean Marchak said that it was\nunfortunate that only one student from Ritsumeikan was enrolled in those courses. She\nsaid that it was her understanding that the Ritsumeikan administration had insisted that\ntheir students be in the same courses as UBC students and that they get a complete\nimmersion in the kind of education that UBC students get. She was surprised to hear\nthat this was no longer the case, since the Faculty of Arts had been very mindful of that\nobjective. She felt that it would have been very successful if the students had been in the\nArts courses and that Arts students would have benefited\n Vancouver Senate 10093\nMnutes of September 11,1991\nCorrespondence\nfrom that exchange. She hoped that this would occur some time in the future. She\ninformed Senate that a group of faculty members, half of whom are specialist on Japan,\nwere working on a course for next year which will have something of an Arts I format\nto it, and that this would be brought to Senate for approval if approved by the Faculty\nof Arts at its October meeting.\nDr. Resnick asked the President to comment on the implications of the President of the\nUniversity accepting directorships in corporations. He asked if this was something that\npotentially jeopardizes the autonomy of the University.\nPresident Strangway responded that this was a question that had been given careful\nconsideration because of the possibility of bringing the President of the University into\nconflict situations. He noted that there had been extensive writings on this particular\ntopic in the Chronicle of Higher Education and that he had followed these with interest\nbefore deciding to accept such roles. He stated that he had sought and received the\napproval of the Board of Governors. He noted that the Presidents of most of the major\nuniversities in the United States and Canada are involved in Boards of major\ncorporations. He felt that the positive side of accepting these appointments was that one\ncould learn a great deal about what is going on in the community. He stated that it was\na complex question and that there was no simplistic answer.\nCorrespondence\nThe Secretary read to Senate a letter from Mrs. G. J. Parfitt expressing appreciation for\nthe kind tribute paid in memory of her late husband.\n Vancouver Senate 10094\nMnutes of September 11,1991\nFrom the Board of Governors\nFrom the Board of Governors\nNotification of approval in principle of Senate recommendations \u00E2\u0080\u0094 subject, where\napplicable, to the proviso that none of the programs be implemented without formal\nreference to the President and the formal agreement of the President; and that the Deans\nand Heads concerned with new programs be asked to indicate the space requirements, if\nany, of such new programs.\n(i) Establishment of the Fisheries Centre, and the Centre for Research in\nWomen's Studies and Gender Relations (pp.10041-44)\n(ii) Establishment of the Dr. Jean Templeton Hugill Chair in Anaesthesia\n(p.10065)\n(iii) Curriculum proposals from the Faculties of: Applied Science, Arts,\nEducation, Law, Graduate Studies (curriculum proposals and new\nprograms), Medicine and Science (pp. 10067-82)\nMotion re the Main Library (pp. 10034-36) - The Board is in general agreement with the\nrecommendations contained in the resolution, and notes that the administration is\nmoving to implement them as expeditiously as possible.\nFinancial Statements\nCopies of Financial Statements for the year ended March 31, 1991 had been submitted\nto Senate as required under section 31 (2) of the University Act.\nMr. Gellatly, Vice President Administration and Finance, was invited to comment on the\nvarious aspects of the financial statements. Mr. Gellatly then highlighted some sections\nof the report for the information of Senate.\nDean Goldberg stated that the Deans of the Faculties were not informed of the $2.1\nmillion non recurring deficit until June, and he questioned how the University could run\nan $11 million a week enterprise and not know until the tenth week of the next fiscal\nyear that there was a $2.1 million deficit. Mr. Gellatly responded that the University\nknew earlier but that the Deans were not informed at that time. Dean Goldberg then\nasked why the Deans could not be informed in a more timely manner so that the\nFaculties do not have to keep, with nine months to go, the deficit from the previous\ntwelve months. He stated that intermittent swings in budget made it very difficult to\nplan long term programs.\n Vancouver Senate 10095\nMnutes of September 11,1991\nFinancial Statements\nMr. Gellatly responded that this was the first time that there had been a deficit of this\nkind in many years. He stated that there were a whole variety of factors which\ncontributed to the deficit and that they were being assessed during that period.\nDean Goldberg referred to the chart on Faculties and Administrative Units as a Percent\nof Total General Operating Expenditures 1986 to 1991 and noted that the Faculties had\na decreasing percent of the pie. He asked if the University was doing anything to check\nthis trend so that more money could be spent on academic enterprises and less on\ncentral enterprises.\nMr. Gellatly responded that in comparison with the University of Toronto, UBC was\nputting more money into the academic sector and less into administration. Also UBCs\nplant costs are 9.6% and their plant costs are 11.1%. So in comparison with another\nmajor institution, one which is often used for comparison of faculty salaries, UBC is\nputting more into academic and less into administration and plant operations. He stated\nthat in order to get some perspective one has to look at what has happened at other\ncomparable institutions.\nDr. Cook stated that over the five-year period from 1986 to 1991 academic salaries as a\nproportion of the total expenditures had decreased 2.2% from 42.8% in 1986/87 to\n40.7% in 1990/91, and asked if this was related to the number of instructors at UBC, in\nwhich case it appeared that less money was being put into academic programs and\ninstruction. Mr. Gellatly explained that in the year-end appropriation this year, that had\nthe faculty unspent allocations which increased from $500,000 to over $2.1 million\nbeen spent in the year, then obviously the amount that had been spent on Faculties\nwould be higher than shown.\nIn response to comments on the increase in administrative costs, Mr. Gellatly stated that\nUBC was one of the four Canadian universities who spend the least on administration.\n Vancouver Senate\nMnutes of September 11,1991\n10096\nReports of the Committees of Senate\nIn response to a query by Dr. Will concerning the funds handled by the Vancouver\nFoundation, President Strangway stated that the President's Endowment Fund and the\nDisability Resource Centre Fund is being matched by the foundation.\nReports of the Committees of Senate\nNOMINATING COMMITTEE\nDr. Elder, Chair of the Committee, presented the following report:\n1. VACANCIES ON SENATE COMMITTEES:\nThe Nominating Committee nominates the following persons to fill vacancies on\nSenate Committees:\nAcademic Policy\nMr. C. Fung\nAgenda\nDean M. A. Goldberg\nBudget\nDr. L. L. Bongie\nContinuing Education\nDean M. A. Goldberg\nCurriculum\nDr. S. Cherry\nRev. J. Hanrahan\nMiss R. Walia\nElections\nDean C. L. Smith\nTributes\nDean C. L. Smith\nUniversity Library\nDr. L. L. Bongie\nMs. E. Onno\n\u00E2\u0080\u0094 replacing Ms. L. Drummond\nreplacing Dr. P. A. Lusztig\n\u00E2\u0080\u0094 replacing Dr. J. F. Helliwell\n\u00E2\u0080\u0094 replacing Dr. S. Katz\nreplacing Dr. S. Katz\nreplacing Rev. P. C. Burns\nadditional student representative\n\u00E2\u0080\u0094 replacing Prof. P. T. Burns\nreplacing Dr. P. A. Lusztig\nreplacing Prof. P. T. Burns\nreplacing Ms. L. Drummond\n Vancouver Senate 10097\nMnutes of September 11,1991\nReports of the Committees of Senate\nAd Hoc Committee to review student participation in Faculty\nAppointment and Tenure Committees\nDr. L. L. Bongie \u00E2\u0080\u0094 replacing Dr. S. Katz\n2. MEMBERSHIP AND OFFICERS OF SENATE\nItem 2.3 of the Senate Procedures, adopted at the April 23, 1986 meeting, states\nthat \"Senate shall elect a Vice Chairman at least annually, who shall chair\nmeetings in the absence of the President; but in no case shall a Vice Chairman\nserve more than two consecutive terms.\"\nThe Nominating Committee nominates Dr. C. E. Slonecker for the position of\nVice Chair.\nDr. Elder l That the recommendations of the Committee\nDr. Slonecker J be approved.\nCarried.\nTRIBUTES COMMITTEE\nMEMORIAL MINUTE\nThe following memorial statement had been prepared in accordance with the custom of\nSenate, in recognition by the University and Senate of the late Henry Cecil Gunning.\nIN MEMORIAM\nHENRY CECIL GUNNING (1901-1991)\nWith the passing of Henry Gunning this university has lost another link with its past, for\nGunning was one of the last of the Fairview graduates and one whose life was intricately\nentwined with the university he loved. Born in Northern Ireland in 1901, Henry\nGunning moved to Vancouver in 1907, where his father established a hardware\nbusiness. After completing high school in South Vancouver, he enrolled at UBC in 1918\nand graduated with a B.A.Sc. in Geology in 1923. While at university he represented in\nrugby and soccer, and retained an enthusiastic interest in these sports for the remainder\nof his life.\nAfter summer work as a contract miner in Stewart, B.C., Dr. Gunning continued his\neducation at Massachusetts Institute of Technology, earning his Ph.D. in 1927.\n Vancouver Senate 10098\nMnutes of September 11,1991\nReports of the Committees of Senate\nAfter graduation he began a long and brilliant career with the Geological Survey of\nCanada.\nIt is difficult to imagine the challenge which he and his colleagues faced while\nconducting this survey.\nIn the words of his son...\n\"They were on their own in a land of rain forests, grizzly bears, and precipitous\nterrain, with little or no infrastructure or population. Their achievements in\nmapping these wild and rugged territories fill one with humility when contrasted\nwith our comfortable circumstances of today\".\nIn 1939, Dr. Gunning began a distinguished academic career at this university as a\nteacher, researcher, Head of the Department of Geology and Geography, and from 1953\nto 1959, as Dean of the Faculty of Applied Science.\nAt the time of his retirement a statement read in Senate testified to his contribution to\nacademic life in the following words...\n\"As a teacher, his deep interest in his students, together with an unusual ability to\ncommunicate and inspire, will be remembered with affection and respect by\nhundreds of geologists who studied under him.\nAs an administrator, his patience and common sense have been an outstanding\nasset to the University. His concern that professional men and women shall have\nbreadth of learning in addition to professional competence is in the finest\nacademic tradition\".\nAs Dean, Dr. Gunning took tremendous pride in the achievement of his colleagues and\nhis students. Again, his son commented on one aspect of this quality in these words...\n\"I'll never forget his ill-hidden pride in admonishing his students over their\nsuccessful (undetected) capture of the bell at Royal Rhodes in Victoria and its\nC.O.D. shipment to R.M.C. in Kingston, Ontario.\nHe made himself available to any student who could get past his formidable\nsecretary, and I have heard on countless occasions, from students that made it\nthrough, expressions of appreciation for his help and encouragement in dealing\nwith their special concerns\".\nIn 1959, Dr. Gunning conducted research in Rhodesia and, after returning to\nVancouver, entered private consulting and was also instrumental in establishing the\nengineering program at the British Columbia Institute of Technology.\nIn 1956 he was awarded an Honorary Doctor of Science Degree at the UBC Spring\nConvocation. He was also made a Fellow of the Royal Society of Canada.\n Vancouver Senate 10099\nMnutes of September 11,1991\nReports of the Committees of Senate\nIn retirement, Dr. Gunning's energies were directed into charitable activities, his\nmagnificent garden, the pursuit of salmon off North Pender Island, and to his large and\nmuch loved family.\nHenry Gunning lived a long and most remarkable life. He found fulfilment in his work,\nfrom a deep and meaningful involvement with his church, and by cherishing his lifelong\ncontact with the university which gave him so much and to which he gave so much in\nreturn.\nHenry Gunning embodied the phrase \"a scholar and a gentleman\". To his wife, Molly,\nand his surviving family, the Senate of this university extends its deepest sympathy.\nDr. Dennison i That the memorial statement for Henry Cecil\nDr. Chase J Gunning be spread on the minutes of Senate\nand that a copy be sent to the relatives of the\ndeceased.\nCarried.\nAD HOC COMMITTEE ON TEACHING EVALUATION (1990) (SEE APPENDIX)\nIn presenting the report, Mr. Lau, co-chair of the Committee, stated that his fellow co-\nchair, Dr. Kelsey would answer any questions. Mr. Lau noted that this was the first time\nthat a Senate Committee had been chaired by both a student and a faculty member. He\nfelt that this was worth noting since it reflects the origins of the committee which had\nbeen born out of a concern from Student Senate Caucus which was shared by Faculty\nmembers, and also because the committee's recommendations reflect the joining of\nstudent and faculty interests.\nMr. Lau noted that the report was in three sections and contained a number of\nappendices. Section I dealt with current regulations on teaching evaluation, previous\nreviews, and the approach of the present committee. Section II presented the committee's\nfindings, and section III argued for and presented the committee's recommendations.\nMr. Lau explained that formal regulations could be found in the\n Vancouver Senate 10100\nMnutes of September 11,1991\nReports of the Committees of Senate\nFaculty Handbook and the Senate Minutes, and informally, in the established practices\nand procedures of the Faculties and the requirements of the Senior Appointments\nCommittee.\nIn the committee's approach, an omission in previous reviews had been remedied by\nobtaining good systematic data from a large number of students, thus producing two\nkinds of data; one from Faculties on what they do, and one from students on what they\nthink. It was discovered that all units do evaluate teaching and that most units do it in\naccordance with Senate regulations. Most, but not all, were found to have good or\nadequate procedures on the books, and about 90% used questionnaires which ask for\nstudent ratings on a number of items. The results appeared to be used by Heads in\ndecisions on re- appointment, promotion and tenure, and by some individual instructors\non improving teaching. Rarely were results made available outside the Dean's or the\nHead's office. One interesting observation was that although the rationale for evaluating\nalways referred to the improvement of teaching, descriptions of the way results are used\nrarely mentioned improvement of teaching.\nThe committee had obtained student views on procedures and instruments used, and it\nappeared that over half the students believe that the evaluation of teaching makes no\ndifference at all to the presence of poor teachers on campus.\nThe committee concluded that there is one key problem and two subordinate but\nimportant ones, and the committee's recommendations were designed to address these.\nThe first three recommendations dealt with the key problem, that there is inadequate\naction on what teaching evaluation reveals, and the recommendations called for action\nin cases of poor performance. The next two recommendations involved concerns\n Vancouver Senate 10101\nMnutes of September 11,1991\nReports of the Committees of Senate\nwhich the committee felt could be tightened up. Recommendations 6 to 10 contained\nmeans of ensuring that students recognize that UBC takes teaching evaluation seriously,\nand recommendations 11 to 14 dealt with implementation.\nIn conclusion, Mr. Lau stated that in making its recommendations the committee had\ntried to improve a practice that needs improvement, and to respect the UBC tradition of\navoiding a central imposition of detailed procedures.\nMr. Lau i That the report be received.\nDr. Kelsey J\nCarried.\nMr. Lau i That the recommendations of the committee be\nDr. Kelsey J approved.\nDr. Sobrino expressed concern that the committee had not included in its investigation\nteaching which involves graduate students.\nDr. Kelsey responded that the collection of policies, practices and instruments supplied\nto the committee include examples of policies which cover very specifically other than\nclassroom teaching. This was not addressed in the report, other than to say that by\ndefinition of the Handbook teaching is defined at UBC as including that very wide range\nof activities. He also noted that the Faculty of Graduate Studies Council has its own\nenquiry going on into the matter of graduate student teaching.\nDr. Will stated that the best way to get better teaching is to relate teaching evaluation to\nthe incentive system, and that faculty will improve their teaching if it is in their interest\nto do so.\n Vancouver Senate 10102\nMnutes of September 11,1991\nReports of the Committees of Senate\nDr. Autor suggested that continuing education courses in the techniques of teaching\nmight be considered as one of the solutions to the problem.\nDr. McLean observed that when one is hired as a professor, teaching ability is not really\nan element and that very few faculty members have a teaching diploma.\nDr. Wehrung stated that many universities had tried to tie the incentive scheme to\nteaching performance by making teaching evaluations public to the campus community\nat large, and said he would be much more supportive if recommendation 9 was\namended to make this a requirement rather than a suggestion.\nIN AMENDMENT:\nDr. Wehrung i That Deans, Directors and Department Heads\nDean Goldberg i make statistical summary results of the\nevaluations in their units available for\ninspection by students and by other members\nof the University community who have a\nlegitimate interest in them.\nDuring the discussion that followed, opinions were expressed to the effect that training\nin teaching methods must be given before teaching can be fairly evaluated; that feedback\non teaching should be given during the course; that careful consideration be given to\ndetermining the legitimate interest of individuals who should have access to this\ninformation; that the recommendation should not be amended until it has been\ndetermined who the individuals with a legitimate interest might be; that the results be\nmade public otherwise there is no legitimacy in the process.\nIn response to a query as to whether it was the intention that names of those evaluated\nbe published, Dr. Kelsey stated that there are 12 units on campus that publish names\nalong with the evaluation, others simply produce statistics, so it was the\n Vancouver Senate 10103\nMnutes of September 11,1991\nReports of the Committees of Senate\ncommittee's intention to get Faculties looking at this issue and to think seriously how\nthey would like to do it.\nDr. Wehrung confirmed that the intent of the amendment was to have the names of\nthose evaluated published. He felt that this would be a good incentive for faculty\nmembers, both on the positive side in terms of recognizing professors who have done an\noutstanding job in the minds of the students, as well as those individuals who are in\nneed of feedback in order to improve their teaching.\nDean Sheehan stated that the Faculty of Education had done an evaluation of teaching\nresults and had found that large class sizes, as well as whether a course is compulsory or\nelective, and whether it is a course that is team taught or taught by an individual\ninstructor, affected the results of the evaluation. She suggested that the Faculties needed\nsome time to consider this recommendation and to look at a variety of ways of\npublishing these results.\nSenate agreed to a request that Mr. Jason Brett, President of the Alma Mater Society, be\nallowed to speak. Mr. Brett spoke in favour of the amendment stating that this was the\nmost significant motion affecting students to come before the Senate. He stated that\nwhile he had encountered some excellent professors, he had also had professors who\nwere poor teachers even though they might have been excellent researchers. Mr. Brett\nfelt that by publishing a professor's name and evaluation, students will be able to\nintelligently choose the people by whom they wished to be taught. This, he said, would\nlead to a better education, not only for the students but for the professors themselves.\n Vancouver Senate\nMnutes of September 11,1991\n10104\nReports of the Committees of Senate\nDr. Will stated that teaching evaluation by students was only one important dimension\nbut it was not the whole thing. As well as peer evaluation and student evaluation there is\nthe question as to whether the popular teacher, the one who from the consumer's point\nof view comes out very well on evaluation, is indeed a good teacher. He stated that\nwhen names are published and evaluations are graded, it is important that the\ninformation contains more than just a student reaction.\nAfter further discussion the question on the amendment was called.\nThe amendment\nwas lost.\nThe Chairman drew Senate's attention to the 10:30 p.m. deadline for adjournment.\nMr. Waldman\nMr. Fung\nThat the deadline be extended.\nCarried.\nDr. Autor\nMr. Anderson\nThat discussion of the report be tabled.\nLost.\nIn response to comments on the date of January 1992 for the implementation of the\nrecommendations, Dr. Kelsey stated that a number of the recommendations called for\nDeans and Department Heads to take some serious reflective time on this and the\nintention was that this should begin in January.\nThe motion to approve\nthe recommendations\nof the committee was\nput and carried.\n Vancouver Senate 10105\nMnutes of September 11,1991\nFaculty of Graduate Studies\nFaculty of Graduate Studies\nSTUDENT REPRESENTATION ON GRADUATE COUNCIL\nThe following proposal concerning student representation on Graduate Council had\nbeen circulated:\nThat the number of student representatives to the Graduate Council be increased\nto include one representative for each Faculty, plus two representatives to\nrepresent all of the Schools;\nThat the student representatives to Graduate Council be elected annually through\nthe Graduate Student Society;\nThat the student representatives to Graduate Council also serve as the student\nrepresentatives to the Faculty of Graduate Studies.\nDean Grace l That the proposal concerning student\nDr. Klawe i representation on Graduate Council be\napproved.\nCarried.\nGRADUATE STUDENTS - ON-LEAVE STATUS\nThe following proposed revision to the Calendar statement on on-leave status for\nGraduate Students had been circulated:\nOn-leave status may be granted with permission of the Dean of Graduate Studies\nto graduate students who find it necessary to interrupt their graduate studies. A\nstudent may be on leave for no more than one year in a master's program and for\nno more than one year in a doctoral program.\nParental leave is a separate category of leave available to graduate students who\nare bearing a child, or who have primary responsibility for the care of an infant\nor a young child immediately following a birth or adoption. Parental leave is\navailable for a minimum of four months to a maximum of twelve months.\nIt is understood that students on leave will not be undertaking any academic or\nresearch work nor using any of this University's facilities during the period of\nleave and will renew registration to work on their graduate program immediately\nfollowing leave. The time so spent will not be counted as part of the limited time\nperiod allowed for completion of the degree program. Graduate students on leave\nwill be assessed an additional fee for the leave period.\n Vancouver Senate 10106\nMnutes of September 11,1991\nFaculty of Science\nDean Grace l That the revision to the Calendar statement on\nDr. Grace J on-leave status for Graduate Students be\napproved.\nCarried.\nFaculty of Science\nPROPOSED DESIGNATIONS IN RECOGNITION OF STUDENTS WITH HIGH STANDING\nThe following proposed statements for inclusion in the Calendar had been circulated:\n1. Science Scholar\nThat the words, \"Science Scholar (one of the top 20 students entering Third Year\nor Fourth Year)\" be placed on a student's record if s/he is amongst the top 20\nstudents entering each of the Third and the Fourth Years of Science. A full 30-\ncredit program must have been carried.\n2. Dean's Honour List\nThat the words \"Dean's Honour List\" be placed on records of graduating\nstudents and of students promoted to Second, Third or Fourth Year having\nachieved a standing of \"A-\" or better in the previous year with a full 30-credit\nprogram.\nDean McBride l That the proposed designations in recognition\nDean Marchak J of students with high standing be approved.\nIn response to a query concerning part-time students, Dean McBride said that\ndiscussions were taking place concerning recognition for special status students.\nThe motion was\nput and carried.\nOther Business\nBIOMEDICAL RESARCH CENTRE\nDr. Autor asked President Strangway to comment on the academic and student concerns\nin connection with the Biomedical Research Centre. President Strangway\n Vancouver Senate 10107\nMnutes of September 11,1991\nOther Business\nstated that the Institute and the Centre itself was free-standing and independent of the\nUniversity. He stated that it is an industrial centre not a University research centre. In\nterms of the academic appointments that have been made, he stated that similar\nappointments had been made in many other areas and that those people are considered\npart-time as far as the University is concerned. He noted that the Director of the Centre\ndid have a tenured appointment, and when the Terry Fox Board decided not to renew\nthis appointment the University honoured this obligation and had to find the money to\nhonour its obligation to a tenured faculty member. President Strangway stated that he\nwould report to Senate on the status of the Centre in the near future.\nNOTICE OF MOTION RE STUDENT LOANS:\nMr. Lau gave notice of the following motion, for discussion at the October meeting of\nSenate:\nWhereas the Senate is committed to the advancement of higher education in the\nProvince of British Columbia; and\nWhereas the Mission Statement of The University of British Columbia states that\nthe University \"will work for equality of opportunity for qualified candidates by\nenabling them to overcome non-academic barriers, whether they be ... financial\nlimitations, ...\"; and\nWhereas the 3% administrative fee imposed on Canada Student Loans by the\nDepartment of Secretary of State for Canada creates a financial barrier;\nBe it resolved that the Senate request the Government of Canada to rescind the\n3 % administrative fee on Canada Student Loans; and\nBe it further resolved that the Chairman of Senate send a letter incorporating this\nrequest to the Secretary of State, with a copy to the Minister of Advanced\nEducation of British Columbia; and\nBe it further resolved that the Senate request the Board of Governors to take\nsimilar action in support of the Senate's resolution.\n Vancouver Senate\nMnutes of September 11,1991\n10108\nTributes Committee (in camera)\nNOTICE OF MOTION ON RENOVATIONS AND CONSTRUCTION TO STUDENT\nRESIDENCES DURING EXAMINATION PERIODS:\nMs. Lahey gave notice of the following motion:\nWhereas the university residences enforce a 24 hour quiet period during\nexaminations;\nWhereas students require a quiet studying environment during exams;\nBe it resolved that the Senate strongly urge Campus Planning and Development\nto avoid renovations and reconstruction to student residences during examination\nperiods.\nTributes Committee (in camera)\nEMERITUS STATUS:\nDr. Dennison, Chair of the Committee, presented the report. The committee recommended that the\nfollowing be offered emeritus status:\nDr. N. Basco\nDr. V. Basco\nDr. M. S. Batts\nMr. D. Baudouin\nDr. A. F. Burton\nDr. J. D. Burton\nMr. R. G. Butters\nDr. D. J. Chang\nDr. J. R. Deakins\nMrs. I. Dehnel\nDr. K. L. Erdman\nDr. D. G. Finlay\nMr. C. F. Forbes\nDr. W. E. Fredeman\nDr. M. K. Goldberg\nDr. G. B. Goodman\nMr. H. G. Goodwin\nDr. G. Gorelik\nDr. E. B. Gose\nDr. J. N. Hlynka\nDr. L. C. Jenkins\nMr. R. K. Kiyooka\nDr. J. Knobloch\nDr. H. Laimon\nProfessor Emeritus of Chemistry\nClinical Professor Emerita of Surgery\nProfessor Emeritus of Germanic Studies\nProfessor Emeritus of French\nAssociate Professor Emeritus of Biochemistry\nClinical Associate Professor Emeritus of Pathology\nAssistant Professor Emeritus of Metals and Materials\nEngineering\nClinical Associate Professor Emeritus of Anaesthesia\nAssistant Professor Emeritus of Social Work\nSenior Instructor Emerita of English\nProfessor Emeritus of Physics\nProfessor Emeritus of Social Work\nGeneral Librarian Emeritus\nProfessor Emeritus of English\nProfessor Emeritus of English\nClinical Professor Emeritus of Surgery\nAssistant Professor Emeritus of Social Work\nAssociate Professor Emeritus of Commerce and Business\nAdministration\nProfessor Emeritus of English\nProfessor Emeritus of Pharmaceutical Sciences\nProfessor Emeritus of Anaesthesiology\nProfessor Emeritus of Fine Arts\nClinical Associate Professor Emerita of Psychiatry\nClinical Associate Professor Emeritus of Surgery\n Vancouver Senate\nMnutes of September 11,1991\n10109\nTributes Committee (in camera)\nDr. M. Lee\nMr. J. Lielmezs\nDr. C. Mackenzie\nMr. D. Mclnnes\nDr. D. M. McLean\nDr. G. H. McMorland -\nDr. D. Milburn\nDr. H. S. Miller\nDr. B. M. Morrison\nDr. B. D. Owen\nDr. W. J. Patterson\nDr. E. Peters\nDr. R. E. Robins\nDr. R. H. Rodgers\nDr. R. D. Russell\nDr. H. F. Stich\nDr. K. G. Strassmann\nDr. D. Syeklocha\nDr. W. F. Szetela\nEducation\nDr. G. H. N. Towers\nMr. W. J. Watson\nMr. B. Wiesman\nDr. Dennison\nDr. Slonecker\nProfessor Emeritus of Family and Nutritional Sciences\nProfessor Emeritus of Chemical Engineering\nClinical Assistant Professor Emeritus of Family Practice\nUniversity Librarian Emeritus\nProfessor Emeritus of Pathology\nClinical Professor Emeritus of Anaesthesia\nProfessor Emeritus of Social and Educational Studies\nClinical Professor Emeritus of Orthopaedics\nProfessor Emeritus of Asian Studies\nProfessor Emeritus of Animal Science\nClinical Associate Professor Emeritus of Surgery\nProfessor Emeritus of Metals and Materials Engineering\nClinical Professor Emeritus of Surgery\nProfessor Emeritus of Family and Nutritional Sciences\nProfessor Emeritus of Geophysics and Astronomy\nProfessor Emeritus of Zoology\nAssociate Professor Emeritus of Theatre\nAssistant Professor Emerita of Microbiology\nAssociate Professor Emeritus of Mathematics and Science\nProfessor Emeritus of Botany\nAssistant University Librarian Emeritus\nProfessor Emeritus of Community and Regional Planning\n}\nThat the recommendations of the Tributes\nCommittee concerning emeritus status be\napproved.\nCarried.\nAdjournment\nThe meeting adjourned at 11:00 p.m.\nNext Meeting\nThe next regular meeting will be held on Wednesday, October 16, 1991.\n Vancouver Senate 10110\nMnutes of September 11,1991\nAppendix\nAppendix\nThe final report of the Senate Ad hoc Committee on Teaching Evaluation (1990) is\navailable by request from the Senate Secretariat.\n"@en . "Periodicals"@en . "Vancouver (B.C.)"@en . "UBC_Senate_Minutes_1991_09_11"@en . "10.14288/1.0390142"@en . "English"@en . "Vancouver : University of British Columbia Library"@en . "[Vancouver : University of British Columbia Senate]"@en . "Images provided for research and reference use only. Permission to publish, copy, or otherwise use these images must be obtained from the University of British Columbia Senate: http://senate.ubc.ca/"@en . "Original Format: University of British Columbia. Archives"@en . "University of British Columbia"@en . "[Meeting minutes of the Senate of The University of British Columbia]"@en . "Text"@en . ""@en .