In This Issue...

President's Report
(December 1997)

Dear Colleagues,

When I first started this report, in September, it included a welcome back for the new academic year. The Fall has been so hectic, we have had to defer publication of QUFACTS on several occasions. As a result, we are now at the end of term, and I am reduced to wishing everyone an enjoyable holiday season!

Much of the energy of the Executive Committee has gone into implementing our new Constitution and undertaking the wholesale restructuring required by the Constitution, as QUFA meets its new responsibilities under the Collective Agreement. The workload emerging from the Agreement has been enormous, but finalizing all the major new structures (by the end of this month, I anticipate) will greatly facilitate our handling of the work. New permanent QUFA entities include: a formally constituted, decision-making Council of Representatives, the Committee for the Management of the Collective Agreement (CMCA), the Grievance Committee, and the Political Action and Communications Committees. Our Staff Relations Committee is looking into staffing and reorganization of the QUFA office, Council has struck a committee which is looking into the QUEST evaluation procedure, a new equity caucus is emerging, and preliminary steps have been taken to create a QUFA student council, a caucus for unit heads, and a caucus for junior faculty.

I would encourage people to take the complexity of QUFA work into consideration in seeking feedback from the Executive or QUFA Standing Committees concerning the Collective Agreement and grievances. Once an issue has been brought to our attention, we deal with it as quickly as possible. However, there are a large number of issues being addressed by both the CMCA and Grievance committees, and in most cases issues must be addressed not only by QUFA but by the administration. All this takes time. Nonetheless, if you feel that there has been an unacceptable delay, communicate your concern to the Executive and the Executive will in turn, communicate its concern to the appropriate committees and, through them, to the administration.

I am happy to report that the Collective Agreement has been a hit across Canada. At the recent inclusive bargaining workshop put on jointly by the Collective Bargaining Committee and the Status of Women Committee of OCUFA, the Agreement was held up as a model. Articles that drew special praise were those addressing leaves, equity, financial exigency, and non-discrimination. At the recent CAUT semi-annual Council, delegates from British Columbia, Manitoba, and Nova Scotia all indicated a desire to integrate various parts of the Agreement into their collective agreements. Moreover, since the Agreement first was ratified, QUFA has received a steady stream of praise from throughout the country.

As you all know, in January we will again be at the bargaining table, this time to negotiate scale increase. We will be developing a communications protocol, as we did last time, to make sure the membership is kept informed. We will have the advantage this time around of a much larger and more active Council of Representatives which has already proven a tremendous source of information and debate for the Association.

We will be holding elections for Council, as well as for the Officers of the Association, in the new year, and we especially encourage those units who have not yet provided Councillors to make sure they do so during the next round of elections.

Since there is lots to read elsewhere in this issue of QUFACTS, I will detain you no longer. Please volunteer for any area of QUFA work in which you feel you can make a contribution. Please also help make the Council system of governance as effective as possible by giving input to your Council reps and responding to the input they bring you on their own and from Council.

Again, of course, best wishes for that holiday season!

Frank Burke

REPORT FROM THE CMCA/JCAA

The CMCA (Committee to Manage the Collective Agreement) is a standing committee within QUFA that reviews matters arising from the administration, interpretation, and operation of the Collective Agreement. Its members (appointed by the Executive) are: Roberta Lamb, chair; Elizabeth Hanson, representative to the Executive; and Allan Manson. Lamb, Hanson, and Manson are QUFA's representatives to the JCAA (Joint Committee to Administer the Agreement), which also has three representatives from the University. Donna Ede, QUFA's Executive Assistant, attends JCAA meetings also. The responsibilities of the JCAA are outlined in Article 37 and were discussed in the last issue of QUFACTS.

This autumn, the JCAA met frequently to resolve issues of interpretation as well as to carry out tasks assigned to the committee by the Collective Agreement.

Providing equity workshops for Appointments and Personnel Committee members (as directed in Article 32) became the major task for August and September. All Members who attended workshops should have received an evaluation form either at the workshop or via campus mail. If you did not, please let QUFA know (ext. 2151). Since, according to the CA, all committee members at Queen's must have equity training, it is likely that workshops will be held throughout the year to meet this obligation. Forms for reporting equity data should be available shortly for the Equity Representatives on Appointments and Personnel Committees.

The following issues have been resolved by the JCAA during its September/October meetings:

Motions on Bill 160: QUFA and Queen's Senate

On Tuesday, 11 November, the QUFA Council of Representatives approved this motion supporting the teachers' position on Bill 160:

1. That the official QUFA position be opposition to Bill 160 insofar as it:
   1. holds the potential for weakening the primary and secondary school system and thus diminishing the quality of future students entering the post-secondary system in Ontario
   2. constitutes a lessening of the provincial government's financial commitment to education,
   3. places educational decision making in the realm of politics rather than education, and
   4. removes terms and conditions of employment from the realm of collective bargaining, allowing for government imposition of what has previously been negotiated.
2. That the QUFA Executive take appropriate action to register QUFA opposition.

This motion, approved almost unanimously, was the culmination of a long process of discussion and consultation. While most other faculty associations in the province were taking very visible public stands against the Bill in letters to the Premier, the Minister, and the press, QUFA kept a low profile. We maintained contact with the Common Front of organizations opposing the Bill in Kingston, but refrained from overt statements.

Bill 160 clearly threatens the interests of Queen's faculty, as well as academic interests at Queen's and in the broader community, all of which QUFA is bound by its Constitution to defend. Despite the urgency of the situation, the Executive and the newly formed Political Action and Communications Committee agreed that, since this was the first major public issue to confront QUFA under its new Constitution, it was important to consult with the Membership before taking a stand. The Executive began by drafting a bulletin outlining the case against the Bill. The Council discussed this bulletin and the larger issue on 28 October, the day after the teachers' work stoppage began. Rather than endorsing the Executive's position immediately, Council voted to circulate the bulletin to Members and instructed the Executive to prepare a position paper also for circulation.

Over the next two weeks, Council Representatives sounded the opinions of the QUFA Members in their units. The result was the strong Council vote to oppose Bill 160. While many members who oppose the Bill have expressed frustration at the length of this process, which was not resolved until the teachers had already returned to work, on the whole it was very positive for QUFA. The Association acted democratically, and the debate served to raise awareness of the issues, just as the teachers' work stoppage did. The Members who participated, on all sides of the question, deserve our appreciation. With Council firmly behind them, the Executive and the Political Action and Communications Committee intend to participate fully in the continuing campaign against Bill 160.

On Thursday, November 20, the Senate at Queen's approved the following motion:

Insofar as Bill 160 will:

1. weaken the primary and secondary school system and thus diminish the quality of students from Ontario entering Queen's University,
2. require Queen's University faculty to take on a higher percentage of remedial instruction, thus diminishing time for research and normal instruction,
3. require Queen's University faculty to lower standards in order to accommodate poorly prepared Ontario students in their courses,
4. weaken the rating of Queen's University in such high-profile surveys as MacLean's, which base their assessment largely on the strength of the student body, the research performance of faculty, and the level and quality of education at each Canadian university,
5. lessen the provincial government's financial commitment to public education, and
6. make educational decision making a matter of politics rather than academics,

It is agreed that:

1. the Senate of Queen's University formally oppose Bill 160 and urge the Government of Ontario to engage in discussions with all involved parties with the aim of promoting constructive change in the educational system, and
2. the Senate of Queen's University communicate its opposition to appropriate political leaders and representatives, as well as to the teachers of Ontario, with special attention to those in Kingston and surrounding school boards and to the associate schools of the Faculty of Education at Queen's.

Program Closure: Premier Harris,
Carleton University

In the past week, two extremely disturbing things have occurred with regard to program closure and universities. In a strict sense the two are unrelated. However, in a broader sense, they are clearly linked as part of an educational climate of extraordinary threat, particularly in light of the political philosophy of the current Ontario government.

At a "summit" on the future of universities in Ontario, Premier Harris queried: "who in the university system will decide to reduce enrollments or close programs when there are few jobs available in a profession, like certain professional and Phd programs? For example, do we need ten Phd programs in Geography, or six in Sociology?" Later asked by reporters to elaborate, the Premier said: "their graduates are in surplus and have very little hope of contributing to society in any meaningful way."

The Premier's comments were followed within two days by the announcement of program closures at Carleton University. The President of Carleton announced the planned closures at a press conference to which no faculty were invited. He violated Carleton policy, which requires Senate authorization for any such decision. The affected programs were given two business days to react to the threatened closures. As of this writing, the Carleton University Academic Staff Association is seeking to assure due process and proper deliberation and consultation before any decisions are made.

The Carleton situation will set a precedent for redundancy, program closure, and the overriding of tenure in Ontario and in Canada. The declaration of redundancy would be a direct result of government underfunding of education, and, more specifically, the Ontario government's 1995 cut of $280 million to the post-secondary sector, followed by this past year's freeze.

Curent Directions in the Ontario Ministry of Education and Training
re: Post-Secondary Education

Mark Rosenfeld, OCUFA Community and Government Relations Officer, forwarded the following summary to member associations on 29 October 1997:

Last week, the confidential performance contract of the Deputy Minister of Education and Training, Veronica Lacey, was leaked to the media. The detailed performance contract sets out specific goals and targets which the Deputy must meet in order to be eligible for annual bonuses. Lacey's 16-page performance contract provides a clear outline of the government's goals for elementary, secondary, and post-secondary education for 1997-98 which the Ministry is expected to achieve. A great deal of the document focuses on the objective of cutting education funding and raising fees as well as outlining measures that effectively increase government control over the education system.

Below are some of the highlights of "actions" to be taken and "results expected" for post- secondary education which are listed in the contract. The OCUFA office has obtained a copy of the performance contract.

Fiscal: Universities and Colleges

Unlike the 1998-99 funding cut of $667 million noted for elementary and secondary education, there is no mention of university and college operating grant allocation levels for next year. The contract does note that "savings, revenue increases, and staff reduction [are to be] implemented as per estimates."

Accountability: Universities and Colleges

The document calls for the Ministry to work with colleges and universities to improve accountability to students for "the quality of the teaching and learning opportunities" which these institutions provide. These performance requirements are to be legislated in the yet-to-be introduced Public Sector Accountability Act. MET will work with the Ministry of Finance to draft the legislation.

Degree Granting Status: Colleges

Limited degree-granting status for colleges is to be introduced.

Report of the Smith Panel:

Universities and Colleges options for Cabinet are to be developed in the Fall 1997 response to the Smith Report, to be implemented in 1998. A policy framework is to be developed to address financial and regulatory issues for colleges and universities, including major transfers and the distribution of grants; tuition fees and student aid; new-degree granting institutions; and privatization of post-secondary programs.

Research: Universities and MET

The R&D Challenge Fund is to be established with a maximum government contribution of $50 million for 1997/98. Policy priorities for "strengthening research in post-secondary institutions" are to be established. The Ministry also will encourage research co-ventures between universities and the private sector "to support Ontario's competitiveness."

As a long-term policy development initiative, a cross-sector R&D strategy will be developed to "establish the ministry as a `leader among leaders' in R&D". The "R&D strategy (developed with MET's delivery partners) [will be] in place to increase the ministry's capacity to promote, disseminate and support the use of research necessary for decision-making in policy and program development and implementation."

Student Assistance: Universities and Colleges

An income-contingent loan repayment program is to be in place by September 1998 "to ensure that students pay a reasonable share of the cost of their education." OSAP costs for loans issued in 1997-98 are to be reduced by $80 million. In the short term, a default control strategy for OSAP is to be implemented. In the long term, the default rate is to be reduced from the current 18% to 10% within 5 years.

Restructuring: Colleges

There will be permanent changes in the funding formula to reward performance based on measures such as student retention rates and "employer satisfaction." Tuition-fee deregulation will increase and there will be a greater focus on institutional student aid. Privatization of college programs will be promoted. A $23 million Strategic Program Investment Fund will be implemented to shift resources and direct investment by colleges to "high quality programs that meet student and employer needs."

Training Programs:

Training programs for employed workers are to be cut by $10 million in 1997/98 and a strategy to cut an additional $40 million for 1998/98 will be developed and approved. Employment preparation program costs are to be reduced with "improved participant placement and increased employer satisfaction."

Independent Learning Centres:

Students at independent learning centres will be required to pay an additional $1.2 million in fees.

Apprenticeship:

Apprentices will be required to pay $4.5 million in new fees to their trades. The apprenticeship system will be reformed in 1998/99 to "create a more responsive and flexible system that meets employers' needs and helps individuals to achieve high standards of skills development."

Communicating the Message:

In order to enhance public confidence in these and other Ministry initiatives, the contract calls for better communication with the public. In the short term, there will be an "increase in ministry key messages reported in the media." The long-term goal is an "improved profile of the ministry and support for reform, as measured through research, media analysis and review of ministry correspondence."

News about ... OCUFA

In the following article received on 13 November 1997, Deborah Flynn, the OCUFA President, provides an overview of the organization and the services it provides to member faculty associations:

OCUFA is primarily a provincial lobby association whose objectives are to inform and educate elected politicians, government bureaucrats, members of the media, and the general public about issues of importance to the province's 11,000 professors and academic librarians.

Formed in 1964, OCUFA is made up today of 21 local faculty associations across Ontario. The organization is governed by a Board of Directors. Each member association appoints one Director to the Board. This spring, following a year-long restructuring endeavour, the Board reaffirmed OCUFA's basic mission: to maintain and enhance the quality of higher education in the province, and to advance the professional and economic interests of teachers, researchers, and academic librarians.

The core services of OCUFA, in addition to lobbying, include communications initiatives, collective bargaining information support, and community and government relations activity.

In its lobbying function, OCUFA endeavours to meet with cabinet ministers, MPPs, government, opposition, and ministry staff. Liaison with other post-secondary stakeholders such as the Council of Ontario Universities (COU) and student organizations such as the Canadian Federation of Students (CFS) and the Ontario Undergraduate Student Alliance (OUSA) also takes place.

Communications services at OCUFA involve outreach initiatives in both media relations and public affairs, as well as keeping the membership informed with internal publications. Media outreach includes connecting with journalists, issuing media releases, and submitting articles for editorial pages. Public affairs initiatives revolve around larger public outreach campaigns that usually involve coalition partners. And internal communication efforts centre on the electronic distribution of OCUFA information via the web page (www.ocufa.on.ca), e-mail, and the distribution of occasional printed publications.

To assist in lobbying and media relations at the local level, OCUFA is issuing a revised version of the local lobbying binder, with information on how to approach both local MPPs and local media, to member associations. Also underway is a new undertaking to provide member associations with information and support in local lobbying efforts. And the OCUFA office is available for any queries on lobbying or media relations efforts.

On an annual basis, OCUFA recognizes the exceptional dedication and service of outstanding faculty members and academic librarians with the presentation of the OCUFA Teaching and Academic Librarianship Awards. In addition to the special awards ceremony held each year in Toronto to honour the recipients, the OCUFA office works with the local media in the areas where the recipients come from in order to focus attention on the achievements of the award winner and, by extension, all the academic community.

In the final analysis, for OCUFA to function successfully at the provincial level, dialogue with the local associations is essential. OCUFA therefore places a high priority on contact with its members. In a continuing outreach effort, the OCUFA President and the Acting Executive Director Henry Mandelbaum have embarked upon a series of visits with the local associations.

TENURE UNDER PRESSURE: THREE CASES

Arizona International Campus

(from an e-mail letter to Delegates of the Modern Language Association, July 24, 1997)

Arizona International Campus is a new campus in the University of Arizona system. A small liberal arts college, it was advertised last year as a non-tenure-granting institution that would develop other means to guarantee academic freedom and due process for its faculty. Five professors from different parts of the country were hired for the 1996-97 school year as "Founding Faculty" members. We were asked to make a long-term commitment to the institution and told that we would take part in the development of this new non-tenure system. We were also assured that the one-year contracts given in our first year were "just a formality" because the Arizona Board of Regents had not yet approved multi-year contracts for AIC faculty. On the promise of the Provost of AIC, Celestino Fernandez, that multi-year contracts would be offered the following year and that we had nothing to fear in terms of non-renewal, we relocated to Tucson and began our work.

For 1997-98, however, faculty members again received one-year contracts. My own contract was not renewed, and the Provost refused to explain his decision. I believe that he did not renew me because of my tendency to speak my mind and to question his commitment to the principles of the institution--particularly his commitment to due process. There is no due process and no protection of academic freedom at AIC. Faculty evaluations were highly irregular. This may be hard to believe, but faculty were evaluated with the same one-page form used to evaluate secretarial staff, and there was no process for evaluating teaching, service work or scholarship. No faculty member took part in looking over dossiers of other faculty members; the decision was solely administrative and in the hands of one man, the Provost. Finally, even though our letters of offer stated that we were to serve under the terms and conditions of employment under development at AIC, my letter of nonrenewal stated that I was no more than a year-to-year appointee, with no rights under the tenure system in place at our parent campus, the University of Arizona.

The push to eliminate tenure is strong now all over the country. Some of us have supported the development of alternatives. I thought, when I took the job at AIC, that I was helping to create a new kind of system which would have the advantages of tenure with none of its drawbacks. Unfortunately, I discovered that what the enthusiasts for eliminating tenure want most to eliminate are its protections for faculty. AIC has been touted as "the future" of the academy. If it is the future, then our future will be made of academic sweat shops and a growing class of intellectual migrant laborers.

At a time when tenure lines are going unfilled for lack of funding and part-time and year-to-year employment among academics is growing by leaps and bounds, we need to pay careful attention to the ugly and ill-constructed foundations upon which the "non-tenure revolution" in the academy rests.

The situation at AIC is described more fully by Margaret Regan in the Tucson Weekly for July 17. I would appreciate responses, either on the list or privately, as well as any suggestions about how to publicize the situation at AIC (Kali Tal kali@kalital.com or http://www.kalital.com).

Massachusetts Leader Calls for an End to Tenure and Presidential-Search Committees

[from Academe Today, Nov. 5, 1997, as summarized by CUFA/BC executive director, Robert Clift.]

James F. Carlin, chairman of the Massachusetts Board of Higher Education, in a speech to the Greater Boston Chamber of Commerce, told attendees that colleges today are "managerially dysfunctional" and "ineffective and inefficient." He later said in an interview he hoped to eliminate tenure and presidential search committees, to limit scholarly research, and to re-evaluate faculty workloads in Massachusetts public community colleges and undergraduate colleges.

Carlin said college presidents were afraid to make changes at their institutions because they were afraid of backlash from faculty members and unions. To raise the levels of accountability, quality, and effectiveness of colleges for students and taxpayers, Carlin called for:

University of Massachusetts English professor Jenny Spencer, who was present for the speech, called Carlin's remarks "inflammatory" and "demagogic." "I was really disturbed by his kind of thinking, which is the same kind that leads people to support dictatorships in third-world countries," Spencer said. "He has no respect for the messy process of democracy that all universities engage in."

The Technical University of B.C.

[By CUFA/BC Executive Director Robert Clift]

On July 28, 1997, the British Columbia Legislature passed into law the "Technical University Act of British Columbia," which establishes a new institution (TechBC) to be located in the Fraser Valley, just East of Vancouver. Unlike existing B.C. universities, TechBC is to be a specific-purpose university, limited to providing instruction and carrying out research in the areas of information technology, management, medical and health technology, food design, and industrial design and engineering. Also unlike the existing universities, the power to make academic decisions will be in the hands of the board of governors and not a senate. Further, the board is given the explicit authority under the legislation to determine the research priorities at the institution, a provision not found in B.C's "University Act." The majority of board members are appointed by the provincial cabinet.

The Canadian Association of University Teachers (CAUT) and the Confederation of University Faculty Associations of British Columbia (CUFA/BC) believe that these provisions mean there will not be academic freedom at TechBC, and that the educational and research priorities will be determined by corporate interests. Education Minister Paul Ramsey has as much as conceded the point. "The new university is to be highly responsive to the needs of the labour market and to encourage partnerships with industry," he wrote in a letter to CUFA/BC.

CAUT and CUFA/BC have initiated a boycott campaign as one of the means to convince Ramsey to amend the legislation to remove the threat to academic freedom and to provide for faculty and student control of academic decisions through a senate. While TechBC spokespeople and the provincial government have acknowledged the importance of academic freedom, they have not yet changed their positions. They claim that the academic freedom of TechBC faculty will be ensured by the board and administration, without acknowledging as a problem the inordinate powers of the board to control academic matters.

Occasional Writers Wanted!

[Top of Page | QUFA's Home Page | Queen's Home Page]

Last revised: September 26, 2000
Maintained by: Queen's University Faculty Association
TEL: (613) 533-2151     E-Mail: qufa2@post.queensu.ca

/qufa/