In This Issue...

President's Report

(February/March 1998)

Dear Colleagues,

I hope everyone has now recovered from the ice storm. The crisis made clear the need for both a university-wide and a QUFA emergency protocol. I have been assured by the administration that the former will be developed, with QUFA included under the protocol in emergency consultations. I will be drafting the latter for approval by the QUFA Executive Committee and Council.

You will, by now, have received a bulletin entitled "Historical Background to the 1998 Salary Negotiations." Your Council representative(s) should be soliciting feedback, based on the bulletin and on a brief e-mail message circulated to each Councillor. If you have not been consulted and would like to provide input, please contact your Councillor. There is still one electoral unit that has not provided a Council representative. Should members of this unit wish to provide input, please contact Rhonda Clark-George at the QUFA office. She can provide a copy of the e-mail message sent to Council, and she can record your comments.

Our Nominations and Elections Committee, whose composition is reported elsewhere in this QUFACTS, is organizing elections for Association Officers and for Council. Because of the ice storm, elections will continue into March.

A number of QUFA members have expressed concern about health and safety standards at Queen's. This QUFACTS contains a compelling article on the subject. One of the best ways to address this issue is, I believe, through representation on the various health and safety committees recently established on campus. If you would be willing to become involved, please, contact the QUFA office.

The provincial funding situation continues to be a major hindrance to university education. The QUFA Executive, through its participation in OCUFA, continues to lobby for change and, especially, for better government understanding of the role of universities. Your suggestions and, better still, your contributions in this area, would be greatly appreciated.

I shall look forward to seeing you at the Annual General Meeting in April.

Frank Burke

QUFA ELECTIONS - EXECUTIVE AND

COUNCIL OF REPRESENTATIVES

VACANT POSITIONS ON THE EXECUTIVE:

* President

* Vice-President

* Secretary

* Treasurer

* One half of all Councillor positions are up for election.

* Current Council members should have notified these units individually (see list below).

           P.G. Young, Chair, Nominations and Elections, QUFA

OCUFA Visits Queen's

On 2 December 1997, OCUFA President Deborah Flynn and Acting Executive Director Henry Mandelbaum participated in the QUFA Workshop for Councillors and members of the Executive. The text of Professor Flynn's presentation ("The Political Situation in Post-secondary Education: the Campus and Provincial Context") is on the QUFA Website (/qufa/qufantsh.htm).

On 10 February 1998, Professor Flynn and Mr. Mandelbaum returned to Queen's to address QUFA Council of Representatives about the value of retaining membership in OCUFA. Professor Flynn spoke of the province's strategic cuts in funding to post-secondary education and of OCUFA's efforts to respond through lobbying and public relations. She emphasized that Queen's membership significantly enhances OCUFA's credibility as a province-wide lobby. This document is on the QUFA Website (/qufa/home.htm); excerpts appear below in this QUFACTS.

OCUFA Board of Directors moves to collaborate on funding and student debt issues.

David Lyon, from the Council of Ontario Universities (COU), gave a presentation to the Board in which he reviewed the problems with current student financial assistance programs (i.e. "the student debt issue") and described new student aid models which he has been developing over the last year. He strongly believes that income-contingent loans, proposed by the Ontario government, are not an adequate solution. Partly as a result of his presentation, Board members adopted a motion that: OCUFA step up collaboration with COU, with CFS-O [Canadian Federation of Students-Ontario] and with OUSA [Ontario University Student Associations] on university funding and student debt issues.

Queen's Park and COU meetings dominate President's New Year agenda.

OCUFA President Deborah Flynn began the new year with a series of meetings at Queen's Park and COU: in January she met with Wayne Lessard, the new NDP colleges and universities critic, to brief him on OCUFA, its mandate, and its objectives, and with Liberal education critic Lyn McLeod to discuss provincial funding and tuition, performance indicators, research, and student assistance. She met also with Jim Wilson, the Minister of Energy, Science, and Technology, on January 26, and with David Johnson, the Minister of Education and Training, in February. "We want to ensure that there is a good information flow between OCUFA, the government, and the opposition critics as all parties begin to develop priorities and policies for the next election," said Flynn. "We expect our meetings to continue on a regular basis."

Flynn also met with outgoing COU President Bonnie Patterson on January 21. "The Board has mandated that OCUFA explore avenues of collaboration with organizations such as COU and CFS and we continue to look at ways we can work together," said Flynn. Further meetings with COU are scheduled to determine whether work can continue on cooperative ventures.

OCUFA supports CFS National Day of Action -- January 28

OCUFA forwarded a statement of support to the Canadian Federation of Students (CFS) for their Student Day of Action (January 28). The students protested rising tuition and increasing debt loads that in some cases are reaching $100,000 upon graduation.

The statement sent by President Flynn reads in part: "The policies of the current government threaten our education system. Continuous underfunding is eroding the ability of universities to provide high quality education. Increasing class size, inadequate facilities, and limited resources are a reality for too many students and faculty. High tuition and the deregulation of fees threaten accessibility to our publicly-funded system. The government's proposal for an Income-Contingent Repayment Plan, in conjunction with its tuition policy and the current limitations of student assistance ignore the reality of mounting student debt-load and its impact on access."

The OCUFA Report, edited by Iris Shegda, is published periodically by the Ontario Confederation of University Faculty Associations (27 Carlton St.# 400, Toronto, Ontario, M5B 1L2; Phone (416) 979-2117; Fax (416) 593-5607; E-mail ocufa@ocufa.on.ca; Web http://www.ocufa.on.ca). Input is welcome.

The Ontario Finance Minister's December 15 Statement: OCUFA's View

by Henry Mandelbaum, Acting Executive Director, 5 January 1998

The Minister of Finance's December 15, 1997 economic statement makes references to funding, tuition fees, and student assistance for 1998-99 and 1999-2000 which could have a significant impact on universities. But in critical areas the Minister gave only general statements of intention. There is evidence that the Ministry of Education and Training (MET) did not initiate these decisions and that its role has been limited to formulating mechanisms to deliver on commitments made by the Finance Minister.

1. Two-Year Budget

The government committed itself "to a two-year budget for post-secondary education including student assistance, starting at $2.79B for 1998-99, up some $30M from 1997-98, and growing to $2.84B in 1999-2000, up $80M from 1997-98."

While the MET has stated that operating grants to universities will be increased by 1% in 1998-99, this commitment may be compromised by the government's new policy of including post-secondary education and student assistance in one envelope. Government grants for institutions and student assistance used to increase or decrease independently of each other. It appears that in the government's new practice, funding increases in one sector will affect the funding of other sectors. Including student assistance in the post-secondary education envelope is of special concern since the demand for student assistance is sure to increase as a result of increases in tuition. Reconciling this increased demand with funding for universities and colleges could create significant problems.

The MET has indicated that in the past year the 30% of 1997-98 tuition-fee increases set aside for student assistance covered the increased demand for assistance. However, it remains to be seen what impact the tuition fee changes discussed below will have on the allocation of funds over the next two years.

2.    Tuition

The Finance Minister claimed that "No university or college will be required to raise tuition fees in either 1998-99 or 1999-2000." The government, however, will permit average tuition fees to go up by 20% over the next two years. Universities will be allowed to increase average tuition fees by up to 5% in 1998-99 and up to a further 5% in 1999-2000 where "boards of governors . . . deem it necessary to improve the quality of students' programs." If boards of governors decide to invest in additional educational program improvements, they may choose to approve an additional increase of up to 5% in each of these two years. What this means in practical terms is not clear.

Individual institutions will also have discretion to set tuition fees for graduate and professional programs at universities, for post-diploma programs at colleges, and for other college programs where job opportunities for graduates are virtually guaranteed and income after graduation is substantial. This means that universities will be allowed fully to deregulate tuition fees for graduate and professional programs, although not for undergraduate programs. It is unclear which graduate and professional programs will be affected or how tuition fee deregulation will be determined in these programs.

The Minister said that colleges and universities that choose to increase their fees will be required to set aside the equivalent of 30 per cent of new revenues from tuition increases to provide assistance to students in need -- a continuation of current policy.

He also said that "within this new tuition policy framework, the Government will require institutions that increase fees to help address shortages in scientific and technical programs where the demand from prospective students and employers greatly exceeds the places available." What this means and how it will be applied await a further statement from Dave Johnson, Minister of Education and Training.

The Minister reaffirmed the government's commitment to working with the federal government on guaranteed access to post-secondary education for all qualified students; income-contingent student loan programs (ICRPs); and a review of students' total debt levels.

The provincial government has had a very difficult time in obtaining support from the federal government and the banks for an ICRP but remains committed to it. The OCUFA office has been in contact with the MET concerning these announced changes and will update local associations as information becomes available.

THE POLITICAL SITUATION IN POST-SECONDARY EDUCATION:

THE PROVINCIAL CONTEXT -- AN UPDATE

by Professor Deborah Flynn, President of OCUFA

[These are highlights of Professor Flynn's address to QUFA Council, Feb. 10, 1998. The full text is available on QUFA's website (/qufa/home.htm).]

In an important speech to university administrators and corporate executives last November, Premier Harris emphasized the need for greater efficiencies in universities and spoke of a "new design" for higher education. This "new design" envisions increased linkage with the private sector, more ties to industry, and more of what the government views as "relevant" programs tied to labour-market trends.

Decreased public funding for post-secondary education is a key element in this "new design". The statistics are now well known: when the current government came to power it cut operating grants to universities by $280 million, or by 16%. The 16% cut in 1995-96 was unprecedented, and proportionally it represented a larger funding cut than in the municipal, school, or hospital sectors. This year we have had a funding freeze, which in real terms is a further cut.

The government's December 15 economic statement promises more of the same, or even worse, for the next two years. The Ministry of Education and Training has indicated that operating grants to universities will be frozen in 1998-99 and increased by 1% in 1999-2000. However, as part of what looks like a financial shell game, the government has begun combining operating grants to colleges and universities and funding for student assistance within a single expenditure envelope. It has stated that this envelope will increase by $80 million over two years, but it has not publicly announced its criteria for funding decisions within the envelope. Demands for student assistance will likely increase as educational costs rise, and if the government gives priority to meeting these demands, fewer funds will remain for university and college operating grants.

In the past five years, there has been a 25% (or $539 million) reduction in university operating grants. Even with the large tuition increases for this period, revenue from grants and tuition fees are now $355 million (or, adjusted for inflation, $512 million) below 1992-93 levels. This sharp reduction follows two decades of cutbacks in government support for higher education. Between 1980 and last year, the universities' share of provincial government spending decreased from 5.5% to 3.4%, while enrollment grew by 34%. Operating grants per capita for universities are now the lowest of any province in Canada....

These cutbacks in education are not just results of fiscal necessity. What the government chooses to cut, and by how much, are determined by political priorities. The current government has used post-secondary de-funding to promote its "new design" for higher education, for instance by encouraging privatization of funding. Privatization has been encouraged through greater private-sector donations, increases in tuition fees, and the use of targeted matched-funding envelope mechanisms.

As always, OCUFA's concern about private contributions to universities arises from its commitment to the tenets of academic freedom, critical inquiry, and university autonomy. OCUFA believes that the accountability mechanisms for funding, regardless of the source, should be public, open and transparent.

Historically, private funding has produced less than 5% of university revenues, but universities have had to seek it increasingly. And private-sector donations are coming with strings attached. Last month, the Toronto Stock Exchange announced that it was providing $2.75 million to the University of Toronto to set up an institute to study capital markets. The TSE will have a say in which researchers are hired. Recent events at the University of Toronto involving the Rotman donation to the Centre for Management Studies also point to the need for faculty to guard against the erosion of academic freedom and university autonomy when accepting private-sector donations.

Cutbacks in government funding have also led universities to look to increased tuition. Tuition revenue now represents 33% of university program costs for the system, and is higher at some universities such as Nipissing, where tuition represents 50% of program costs. Fees have risen by 60% in constant dollars between 1990 and this year. It appears beyond question that the government is using tuition policy to have universities direct funds to program areas which it favors -- such as science and technology. It also appears beyond question that cash-strapped universities are being forced to choose between accessibility and quality when making decisions about tuition increases. Ironically, tuition increases may generate little new revenue if they discourage students from pursuing university educations and enrolment declines. System-wide applications were down by 3.3% this year and universities which traditionally draw from students outside their region were particularly hard hit, such as Lakehead (20% decline), and Laurentian (17% decline)....

Warnings that the government's agenda for elementary and secondary education could be extended to the universities were given some credence by a meeting last December between the Minister of Education, Dave Johnson, and the Council of Ontario Universities. Fresh from his battle with secondary school teachers over the issues of contact hours and preparation time, the Minister asked COU how much time Ontario professors spend in the classroom and how this compares to the national average. He then mused that universities could find savings by increasing contact hours between faculty and students, which he believed were currently much too limited. The Minister's question revealed his lack of understanding of the differences between university and high school education as well as a misunderstanding of faculty responsibilities and workload. On issues such as teaching conditions, moreover, we know from recent experience with Bill 160 that the government is not above misrepresenting information to the public. This is a concern for all faculty.... Faculty need both to organize and to develop a clearly articulated alternative to the government's "new design" for higher education.

CMCA REPORT: ISSUES RESOLVED IN JCAA MEETINGS

The Committee to Manage the Collective Agreement (CMCA), consisting of Roberta Lamb (Music) (chair), Elizabeth Hanson (English), and Allan Manson (Law), represents QUFA on the Joint Committee to Administer the Agreement (JCAA). In meetings of November 1997 through January 1998, the JCAA resolved the following issues:

R.S.V.P. to the QUEST office about release of QUEST results:

A memo from Frank Burke and John Scott Cowan

To: Members of QUFA

Date: January 13, 1997

As you are aware, the QUEST Evaluation Form has a section which asks faculty members to indicate whether they wish to have the quantitative from Parts 1 and 2 of the QUEST Evaluation Form results released to students. Following discussion at the Joint Consultative Committee on the Administration of the Agreement (JCAA), it was agreed that if the Member did not respond to the question respecting the release of the questionnaire to students, no assumptions one way or the other would be made, but Members would be contacted and again asked to indicate their wishes.

The purpose of this memorandum is to inform you of this agreement between the parties, and to ask you, if you have not already done so, to respond to this question by sending your wish in writing to Ms. Pam Marriott in the Registrar's Office. The Alma Mater Society (AMS) has advised that, to date, there is a significant number of "no responses" and it is their wish, as well as the parties', to ensure that the wishes of the Members are carried out. However, you should be advised that a response, either negative or positive, is expected from you.

(Original Memorandum signed by both J.S. Cowan and F. Burke)

PROTECTION OF UNSIGNED QUEST RESPONSES:

A LETTER FROM DAVID TURPIN (VP-ACADEMIC)