Author: usaskfaculty

Previously we reported that former U of S President MacKinnon had refused to forward to the Board of Governors a positive recommendation by the Renewal and Tenure Appeal Committee for the tenure of one of our faculty members.  MacKinnon claimed that, pursuant to The University of Saskatchewan Act, he had the power to veto such a recommendation. We were happy to report in April that the grievance filed by the Faculty Association on this matter had resulted in an arbitration decision in favour of the USFA (https://staging.usaskfaculty.ca/2014/04/22/usfa-e-letter-association-wins-important-arbitration-award/).

In June, the Board of Governors chose to appeal the decision to the Court of Queen’s Bench, asking that the ruling of the Arbitrator be set aside. In July the matter was heard by the Court and today we received the decision.

We are pleased to let you know that the decision of Arbitrator Sims has been upheld and the appeal has been dismissed. The Board of Governors has 30 days in which to appeal, but we hope that, at last, this decision marks the end of a troubling series of events at this university.

 

Each fall the USFA Executive hosts lunches for USFA members who are in the first few years of their appointment.  Join Executive Committee members, as well as USFA staff for lunch from 11:30 to 1:30 on September 17, 18, 19, 22, 23, or 24 in the Red Room at the University Club.

For many of us, our appointment at the University of Saskatchewan is the first of our academic career and it may also represent our first experience in a unionized environment. Most do not understand that the USFA is a critically important resource available to all faculty over the course of our careers here. These lunches are intended to put a face on the USFA, to explain its role and the value of our Collective Agreement. They are also an opportunity to hear from new members and address their specific questions and concerns.

It is important for new faculty to know about the USFA, its function and the benefits it provides to our membership. This can only be accomplished by increasing your awareness and encouraging you to actively participate in it. We encourage you to pose questions, make comments and talk about your experiences as new faculty on campus. Discussions at these lunches are lively and varied, ranging from the general to the specific and include everything from tenure and promotion to workload, spousal considerations and research challenges.

We thank you in advance for your attendance!

For more information or to RSVP contact Tammy Stieb at the USFA office at 306-966-5609 or by email tammy.stieb@usask.ca .

 .

Senior Administrators and the Board of Governors have made a number of choices in the last few years because they believed that the U of S was facing a financial crisis. Using this financial rationale, they chose to reduce the non-faculty workforce and to embark on TransformUS. The upheaval our university has been experiencing has been a result of these choices.

While we have come through a tumultuous spring, and some challenges have been addressed, the outcome of TransformUS is still uncertain. We know that “university leaders are taking some time over the summer to determine next steps” and “to assess which actions will proceed right away and which require further discussion or consultation” (TransformUS Blog, June 20, 2014). We expect that very soon we will begin to hear the results of these deliberations.

The USFA has created a website about TransformUS and the rationale on which it is premised. As we await information about next steps, we invite you to visit itsaboutchoice.ca.

If the reasons for reducing the workforce and embarking on TransformUS no longer exist where does that leave us? What choices will be made by Senior Administrators and the Board of Governors now? There are many important questions to ask and much to be considered. Whatever happens next, it’s about choice.

On August 6, 2014 the Executive Committee unanimously recommended that the membership ratify the 2014-2017 tentative collective agreement.  A special general meeting to consider ratification by the membership has been scheduled for Tuesday, September 2nd at 3:00 pm in room 1150 Health Sciences (E wing). 

Nominations are now open for the USFA National Academic Freedom Award.

 

The concept of the Academic Freedom Award emerged from a 2004 conference dedicated to the late Harry S. Crowe “whose academic freedom case gave rise to the modern day CAUT…”   The Harry Crowe Foundation sponsors an annual conference to celebrate the courageous story of Professor Harry S. Crowe who was initially dismissed unfairly by United College, Winnipeg, Manitoba, and later exonerated.  

 

At the first University of Saskatchewan Academic Freedom conference (2005), it was decided to recognize a person(s) who reflects the courage, determination, and tenacity in confronting institutional injustice. Thus, the Academic Freedom award was conceived.

 

Do you know of a noteworthy individual, or individuals, who have advocated on behalf of issues of Academic Freedom either at the University of Saskatchewan or Canada in general? Whether this advocacy has been a long-term, cumulative contribution or a single, particularly important event or action, please consider submitting a nomination.

 

Nominations for this award can be made by any current USFA member or by any USFA committee. The nomination will take the form of a letter from the nominator describing how the nominee has made significant contributions to the USFA and its membership through their work as an academic and an activist on issues of Academic Freedom.

 

Please send nominations by mail to:

USFA Academic Freedom Committee

Room 20 Education Building

28 Campus Drive

Saskatoon SK  S7N 0X1

 

OR by email to: usfa@usaskfaculty.ca

 

Nominations close September 4th and the award winner will be announced at the Dinner provided as part of the USFA Academic Freedom Event scheduled to take place on October 1st, 2014 at the University of Saskatchewan.

 

 

While the University has launched an appeal of the arbitration decision regarding a former President’s unlawful participation in the process for the award of tenure, the dispute that gave rise to the grievance and the substance of the appeal stem from provisions in the Collective Agreement between the University of Saskatchewan Faculty Association (USFA) and the University of Saskatchewan.

In the view of the USFA Executive, if the Board is unhappy with provisions in the current Collective Agreement, the place to address this issue is at the bargaining table, not in Court. Doug Chivers, Chair of the USFA Executive, said “Unless, the Board reconsiders its motion to grant the President veto power or the Collective Agreement is changed, this will continue to be a point of disagreement. We are currently at the bargaining table and there is an opportunity for a negotiated solution that will stave off future costly disputes on this issue.”

In a July 16, 2014 article, Chair of the U of S Board of Governors Susan Milburn was quoted as saying: “If we need to reconsider, we’re open to that.” In response Chivers said, “While we question how this appeal of the Sims decision is openness to reconsidering, we are willing to take the Chair at her word. We will be putting forward proposals to seize the opportunity to solve the Presidential veto problem.”

The USFA will be defending the Appeal, but it will also be raising the issue of the Presidential veto at the bargaining table. If the University is truly is open to reconsider the presidential veto, the bargaining table is the place where that will be demonstrated.

Every day more troubling information comes to light underscoring the disarray of U of S leadership and the need to know who is ultimately responsible for decision-making. On the heels of the former President and Provost denying responsibility for critical decisions, more examples of mysterious decision-makers are brought to light.

The University has launched an appeal of the arbitration decision regarding a former President’s unlawful participation in the process for the award of tenure. It will be heard in Saskatoon’s Court of Queen’s Bench later this week. However, neither the Chair of the Board of Governors nor the interim President seems to have been in on critical decision-making.

The appeal was launched on June 27.

Before the appeal was launched, on May 29, the interim President gave assurances that the University is taking actions to solve problems and that he hopes to work through the change that’s needed in a painless, or less painful, approach. And, on June 4, the U of S Board of Governors chair stated that there is a need to hear from stakeholders and that the University needed a couple of months to decide on a possible appeal.

A week before the appeal is scheduled to be heard, the Board chair was quoted as saying the issue of presidential veto is being reviewed internally, and “If we need to reconsider, we’re open to that.” She admitted that she was not sure when the decision to appeal was made or exactly who made it, and we have no indication of where the new president fits.

If a less painful approach is hoped for and reconsideration is an option, how is it that we are finding ourselves in court? And, if the Board and the President are not making critical decisions like this, then who is running our university?

USFA e-Letter: The Continuing Leadership Crisis at the U of S

There have been more remarkable developments in the ongoing saga at the U of S. At the end of last week in a communication labelled “Confidential – Not for Distribution,” former Provost Brett Fairbairn wrote that no university leader had asked about “who was present in the making of key decisions” concerning the events around the firing of Robert Buckingham on May 14. (see StarPhoenix article of July 12, 2014: “Former U of S president, provost speak about controversy for first time; Respond to confidential letter’s release”) As astounding as it seems, Acting President Barnhart is apparently unwilling to initiate any further review.

There continues to be a crisis in leadership at the University of Saskatchewan and there is a clear inability of leadership to make sound decisions. We are as perplexed as the public by recent developments and have a host of questions:

• How is information that is “Confidential – Not for Distribution” making its way into newspapers?
• If it was not the Provost’s idea to strip Dr. Buckingham’s tenure and the decision was the consensus of a group that included university leaders responsible for faculty relations, human resources, communications and internal legal advisors, then who drove that decision?
• Why did the Provost sign a letter that did exactly what he said should not happen?
• There is some uncertainty about whether external legal advice was sought prior to the dismissal of Dr. Buckingham. If not, who made the decision not to seek external legal advice?
• Are people who are not academics making decisions about tenure?
• How can the Board entrust the President to override collegial decisions regarding the award of tenure when the process respecting Dr. Buckingham, as it played out, was so clearly flawed?
• If the Board has decided that the President has authority over tenure, how did it come about that the decision to strip Dr. Buckingham of tenure fell to someone else?

It will be the choice of Senior Administrators and the Board of Governors as to whether or not actions will be taken, and what those actions might be. Pervasive contradictions have been swirling around leadership at the University of Saskatchewan and there are more questions than answers.

Faculty, students and taxpayers deserve direct and honest answers to these questions.