All Posts Tagged With: "board of governors"
Quebec moving ahead with university governance reform
Proposed law would require 60 per cent of a university’s board members to come from outside the school
The Quebec government appears to be moving ahead with legislation that will change the way every university in the province is run.
Bill 38, currently before the National Assembly would standardize university governance and make universities boards of directors more accountable to the provincial government. It would also require that 60 per cent of a university’s board members be from outside the school and that all boards include an equal number of men and women.
The government began discussing university governance reform in 2008, in the wake of a financial crisis at the Université du Québec à Montréal.
While legislation was first introduced in June 2009, it lingered in committee before dying on the order paper when premier Jean Charest prorogued the National Assembly for one day in February. The day after the Assembly reconvened, Bill 38 was reintroduced.
Now, the law appears to be moving forward once again, albeit slowly. The bill appeared on the agenda of Friday’s legislative session for a second reading. While the session ended before that item was reached, it does seem likely that it will be approved in principle within the next couple days.
Currently, each of Quebec’s universities has a different board structure. For example, Concordia has 40 members on its board, while UQAM’s has 16 members. Each board also has different representation: UQAM’s board includes a representative for local CEGEPs; Concordia and McGill both have representatives of their non-teaching staff on their boards, while UQAM and the Université de Montréal don’t. On the other hand, both UQAM and the U de M have some of their board members appointed by the government, the English-language schools don’t. I could keep going, but you get the idea. The universities like this, they say that they’re each different institutions with different missions, so they should have different governance structures. The province doesn’t agree.
For faculty and students, the most concerning part of the proposed law has been the requirement that 60 per cent of board members come from outside the university. Of Quebec’s six largest universities, Concordia and U de M already have this ratio. UQAM, Université de Sherbrooke, Université Laval and McGill don’t. At Concordia, there have also been concerns that a smaller board would diminish student and faculty representation.
There’s another issue at Concordia, the school is currently in the midst of a review of its governance structure. That process could be rendered completely irrelevant by this law, at a cost of $60,000.
The other big concern, at least at McGill and Concordia, is that under the bill, the province would appoint one member to each university’s board. For schools in the University of Quebec system the province would appoint three board members. For most French-language universities this would actually mean fewer government appointees on their boards.
The propose og law does have some positives though, it includes reasonably strict conflict of interest rules and, perhaps, most interestingly board members would be prohibited from serving more than two terms. There is one caveat to that rule, terms as chair of the board would be counted separately from regular terms; so a board member could serve for six years as a regular board member and another six years as chair. If the bill becomes law, it would see at least eon of the most controversial figures on Concordia’s board forced out quite soon.
There is also an interesting disclosure requirement in the bill, universities would be required to post board members’ meeting and committee attendance records online.
‘We will overcome the current crisis’
Tensions high at Concordia’s first board meeting since Judith Woodsworth’s alleged firing
Were Concordia University faculty consulted before the (alleged) firing of president Judith Woodsworth?
On Thursday morning, the university’s board of governors met for the first time since Woodsworth’s sudden and controversial departure in late December.
And while steps were taken to move forward, approving a plan to review the school’s governance structure, new questions were raised about what role faculty played in the process leading up to her departure.
Faculty representatives have universally condemned the process, blaming it on a secretive and powerful board executive committee acting without consultation or proper approval.
But according to Jean Freed, the part-time faculty representative to the board–a position that carries speaking but not voting rights–faculty members were consulted in the run up to Woodsworth’s departure.
“Every board member knew what was going on before Dec. 22,” she said.
Freed maintained that even though she doesn’t have a vote and is not a member of the “star chamber,” she had a say. “Every constituency was consulted.”
Freed said she is tired of people “pretending” that they didn’t know what was going on. “I think there are members of certain constituencies who’ve led their constituencies to believe this happened without consultation, without their knowledge and in my opinion that quite simply is not the case.”
Board chair Peter Kruyt had the support of a majority of board members, she said–even though no formal vote was taken–and that faculty had been outnumbered.
She added that the secrecy surrounding Woodsworth’s departure was due to the fact that it was a “matter of employment” and that board members were legally prohibited from commenting publicly, adding that Woodsworth was the only person who could have made the issue public.
“I can assure you that if your employer fired you you would not want that discussion in the papers,” she said.
Freed’s comments came towards the end of debate on a resolution to create an outside committee to review Concordia’s governance structure. If the university senate approves the plan Friday, interim president Frederick Lowy, along with the university senate, will be responsible for finding the committee members and creating their mandate. The committee would be composed of two or three experts from outside Concordia.
Throughout the meeting full-time faculty representatives criticized the actions of Kruyt and the executive, saying that their voices weren’t being heard.
When Lowy called for “people to talk to each other in a way that hasn’t been happening,” finance professor Lawrence Kryzanowski replied that, “it’s not a matter of talking it’s a matter of listening.” Kryzanowski comment was greeted with applause from around 30 professors and students who had come to watch the meeting. “People want a change in governance, there’s a real problem,” he said.
At times the meeting became tense. “It’s the chair and the vice chairs that have caused most of this problem,” said Kryzanowski,” again to audience applause.
“In your opinion,” shot back vice chair, Jonathan Wener, who was chairing the meeting.
Kruyt, arguably the most controversial member of the board was not in attendance. Wener said Kruyt was out of town on business. University officials played down Kruyt’s absence, saying it had been planed long in advance. According to one well-placed source, Kruyt is currently in China.
Throughout the meeting Lowy played the role of elder statesman. “We will overcome the current crisis,” he said. “The key activities of the university continue to perform well … academic activities in particular.”
Throughout the governance debate student representatives remained silent.
The university’s senate, the highest academic body, meets tomorrow.
Concordia Student Union wanted Woodsworth out
Faculty is in revolt
The fallout from the departure of Concordia president, Judith Woodsworth has student politicians finding some strange bedfellows.
Today, Amine Dabchy, a former student union president and current member of the board of governors sent an email to several media organizations, including Maclean’s, supporting recent moves by the board and writing that “the Concordia Student Union leaders supported Woodsworth’s departure wholeheartedly.”
At the same time the faculty, who have traditionally found themselves on the same side as students when it comes to issues of university governance, are calling for members of the board of governors to resign.
Dabchy suggested that Woodsworth’s departure may have even been triggered by student action, writing that the student members of the board “expressed our discontent with Woodsworth to the chair of the board, Peter Kruyt, and cited a number of flagrant examples that exemplify her lack of leadership. We stated unequivocally that the students had lost confidence in this administration.”
He adds that “it was obvious that the vast majority of the Board did not support her. I surmise that she decided to resign to avoid embarrassment.”
But faculty members of the board seem to have been blindsided by her sudden departure. The Montreal Gazette reports that “the six professors who sit on the board, elected to speak on behalf of their respective faculties, say that no formal meeting of the board was called and no formal vote was taken before Woodsworth was let go.
Today, 25 of the university’s department heads voted unanimously “to a motion of non-confidence in the Officers of Concordia University’s Board of Governors, and in the process that led to the President’s departure.”
They are also calling for a review of the board’s powers and increased faculty representation on the board.
The school’s alumni associations have also waded into the fray, issuing a statement today coming out in support of the board and reiterating the debunked claim that Woodsworth resigned “for personal reasons.”
Dabchy’s email also comes as a surprise, given that the student union didn’t make any public statements expressing a lack of confidence in Woodsworth prior to this. Certainly, there had been criticism from time to time but nothing that would indicate a real discontent with her leadership.
In fact, with the exception of Dabchy’s email, the student union has yet to make any public statements about Woodsworth’s departure.
While Dabchy claims “that students had lost confidence in this administration,” that’s certainly not the sense that I have. My general feeling, and this is shared by other members of the student press corps at Concordia, is that most Concordia students were rather indifferent to Woodsworth.
“What’s pissing people off is the money she walked away with,” said Sarah Deshaies, editor-in-chief of the Concordian (full disclosure: I am an editor at the Concordian). That’s certainly the sense that I have as well.
Deshaies said that she thinks Woodsworth was pushed out because she was seen as not being “corporate enough” for the board. “I get the feeling that the student’s concerns weren’t a big deal.”
According to Dabchy one of the CSU’s concerns was that “Woodsworth’s stance on tuition increases and her desire to emulate the ‘American university model’ was very alarming to the student body and demonstrated her lack of commitment to accessible education.”
In response to that, Gazette columnist Peggy Curran, who has been covering this story very closely, wrote that “the notion that the board of governors would fire Woodsworth because students weren’t happy with the idea of higher tuition fees, a decision which is completely outside the university’s control is, frankly, preposterous.”
Concordia’s board: ‘modern-day star chamber’
Faculty up in arms over president’s departure
Faculty members at Concordia are calling for a total review of the way the university is run in the wake of the alleged firing of university president, Judith Woodsworth. Some have gone even further, calling for the university’s entire board of governors to resign.
While Woodsworth’s departure certainly brought the situation to a head, tensions between the university’s faculty and its board of governors, the majority of whom come from outside the university, have been simmering for years.
On Monday, the department of sociology and anthropology called for the resignation of the board.
The head of the part-time faculty union told the Montreal Gazette, “They are going to have to resign … Nothing else will do.”
Over 200 of the university’s professors, lecturers, librarians and staff signed an open letter condemning the board’s actions and calling for a review of its powers.
According to the letter, written by journalism professor Mike Gasher, “the Board appears to have assumed the role of a modern-day star chamber, acting according to its own dictates, accountable and answerable to no one. It is an abuse of power.”
The letter adds that the announcement of Woodsworth’s departure, “sought to deceive the university community and the public by stating the president resigned ‘for personal reasons’ when we now know her resignation was forced by the Board.”
Lucie Lequin, the president of the Concordia University Faculty Association, which represents full-time professors, has issued a similar statement, calling for faculty to “take back our University so that it remains a University dedicated to the pursuit of knowledge and not to more concrete and more bureaucratic cliché-mongering.”
Lequin also criticized the abruptness and secrecy surrounding the departure of Woodsworth; her predecessor, Claude Lajeunesse, who left under similar circumstances; and five vice presidents who have left in recent years.
Both Lequin and the staff letter also criticized the high cost of these departures.
“Is the proliferation of golden parachutes doled out to senior administrators, often, if not mainly, without explanation, an appropriate use of what are largely public financial resources?” Lequin wrote.
The staff letter also criticizes the make up of the board of governors, which has long been a controversial issue at the university.
“Twenty-three of the 40 members of the board represent the ‘community-at-large,’ but in fact represent a very narrow segment of that community given that the vast majority are from the corporate sector. At its upcoming meeting in February, the Board seeks to cut faculty membership–from six to four members. Five external Board members sit on the all-important Executive, Nominating and Senior Salaries committees, constituting an elite clique within the Board itself.”
It is widely believed at Concordia that this clique is behind most major decisions made by the board and forced Woodsworth out.
On Monday, board chair Peter Kruyt issued an open letter in what seems to be an attempt to calm the situation, instead the letter, which failed to answer any of the major questions, appears to have fanned the flames of discontent.
The Gazette has reported that the board has hired an outside public relations firm and is soliciting letters of support, in an attempt to salvage their tattered reputation, however this has been denied by the university.
Both the university’s student newspapers have also weighed in, with editorials criticizing the board, the lack of transparency surrounding Woodsworth departure and the high cost of her severance package.
