All Posts Tagged With: "governance"
Report finds “culture of contempt” at Concordia
Montreal university needs to clarify its mission
Concordia photo courtesy of Foxtongue on Flickr
Concordia University needs to make major changes to how it’s run, according to a new report on the university’s governance.
The report, released on June 15, says that the university suffers from a “substantial degree of misunderstanding, blatantly deficient internal communications and a lot of distrust, often bordering on mutual contempt, between the various communities of the university.”
The report was written by three outside experts who were brought in after the sudden departure of president Judith Woodsworth over the Christmas break exposed deep divisions between students, faculty and outsiders on the board of governors. Woodsworth’s immediate predecessor, Claude Lajeunesse, was also forced to resign by the board in 2007. As well, the university has seen the departure of a number of vice-presidents.
According to the report, efforts to solicit the opinions of community members found that “everyone seemed quite willing, in some cases even anxious, to think the worst of someone – in some cases, everyone – else.”
While the report acknowledges that the circumstances surrounding Woodsworth’s departure contributed to the “chorus of negative response,” it says that the problems within the university go deeper.
“The depth and even the fury of that response could only have arisen in a context where long simmering governance and internal communication problems between the board and the university community… had neither been addressed nor resolved.”
Part of the problem, according to the report, is the school’s lack of direction which has led to “tension between those who uphold its tradition of accessibility and openness as opposed to those who place greater value on a development model which features research and graduate studies.”
The report recommends that the university deal with this by updating its charter to include a clear mission statement and by developing an academic plan.
The report also recommends reducing the size of the board from 40 members to 25. The smaller board would maintain the current ratio of outsiders to insiders, but it would no longer include representatives from alumni associations. As well, the percentage of faculty on the board would increase while student representation would decrease slightly.
According to the report, “the committee saw no evidence, although there were rumours, accusations and insinuations … that the Concordia board has systematically interfered with core academic or curriculum decision making.”
However, the committee did find evidence that board members had worked “directly with members of the administration in such a way as to bypass and, therefore, weaken the function of the President.” As a result, the report recommends making the president the only point of contact between the board and the administration.
Other recommendations include formalizing the powers of the university senate and enforcing term-limits for board and senate members. The recommendations for a smaller board and firm term-limits are in line with a university governance bill currently before Quebec’s National Assembly.
Despite the problems, the report suggests the university is doing some things right. “What is remarkable… is that under these difficult and adverse circumstances, the core activities of the university, its teaching and research, appeared relatively unaffected,” it says.
The university will hold an open meeting on the report on June 28.
USask faculty members criticize university governance
Letter to Advanced Education Minister calls for changes to Board of Governors
This follows controversy surrounding the appointments of the dean of law and head of the school of environment and sustainability, after the recommendations of volunteer search committees for the positions were overlooked by the Board of Governors.
The professors are asking for several changes to the University of Saskatchewan Act, including making all Board of Governors meetings open to the public and requiring board members to have public service experience as well as university teaching or administrative experience.
One of the professors who signed the letter explained the faculty members were motivated by what they felt was a lack of transparency from senior university officials on major decisions affecting the university.
“So much of the decisions, in fact all of the decisions, simply go on behind closed doors. We request more transparency,” engineering professor Todd Pugsley told the StarPhoenix.
The letter was also signed by professors Robert Gander, Len Findlay, Howard Woodhouse, Linda McMullen as well as the chair of university council, which oversees all academic affairs at the U of S, Claire Card.
U of S president Peter MacKinnon said the authors of the letter had “no understanding” of university governance, and that limiting board members to those with public sector or university experience would mean the board would lose out on many qualified people.
“Even worse, the writers of the letter want a board of insiders. . . . On what basis do they claim that only insiders should serve on the board? On what basis do they claim that only insiders should pass judgment on the spending of hundreds of millions of dollars, some of them on themselves?,” MacKinnon told the StarPhoenix.
Norris said that the demand for legislative changes was “a bit of an unusual request”, since these matters are usually dealt with internally.
“But that being said, we are referring it to ministry officials and I’m asking them to follow-up with university stakeholders,” Norris said.
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.
Concordia names members of governance review committee
Panel to be headed by former McGill principal, will report within 60 days of first meeting
The Montreal Gazette is reporting that Concordia has named the members of an external committee which will study the university’s governance.
The panel was struck in response to the controversy surrounding the sudden departure of the university’s president, Judith Woodsworth, in December.
According to reports, the university has tapped a former McGill principal, Bernard Shapiro, to head the three-person panel. Shapiro was also Canada’s first Ethics Commissioner. Former Quebec Lobbyist Commissioner, André C. Côté, who was also a dean of law and secretary general at Université Laval, along with Glen A. Jones, an associate dean at the University of Toronto and Ontario Research Chair on post-secondary education policy and measurement, will round out the panel.
The committee is required to report to Concordia’s interim president, Frederick Lowy, within 60 days of its first meeting and its report will be made public. Members of the Concordia community will be able to make written submissions to the panel.
While there was some information about the committee’s membership, and how to make written submissions to it, posted on a couple Concordia websites, the information appears to have been taken down. I will update this post once I’ve confirmed the details with Concordia.
UPDATE: Concordia University media relations director, Chris Mota has confirmed, via email, that the details in the Gazette story are correct. Apparently the university is having some technical problems with its websites.
Concordia senate appears ready to move forward
Anger has subsided among faculty representatives, but discontent remains
Concordia University’s senate appears ready to move on.
On Friday, the university’s highest academic body approved a plan to bring in a small group of outside experts to study the university’s governance.
The resolution is almost identical to one passed by the board of governors on Thursday.
Little of the palpable anger, which has gripped the school’s faculty since the sudden departure of president Judith Woodsworth in December, was on display at Thursday’s meeting and criticism of the board was muted. Woodsworth’s (alleged) firing, and the events leading up to it, was not specifically discussed.
While the anger may have subsided, there is still a sense of discontent. Many senators feel that faculty has been shut out of the university’s decision-making process and that their concerns have been sidelined by the board.
Interim president, Frederick Lowy, along with the senate steering committee, will choose the outside experts and assign their mandate.
“It seems inevitable that if we’re going to get anywhere we need help from the outside,” said Lowy. Adding that a small group would be able to report quickly.
When questions arose about the composition of the review committee, Lowy stressed that it would not be representative and that its members would be chosen on the basis of expertise. But he said that he intends to “consult widely … I don’t intend to draft this in my study somewhere.”
During the meeting, it became clear that communication between Concordia’s two most powerful bodies has broken down.
Early in the meeting, Lowy referenced communication problems between the board and senate. As well, some senators questioned whether the lack of participation by the board’s executive in drafting the review committee’s mandate and choosing its membership was a sign that the board had not bought in to the idea. However, university vice president, external, Bram Freedman pointed out that the executive committee had been removed from the process at the request of faculty representatives on the board, due to the senate’s lack of confidence in the board executive.
“I think it may have been taken in exactly the opposite way,” he said.
Several senators also expressed concerns when university officials could not confirm whether resolutions concerning the board, passed at the last senate meeting, had been distributed to board members.
There were also concerns that the board will not implement recommendations from the external group. Lowy attempted to assuage these fears.
“The calibre of the people we’re talking about will have moral suasion of considerable strength,” he said.
‘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’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.
Gov’t withholds funds from First Nations University
Indian and Northern Affairs Canada imposes deadlines, demands “action plan”
According to the Saskatoon StarPhoenix, the federal government will be withholding more than $2 million from the First Nations University of Canada until the school agrees to make fundamental governance changes.
In 2005, Morley Watson, chair of the university’s board of governors, suspended several senior administrators and allegedly seized the university’s central computers, copied the hard drive with all faculty and student records, and ordered administrative staff out of their offices.
Since that time, two different studies by both the provincial government and the Federation of Saskatchewan Indian Nations have recommended changes to the university’s board structure in an effort to improve transparency and good governance. Enrolment at the school has plunged, and many of the faculty and administrative staff have left.
In November 2008, the Canadian Association of University teachers imposed censure on the university, which meant that most of the Canada’s university teachers have been told to refuse appointments at the university, decline invitations to speak or participate in academic conferences hosted by the university, and turn down any distinctions.
Last March, the province suspended $200,000 of funding to the school, saying that “fundamental changes” needed to be made.
According to The StarPhoenix, the $2.4-million that is being held back represents one-third of all Indian and Northern Affairs Canada (INAC) funding to the university.
An INAC spokesperson says university officials must meet various deadlines in the coming months and submit a final “action plan” by Jan. 1, 2010 to trigger a release of the funds. This is the first time the federal department has placed these kinds of conditions on an institution.
Saskatchewan suspends funds to First Nations University
Province freezes $200,000 until “fundamental changes” are made
The Saskatchewan government has suspended funding to First Nations University Of Canada, saying it wants to see steps taken to restore the institution’s accountability.
The province made the move to freeze $200,000 after an internal report raised concerns about how the Regina-based university is run. Advanced Education Minister Rob Norris said the government needs to see an interim board or subcommittee established to address the governance issues in a serious way.
However, university board chair Clarence Bellegarde says he doesn’t agree with the internal report.
He says the report wasn’t written by experts on how universities are run, and he wants to hire a professional consultant to review the school’s operations.
Bellegarde warned that without provincial funding, the university may have to cut back some services.
Just five months ago, the Wall government announced hundreds of thousands of dollars in funding to the university to help pay for construction, staff and supplies.
Since then, the Canadian Association Of University Teachers censured the school over what they call political interference.
A vice-president was fired, and students held a rally to voice their own concerns.
- The Canadian Press
Activist UOttawa physicist suspended, faces dismissal
Controversial prof gave all students an A+ after his request for pass/fail class denied
The Chronicle of Higher Education is reporting that a series of clashes between the University of Ottawa and a senior tenured professor who was suspended last month and barred from the campus are now under investigation by the country’s main faculty association.
The suspension apparently stems from a spring 2008 grading dispute in which veteran professor Denis Rancourt gave all students in a class an A+ after he was denied permission to make the course pass/fail.
Rancourt is a noted physicist who has worked at the university for 22 years. According to the Chronicle, he is also an activist blogger, particularly on issues of pedagogical reform and university governance. He says his advocacy of “greater democracy in the institution,” could be the real reason why the university is trying to push him out.
More details from the Chronicle:
Mr. Rancourt says he met with administration officials on December 10 and was given two letters, one placing him on administrative suspension and the other notifying him that his dean was recommending that the Board of Governors dismiss him. After he met with his union representative, the university police escorted him off campus.
“How can a disagreement about grading possibly justify ordering the university police to remove a tenured professor from campus, banning him from campus, assigning his graduate students to other faculty, firing his postdoctoral research fellow, and asking the Board of Governors to approve his firing?” he wrote in a letter to the board this week.
Andrée Dumulon, director of the university’s communications office, said the university could not comment on the move to fire Mr. Rancourt because Canadian privacy laws prohibit it from giving any details of its relationship with professors and also because of the collective agreement with the faculty.
The Canadian Association of University Teachers, the country’s main faculty association, formed its investigative committee shortly before the university placed Mr. Rancourt on suspension. The panel will also look at whether Mr. Rancourt’s academic freedom was breached or threatened. Over the years, according to the association, Mr. Rancourt has been involved in 18 grievances.
“We created the independent panel because this situation is so complex with claims and counterclaims, there’s no other way to sort through the forest of detail and make some recommendations,” said James Turk, the association’s executive director. Firing a tenured professor in Canada is very rare, he added, because 90 percent of Canadian universities are unionized, with collective agreements that strongly entrench academic freedom.
