All Posts Tagged With: "woodsworthgate"
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 controversial chair plans to skip board meeting
Quiet settlement of wrongful dismissal case raises more questions about former presidents (alleged) firing
Peter Kruyt, the controversial chair of Concordia University’s board of governors, is not planning to attend tomorrow’s board meeting–the first full meeting since the sudden departure of president Judith Woodsworth in December–according to Montreal Gazette columnist Peggy Curran.
The university’s senate, student union and some alumni have called for Kruyt’s resignation, in response to his handling of the Woodsworth situation and the secrecy surrounding the departure of several other high-level university officials.
The circumstances surrounding the (alleged) firing of Woodsworth continue to remain mysterious. Earlier this month, the university settled a wrongful dismissal suit brought by two auditors who were fired by Woodsworth. The former president told Quebec’s labour review board that the auditors had lied to her and that one of them had violated university policies by signing off on expenses claimed by a subordinate for meals he attended. Under cross-examination she admitted to doing the same thing on at least five occasions. Concordia policy requires the most senior person present to claim any expenses for meals.
The university’s release announcing the settlement praises the auditors and their “honest, loyal and dedicated service.” It also states that they were offered their jobs back but declined.
A protest is planned for the meeting which will take place tomorrow morning.
While some alumni are planning to attend the protest, the university’s alumni association has backed the board. The association has also faced criticism from faculty members who are graduates of the university. Maria Peluso, president of the part time faculty association, told the Link, “they have become apologists for the Board of Governors. As an alumni member, I don’t know where the alumni got their facts from.”
Interestingly, six of the alumni association’s seven executives and six of the 13 non-executive directors come from the same faculty, the John Molson School Business. Currently, that faculty accounts for under 21 per cent of the university’s population.
Concordia denies donations have dropped
Student paper stands by story alleging alumni are closing their wallets after Woodsworth controversy
Concordia University is disputing allegations that alumni donations have dropped off significantly in the wake of president Judith Woodsworth’s departure. Claims that donations were down by up to 80 per cent appeared in last week’s issue of student newspaper the Link.
In a letter to the editor sent to the Link and Maclean’s on Campus, director of annual giving, Brad Skog, and call centre manager, Bonnie Kay, write that:
The article draws false conclusions by comparing the results of calls made during October and November (when the call centre was soliciting individuals who contribute regularly to Concordia) with January, when the bulk of their efforts have been concentrated on alumni who have never given to Concordia. Naturally, the results will differ and attempting to equate the two groups makes no sense.
Indeed, when non-donors were called during the fall semester, donor participation was almost identical (within 0.5 percent) and in January, the average gift actually increased. With respect to donations falling to “$50 on some days,” there is a grain of truth. The shift on January 10, 2011 only resulted in $30 because it was cancelled shortly after calling started due to technical difficulties with the call centre computers.
But Link editor-in-chief Justin Giovannetti is standing behind the story, which he co-wrote.
“The Link did its due diligence when reporting on the story,” Giovannetti wrote in an email. “The university had four days to respond to the story while it was being written and didn’t respond until after the national media picked up on it, the day after it was published.”
He adds that, “while the university’s position might explain a larger drop in donations, it does not explain why staff reported that callers turned down donating due to mismanagement at the higher administrative level.”
At the moment, everything seems to be pretty anecdotal. Other members of Concordia’s student press told me that alumni have gone on the record saying that they’re reconsidering future donations because of the Woodsworth situation but at least some call centre employees have disputed the article’s claims.
Donors scared off by Woodsworth departure
High severance package given to former president has alumni wary of giving.
Donations to Concordia University have dropped as much as 80 per cent following the (alleged) firing of president Judith Woodsworth. Student newspaper, The Link reports that “donations fell to $50 on some days—an average day before the dismissal could see callers bring in several thousand dollars.”
While it’s certainly not surprising that donations dropped dramatically in the wake of Woodsworth’s departure, I’ve got to note that the details in the Link’s story are anecdotal and based on anonymous interviews with students who solicit donations from alumni by phone. The University has said it’s still too early to comment on the effect Woodsworth’s departure had on donations.
The main issue seems to be the large severance package given to Woodsworth.
“Most alumni just said, ‘You just wasted $700,000 on a leaving president, I don’t feel like donating to you now.’ It seemed to me like the focus was on the severance pay,” one solicitor told the paper.
Interestingly, the donation-soliciting students were briefed by the school’s communications director during the second week of the semester.
