I conjecture that most of us begin by hoping to carry the torch farther and faster than proves possible. We discover that most issues are far more complex than imagined. We place a high value on the consultative process; it is essential for democratic decision-making. Moreover, I would argue, consultation with the faculty is always highly instructive in the formulation of proposals to change traditional policies and practices. To borrow from David Blewett's 1992 report, it is the broad consensus of the faculty, although time consuming to achieve, that gives policies "a legitimacy that makes them workable."
It is not easy to achieve broad consensus, nor is it always possible for the Executive to confirm their expectations about what position on a controversial issue the membership would endorse. Even if MUFA wants proposals for change to be carefully considered there are others, both inside and outside of the University, who may be keen to act quickly and to turn critical discussion into little more than a lament for what might have been.
I have organized this report according to level of governance; I begin closest to home, with the university/local level.
LIBRARIANS. Negotiations on terms and conditions of employment for librarians began in March of 1997; a two-year agreement was reached in June. The MUFA's Negotiating Committee (Les Robb, Bernadette Lynn, Liz Bayley, and Carl Spadoni) have met at least once a month since then. They have approved and put into effect a Professional Development Allowance policy; policies on consulting and conflict of interest are ready for approval. Discussions on development leave, code of conduct, and grievance procedures are continuing.
MUFA and the administration have jointly set up a committee to study the classification of library positions (Librarian Classification and Salary Administration Review Committee). Dr. John Medcof from the Faculty of Business serves as a mutually agreed upon independent chair. MUFA is represented by Anne Pottier and Vivian Lewis, and the administration by Wilf Ward and Sheila Pepper. Over this term they have held 15 meetings of some two hours duration each. The committee expects to report in February and to complete its work in April.
SPECIAL ENQUIRIES AND GRIEVANCES COMMITTEE. The Committee has been monitoring two cases that will go before the Grievance Panel this month. It has given advice to four members about their rights. One case concerns a CAWAR appointment, another post-retirement teaching, a third appointment status, and the fourth concerns rights of appeal under the Tenure and Promotion document.
TENURE AND PROMOTION COMMITTEE. The Committee is dealing with two issues. The first concerns the roles of the Dean of Graduate Studies and the Provost in tenure and promotion deliberations. Certain changes have been agreed to by the MUFA Executive and the Senate Committee on Appointments, and these will be put before Senate in 1998. The major changes are: 1) the Dean of Graduate Studies will continue as a voting member of all Faculty committees but will not vote on cases at the Senate Committee level; 2) the Provost will no longer sit on Faculty committees but will be required to attend and vote on all cases at the Senate Committee level; and 3) a definition is given of a "technical abstention" and the voting rules are altered to take this into account. The second issue is the interpretation of "new evidence" referred to in the appeals section of the Tenure and Promotion policy document. Agreement has been reached with the administration on the main forms of information that should be admissible as new evidence. Some work remains to be done on certain details; it should be completed early in the new year.
HUMAN RIGHTS. The major human rights issue facing the faculty this year is the Accommodation Policy. It is intended to make provisions for individuals whose circumstances are special in some respect. Examples are: persons with disabilities; persons who belong to religious minorities; persons with special care-giving responsibilities. A policy document has been drafted for staff, but MUFA, although agreeing with the basis principles of the document, believes that a somewhat different document is required for faculty. In addition, the Committee has initiated discussions with the Student Development Office concerning better communication between faculty and that office regarding responsibilities to, and accommodation for, students with disabilities.
ACADEMIC AFFAIRS. The Committee sponsored a half-day presentation and workshop on the evaluation of teaching, conducted by Michael Scriven. About 100 faculty members, the majority from McMaster, participated. A videotape of the event is available on request from the Instructional Development Centre, and a written transcript should be available from the MUFA office by the end of January.
The Committee chair, David Hitchcock, has prepared a report on the question of who owns the copyright in materials from which a faculty member lectures. His discovery: the two recognized source documents give conflicting decisions. The chair has also identified potential nominees for OCUFA teaching awards as well as "champions" prepared to assemble portfolios on them.
OMBUDS COMMITTEE.As MUFA's representative, Jacqueline Roberts has been involved in planning the reorganization of the Ombuds office. An Ombuds position is to be re-established, this time jointly funded by the McMaster Student Union and the McMaster University administration. The person appointed is to be available to serve students, staff and faculty. There is a possibility that MUFA will maintain an advisory role on the committee once the plan is implemented.
McMASTER UNIVERSITY FUTURE FUND COMMITTEE:(MUFF). This year the MUFF Committee had about $400,000 to allocate. The money is the interest on University contributions to the pension plan which could not be deposited in the plan because of Revenue Canada regulations. The interest on the fund is to be made available annually. Wayne Lewchuk is MUFA's representative on the Committee. On the grounds that conference presentations by faculty are a way of enhancing the University's reputation, individual faculty members who have a paper on a conference program during the academic year 1997-98 are eligible for an award of $150, to be paid into their Professional Development Account. A letter from Dr. Weingarten outlining the administrative details will be out shortly.
MEMBERSHIP COMMITTEE. Since May of 1997, we have lost 28 members through retirement, and 27 for other reasons; we have acquired 31 in the new and returning category. Thus we have a decrease of 24 members.
PENSIONS. Thanks to the work of Les Robb and other members of the Pension Committee, some pension improvements were negotiated in return for allowing the administration to make bridging payments for the 1995 special early retirement plan out of the pension surplus. The improvements include: a bridge for all those who take early retirement and who had service prior to July 1996; a slight improvement in pension indexing; some improvements for pre-1983 retirees (the lack of indexing caused them to lose ground); an improvement in survivor benefit; and an improvement in the termination benefit (viz. interest on contributions).
In collaboration with other Pension Plan members, work has been done on some administrative simplifications. A review of the pension text is underway. If the changes recommended are approved, it will be the first time since the pension court case that an agreement has been achieved on a complete text.
BENEFITS. The Remunerations chair, Bernadette Lynn, has had ongoing discussions with the Vice-President (Administration), Sandy Darling, about benefit matters. They have obtained information on medical devices and are trying to come to some agreement on a revised policy which will cover more items, perhaps on a co-payment basis.
TUITION BURSARY COMMITTEE. You will recall that in our last remunerations agreement a cap of $200,000 was put on the total cost for the tuition benefit. The Faculty Association agreed to take responsibility for developing for the Joint Committee a proposal on how the money should be allocated. Our Tuition Bursary Committee (Anne Pottier, David Butterfield, and Bill Anderson) has been very thorough in collecting information to help them to identify options. Their recommendations will be presented to the Executive. Ultimately the membership will be balloted on a set of proposals acceptable to the Committee and Executive.
ISSUES
Bill 160. The Executive was urged from various quarters to express publicly its opposition to Bill 160. We chose to pass a motion criticizing the bill as an attack on collective bargaining, but we stopped short of supporting the strike action of the teachers' federations.
University Centre. Surely the question that has sparked the most debate this term is: where should the proposed university centre be built? In October, a preliminary report by the architectural firm Moriyama and Teshima appeared on the McMaster web site. The campus community thereby learned that the firm recommended a site never before considered, called in their document Site Option C. It has the centre located at right angles to University Hall and Hamilton Hall, extending from between those buildings north beyond the Alumni Memorial Building. The Alumni Memorial Building, which houses the Faculty Club, would be demolished. Since then, and apparently as a result of deliberations of the Board of Governors on the matter, the site designated in October of 1996 as the chosen location, "south and south-west of Hamilton Hall and adjacent to the Burke Science building", and in the Moriyama and Teshima document identified as Site Option A, has been reinstated as a possible site. It is clear from the correspondence on the issue, press coverage, and two Town Hall meetings (one for undergraduates which was sponsored by the Student Union, and another organized for the entire campus community by the University president), that there is widespread dissatisfaction with both of the site proposals now being considered, and with the processes by which they were selected.
At this stage two architectural firms in addition to Moriyama and Teshima are preparing designs for buildings at sites A and C. These will be assessed by the Architect Selection Committee, a committee appointed by the Planning and Building Committee. The Selection Committee will recommend an architect to the Board of Governors. The final decision on siting will rest with the Board. It should also be noted that the centre project involves many other matters of importance to us all, such as the management and financing of the centre, which are being examined by other committees of the Board.
At its December 5-6 meeting OCUFA passed a follow-up motion to the Executive's motion concerning Bill 160. It condemns the attack on collective bargaining rights which the bill represents, and declares OCUFA's support for groups working to achieve restoration of these rights.
A paper outlining past and current funding policy declarations of OCUFA was discussed. Delegates appeared to agree that tuition fee increases were an inadequate and questionable response to underfunding, that student debt loads were already excessive and means to reduce them urgently needed, and that government funding should not be targeted so as to favour specific sorts of activity (e.g. research over teaching). It was proposed that OCUFA try to collaborate with the Council of Ontario Universities and with student organizations in developing funding policy proposals for presentation to the government.
Research on developing government policies, for example on performance indicators, is an ongoing contribution of the OCUFA staff. They predict that the Ontario government will employ performance indicator scores to determine the allocation of some 2% of the funds for university operating budgets. However, the scheme as implemented in Alberta apparently failed to warrant any significant change in allocations. Watch for the relevant legislation in the forthcoming Public Sector Accountability Act.
The reform of the structures and practices of OCUFA continues. My experience at the two meetings held this fall leads me to believe that the organization is effec-tive, responsive, and its services more useful than ever as administrations and governments seek to cut costs.
The most dramatic item on the Council's business agenda was a report from Carleton University delegates. Their university president had announced the imminent closure of several programs and the consequent termination of employment for some 20 to 30 tenured faculty members. A motion was passed calling upon the Carleton administration and senate to conduct a thorough and open discussion of the grounds for and alternatives to the closure proposal. In spite of protests from the Carleton Faculty Association and colleagues at other universities that agreements on closure methods have been violated, the Carleton senate has approved the closures and it appears that they will take place as initially proposed.
Opposition to the act which established the Technical University of British Columbia continues. There is some hope that by publicizing the institution's lack of a senate, tenure, and academic freedom, it will prove difficult or impossible for the administration to recruit faculty. A motion calling on the government of Ontario to withdraw Bill 160 won unanimous approval from the Council.
As usual, a number of model clauses were presented for approval; this time they were on the topics of suspension and on transparency and openness in decision making.
The Tri-Council's draft policy document "Code of Ethical Conduct for Research Involving Humans" was discussed. The next stages in its development were outlined by Don Savage, the retired executive director of CAUT, who was engaged to seek incorporation of revisions requested by CAUT members. He indicated that the term "code" may be replaced with "guideline," that the document will probably undergo some substantive changes, and that without subsequent consultation it will probably be approved in the spring.
Of note in the reports segment of the meeting was the description of conditions in the French language universities of Quebec. For example, it was stated that about 75% of the courses offered at the Université du Québec à Montréal are taught by part-time instructors, and that students are complaining about the difficulty they experience in obtaining interviews with faculty.
CAUT has engaged a search firm to secure an executive director for the organization and hopes to make an appointment next spring. It has recently appointed a lawyer, as a replacement for Kevin Banks who leaves at the end of this year. They will thus continue to have three lawyers available to handle approved requests for legal assistance.
Catherine Beattie