Hello,
Dan’s last point leads to another change I noticed with concern, beyond what he already pointed out earlier about line 6.4. It is, in addition, an example of a change that would apparently no longer need to be reviewed if that new version of line 6.4 went
through.
The proposed version of Appendix A changes the definition of “Editorial Amendments.” These amendments do not need to be brought to the Board. Rather, making and approving them is the responsibility of the same appointed administrator named in line 6.4.
The existing and proposed definition do both state that these are “housekeeping or minor amendment[s],” but the proposed list of things they may include has a new item: “amendments to bring the University Policy into compliance with federal, provincial or
municipal laws, Tri-Agency requirements or in alignment with other University Policies” (2.2.5).
To me, this stands out from the current items in the list. These include formatting issues, revising names and references to other policies as needed, and language changes that would improve clarity without changing meaning (though as an aside, in my experience
“clarity” changes proposed by administrators have not always been as meaning-neutral as they thought). Unlike these other items, changing policies to bring them in compliance with laws or other policies is not a “housekeeping” issue: it involves decisions
about how to interpret the other policies and how to implement the interpretations. I think for instance of how the last faculty union contract’s approval has been followed by many meetings, throughout the university, on how to change our policies and practices
based on its provisions.
I probably don’t need to say that these sorts of changes are also not necessarily “minor.“ Other parts of policy B10.00 state that changes to the roles and responsibilities of individuals and offices – along with “actions that are permitted or prohibited,”
in general – require Board approval. (Line 2.8 in the appendix, as well as a few lines in the main policy.) Would such changes still need to be submitted for Board approval if they were framed as amendments that brought a policy into compliance with other
laws or policies? If not, this change to the definition of Editorial Amendments seems to me to have potentially wide-ranging consequences.
My last question is, really, for lawyers or specialists in university policy — which, to go back to Eugene’s point, is an example of why this should be brought to and looked at by the union as well as individual faculty.
—Suzanna
Suzanna M. Crage, PhD
Senior Lecturer
Undergraduate Program Chair
Department of Sociology and Anthropology
Simon Fraser University
8888 University Drive
Burnaby, BC V5A 1S6
Canada
email: scrage@sfu.ca
Sent from my phone
On May 17, 2022, at 6:12 AM, Dan Laitsch <dlaitsch@sfu.ca> wrote:
Hi Eugene, they are supposed to. Article 8, Section 5 of the Collective Agreement notes:
Where the University intends to introduce or modify a policy or procedure that substantially impacts the professional duties, responsibilities or privileges of Members, it will consult with the Association, through the Joint Committee, and will
consider in good faith any comments received from the Association. When proposed modifications to policies or procedures are drafted, the Association will be provided with copies of those drafts and given reasonable opportunity to respond.
That said, I suppose there is wiggle room there in that the University might have decided that allowing themselves to change definitions in policy without consultation or review would not "substantially impact the professional duties, responsibilities
or privileges of Members.”
Dan
Hi,
The group that put it together, who I know nothing about beyond the two who contacted me, have a twitter account too, in case you’re interested: @democracy_sfu
Beyond all that, I’d repeat something I’ve asked on here before (something that I think I must not understand about SFUFA’s relationship to the employer): Why do we get these consultation emails? Why does the university not have to consult with
us through our union? Their preferred “community” consultation model (besides the obvious problems with short deadlines) seems to individualize us. Surely we have a union for this sort of stuff. But, again, I think I’m probably misunderstanding!
Best,
Eugene
Hi all,
Apologies for the interruption. Some of you may be interested in the proposed revisions to the SFU Policy on Policies. Given that the university is only offering a one week window for feedback, I figured it might make sense to highlight the request
and share with you my own concerns about both the timeline for feedback and the revised language allowing the General Counsel and Unversity Secretary to change the definitions within policies without review.
Details below. Thanks all,
Dan
Suggested changes to 6.4:
The
General Counsel and
University Secretary is responsible for approving
Eeditorial
Aamendments,
to UniversityPolicies,
and at their discretion, amendments to any definitions applicable to a University Policy or to a University Procedure,
and for making those amendments.
Begin forwarded message:
Subject:
Fwd: Community Consultation: Policy on University Policies and Procedures (B 10.00)
Date:
May 11, 2022 at 12:17:56 PM PDT
Feedback:
1. Offering a one week window for feedback on the revisions is an unreasonably tight timeline for substantive feedback. It suggests a symbolic interest in consultation, not an actual interest in consultation. That said, based on a quick review,
2. I find 6.4 to give too much power to the General Counsel and Unversity Secretary to make unreviewed changes, particularly related to amendments to definitions. Changing a definition can radically alter the policy itself. Editorial (i.e. grammatical)
amendments are one thing—changing definitions quite another.
Thanks for receiving this feedback. I look forward to discussing these changes in Senate.
Dan
Begin forwarded message:
From:
Office of the General Counsel & University Secretary <gc_asst@sfu.ca>
Subject:
Community Consultation: Policy on University Policies and Procedures (B 10.00)
Date:
May 11, 2022 at 9:53:45 AM PDT
The following message is sent on behalf of Li-Jeen Broshko, General Counsel & University Secretary.
Dear SFU Faculty and Staff members:
B 10.00 was created to provide guidance and support to members of the University Community who are developing new university policies or revising existing policies. The proposed framework, as set out in B 10.00 and its associated Procedures, provides step-by-step
guidance for those involved in policy development, from initiation through to Board of Governors approval.
Proposed amendments to B 10.00 include:
-
Moving content onto new templates, including removing definitions from the Policy and placing them in Appendix A
-
Change in nomenclature
-
“Policy Authority” is now “Responsible Executive”
-
“Responsible Authority” is now “Responsible Office”
-
Expanding definition of Editorial Amendments and updating definition of University Policy
-
Giving General Counsel & University Secretary discretion to approve amendments to definitions
-
Clarifying authority to amend associated Procedures without Board approval
We are seeking input from SFU’s faculty and staff. Please review the revised Policy on University Policies and Procedures (B 10.00) posted on the Policy
Gazette website and submit your feedback to Mandeep Kalan, Director, University Policies, at Mandeep_kalan@sfu.ca by
May 18, 2022.
Input you provide is collected under the authority of the University Act and SFU’s Policy on University Policies and Procedures (B 10.00). This information
is collected for the purpose of engaging in community consultation, which may result in recommended changes to a policy. If you have any questions about the collection of this information, please contact Mandeep Kalan at Mandeep_kalan@sfu.ca.
Thank you,
Li-Jeen Broshko
General Counsel & University Secretary
<image001.png>
_______________________________________________________
Eugene McCann (he/him/his)
Professor, Geography, Simon Fraser University
|