Re: Community Consultation: Policy on University Policies and Procedures (B 10.00)

Colleagues:

I also strongly support Nilima’s suggestion, especially after she kindly explained to me who are the “excluded” in her graph: administrative staff that do not fit in any of the unions. This is the fastest growing category of SFU employees, mostly likely supporting the higher administration. So, not only are faculty positions not growing much, but neither is support for faculty members (CUPE is in decline and so is TSSU, not to mention “Research”). For us, it’s mostly new online platforms to handle mostly on a self-help basis.

The question is whether the higher administration would support an initiative to mitigate their power in favour of a more faculty-and-student driven university. Could this be done autonomously by SFUFA?

Best, Gerardo

Professor Gerardo Otero

School for International Studies
Simon Fraser University
7200-515 West Hastings Street
Vancouver, BC Canada V6B 5K3

Tel. Off: +1-778-782-4508

Website: http://www.sfu.ca/people/otero.html

Gerardo’s YouTube Channel

I thankfully acknowledge that I live and work in unceded traditional territories of the Musqueam, Squamish, Tsleil-Waututh, and Kwikwetlem Nations.

From: Ronda Arab <ronda_arab@sfu.ca>
Date: Friday, May 20, 2022 at 12:03 PM
To: Oliver Schulte <oschulte@cs.sfu.ca>, Nilima Nigam <nigam@math.sfu.ca>
Cc: Suzanna Crage <scrage@sfu.ca>, "academic-discussion@sfu.ca" <academic-discussion@sfu.ca>
Subject: Re: Community Consultation: Policy on University Policies and Procedures (B 10.00)

Nilima,

I love your idea of a 2 day workshop for all administrators on the academic mission of the university and how to support it. If only.

Best,

Ronda

Dr. Ronda Arab

Associate Professor of English

Simon Fraser University

pronouns: she/her

From: Oliver Schulte <oschulte@cs.sfu.ca>
Sent: 19 May 2022 08:00:00
To: Nilima Nigam
Cc: Suzanna Crage; academic-discussion@sfu.ca
Subject: Re: Community Consultation: Policy on University Policies and Procedures (B 10.00)

Hi all,

great points so far! I would add that the administration should devote minimal effort into tweaking policies. Any changes cause ripple effects and delays in the SFU apparatus as lower-level managers and staff get used to new rules.

Also the SFU policies are generally quite good, they are not the problem. 90% of the administrative problems at SFU come from misallocation of resources and failure to streamline, not from the wording of policies.

Regards,

Oliver

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Oliver Schulte E-mail: oschulte@cs.sfu.ca

Simon Fraser University Phone: (778) 782-3390

Professor Fax: (778) 782-3045

School of Computing Science Web: http://www.cs.sfu.ca/~oschulte

TASC 1 Building 9021

Work Schedule: see home page

Burnaby, B.C. V5A 1S6

Canada

On Wed, May 18, 2022 at 10:38 AM Nilima Nigam <nigam@math.sfu.ca> wrote:

Dear all,

it's clear the feedback generated by faculty/student groups had an effect on the proposed policy changes.

Two observations:

1/ From Slide 3 of the SFUFA AGM presentation in 2021: there's been a huge increase (an order of magnitude!) in administrative staff at the university, compared to SFUFA membership. I believe there are now more administrators on campus than SFUFA members. "Democracy" takes on a new meaning when there are more members of the executive arm than in the population.

2/ Given (1), maybe the newer members of our community (ie, administrators) don't have a clear idea how the academic mission works, or what we do, and why we may (correctly) be concerned about changes to our workloads or academic freedoms. After all, perhaps they come from corporate environments with top-down decision-making. If we charitably allow for this lack of background, then Goethe's immortal phrase comes to mind:

'Ich habe, mein Lieber, wieder bei diesem kleinen Geschäft gefunden, daß Mißverständnisse und Trägheit vielleicht mehr Irrungen in der Welt machen als List und Bosheit.'

[in this little business I find that misunderstanding/laziness produce more wrongs in the world than malice].

We're educators, so maybe SFUFA can arrange a 'teach-in', where administrators have to take a 2-day workshop on 'what is the academic mission of the university, and how do we support it.'

only mildly tongue-in-cheek,

Nilima

On Tue, May 17, 2022 at 10:13 AM Suzanna Crage <scrage@sfu.ca> wrote:

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

On May 17, 2022, at 6:59 AM, Eugene McCann <emccann@sfu.ca> wrote:

Hi,

If it’s of use or interest, a couple of student activists have asked me to share their ‘action toolkit’ on this policy change issue. It includes email templates and an automatic email generator for responding to the proposal. https://docs.google.com/document/d/1GMVldhHPU4qkRUEggNQs28fMDZ2grIrsxleUDdZUzlk/mobilebasic

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

On May 12, 2022, at 3:27 AM, Dan Laitsch <dlaitsch@sfu.ca> wrote:

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:

From: Dan Laitsch <dlaitsch@sfu.ca>

Subject: Fwd: Community Consultation: Policy on University Policies and Procedures (B 10.00)

Date: May 11, 2022 at 12:17:56 PM PDT

To: Mandeep_kalan@sfu.ca

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

To: "sfu-faculty-staff@sfu.ca" <sfu-faculty-staff@sfu.ca>

The following message is sent on behalf of Li-Jeen Broshko, General Counsel & University Secretary.

Dear SFU Faculty and Staff members:

Please provide your input on the proposed amendments to SFU’s Policy on University Policies and Procedures (B 10.00).

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

Visiting Professor, Geography, National University of Singapore (’21-’22)

Managing Editor, EPC: Politics & Space
https://journals.sagepub.com/home/epc

Minor Revisions podcast
https://journals.sagepub.com/page/epc/collections/podcasts

Personal website: https://emccanngeog.wordpress.com

--

Nilima Nigam
Professor
Dept. of Mathematics
Simon Fraser University