RRUFA minutes – March 2018

Tuesday, March 13, 2018

12:00 p.m. – 1:30 p.m.

LIC Centre forDialogue

Carolin Rekar Munro, Jen Walinga,Julia Jahansoozi, George Veletsienos, Runa Das, Tamara Leary, Marnie Jull,Devina Dander, Will Meredith, Eugene Thomlinson, Jonathan Moran, Tony Boydell,Mary Bernard, Matt Dodd, Ken Christie, Virginia McKendry, Niels Agger-Gupta,Hilary Leighton

Minutes by Esme Friesen

  • Call to Order
  • Approval of Agenda

Motion: THAT the Agenda be approved as amended.

(Walinga/McKendry) CARRIED

  • Approval of Previous Minutes
  • February 8, 2018 – Regular EC

Motion: THAT the above listed meeting minutes from February 8, 2018 be approved as amended.

(Agger-Gupta/Thomlinson) CARRIED

  • New Business
    • Operational SupportK. Christie

NOTE: Introduction of Esme Friesen, who is now contracted to provide administrative and operational support to RRUFA

  • Work Planning Committee UpdateC. Rekar-Munro

NOTE: This committee has now met with the Deans 4 – 5 regarding faculty experience of the Workload menu (i.e. How do faculty perceive the Workload menu process?).  RRUFA committee members question whether the consultation process is worthwhile continuing, as the Deans have declared that no adjustments to the Workload menu will be made. 

There doesn’t seem to be a willingness to work collaboratively. While there was opportunity for listening and sharing, the Deans position is that changes can only be dealt with during bargaining. There was seemingly no willingness by the Deans to discuss actual workload issues.

It is RRUFA’s position that this issue could be dealt with in JCOAA.

NOTE: Key issue is that Workload units have maximums that can be entered into the system, which doesn’t accurately reflect the time spent/workload of the members.

ACTION: K. Christie will send a letter to the Deans thanking them for participating in the consultation.

ACTION: RRUFA to design a Member survey in order to gather more robust data on the Workload menu.  Survey to be sent out after Easter and to include questions on:

  • Lived experience of the Workload menu and process
  • What’s working? What’s not working?
  • Other comments & suggestions?
  • PDP form functionality?
  • The data collected to inform an evidence-based report. Connections – Workload units vs. Lived experience. 
  • Important to frame questions to get meaningful response.
  • Key question areas = user experience & sustainability of workload. 
  • Collect data on Department/Faculty, Gender, Status Rank, Years of service.

ACTION: RRUFA to also engage members on this issue – Face-to-Face meetings; Department or School visits to present on this issue.

ACTION: Schedule a 1/2-hour retreat to follow the in May 2018 to review the survey results.

WORK PLAN: Survey – April; Retreat – May; Bargaining Committee – September.

ACTION: Need to follow up on getting the correct detail of the Workload formula.

  • Program Head Role – J. Walinga/V. McKendry

NOTE: Discussion centred on issues around work load and the stipend.  Not enough people to take on the work/role and the stipend doesn’t allow for sharing of duties.  In some schools, everyone is a Program Head.

ISSUE: In order to receive the stipend, Program Heads are forced to take on a whole program: classroom and online. This is unsustainable and has made the role less appealing. 

  • Can no longer split the role unless the program cannot do it any other way. 
  • Not allowed to share the role, even if not taking the stipend
  • Members currently not asking for more Work Load Units
  • Directors are able to share role, why not Program Heads
  • Main issue is chronic under-resourcing of program supports – admin, etc.

ISSUE: Need to  review what amount of work load is Admin vs. Academic/Admin support vs.Academic management. 

  • What is minimum amount of work required for the Program Head role?
  • Is the Program Head Role the best solution or is there another way the work can be done?
  • Are conventional processes at other institutions better?
  • What is a Program Head and what do they do? Can this be addressed in Department Standards & Roles and Responsibilities Documents?
  • Admin vs. Academic vs. Community Leadership.
  • It is the “voice” of a program.
  • Needs to be done by a “people person”.

ISSUE:  Need to identify if the current practice is a violation of the CA.

ISSUE: Dean has ultimate say in Duties and Responsibilities. There is no job description for Department Heads and it varies across different schools Is it considered service work? It is not included in offer letters or contracts.

  • Who defines responsibilities in role profiles?
  • Associate vs. Coordinator vs. Head vs. Director vs. Academic

ACTION: Include questions about increased admin work load on Member survey.

ACTION: Identify possible language improvements in CA. Research other institution language.

GOAL: Have flexibility and autonomy to design the work of Program Head.  Have the ability to design, share and collaborate.

GOAL: Get role clarity; freedom to design the work; succession planning; link process to Teaching and Learning.

  • Previous Business
    • None
  • Regular Reports
    • Bargaining/JCOAA – W. Rowe

NOTE: Verbal report by K. Christie. Updated Work Load Units

  • Finance – J. Axe

NOTE: Verbal report by K. Christie. 

  • Assets: $224, 567 in Net Assets
  • Member Dues: Trending down – appears to be reporting method
  • Expenses: Trending down
  • Costs: plan to reduce meeting costs – no deserts; fewer meetings with longer timeframe.
  • Costs: Increase in office and admin costs due to increased legal costs.
  • Board of GovernorsJ. Walinga

NOTE: Quality Assurance Process – J. Walinga requested that feedback on the QA Report be sent to the Membership.

  • New programs are being hung up by Ministry, but also internal mechanisms.
  • Status of campus lands an issue.
  • Presidential search – lots of engagement by Administration.

ISSUES: Need to align workload & promotion policy to our model. Workload issues seems to be a growing concern among Members.  Is there a software that can support internal communications?

  • Academic CouncilV. McKendry

NOTE: New programs “rubber stamped”, however this council is the last opportunity to say yes or no to a new program.

NOTE: Retreat outcomes not discussed, but it is advisable to continue having an annual retreat.

NOTE: V. McKendry will have to resign as representative on the Academic Council as

ISSUE: Registrars are contemplating not collecting Student Gender data.

  • CUFA-BC CouncilK. Christie

NOTE: The two RRUFA nominees for the Distinguished Academic Award not selected, but RRUFA proud to have two nominees from a small institutions.

  • Social CommitteeJ. Walinga

NOTE: Should RRUFA continue with the Pub Nights?

  • Grievance Officer’s ReportT. Leary

NOTE: No Grievances

  • Health & SafetyH. Leighton

NOTE: Verbal report by K. Christie. No H&S issues

  • Other business
    • Conversion of Promotion – M. Jull

NOTE: There are differences in perception of what the process is.  HR has offered their website as a place for Members to get clarity.

ACTION: A Best Practices and a How to? Documents should be available on the HR website soon.  This will be good to announce to Members.

ISSUE: Differences in perception on CA Article 17 & Article 19.  It is a long-term goal to improve CA language on this process.

  • Adjournment