Policy Development

How Policy Development Works at UW

Policies establish rules and guidelines for governance matters on a wide range of topics. There are six classes of policies, which indicate which group(s) the policy applies to: F (Faculty), S (Staff), FS (Faculty & Staff), A (administrative officers), G (general), Z (TAs, RAs).

Policy 1 – Initiation and Review of University Policies describes the policy framework at UW and outlines the process to update policies. Briefly, the process works as follows:

A policy is opened for revision. This may occur in two ways: first, through a request from Senate or the Board of Governors (BoG); second, if the majority of both sides of the Faculty Relations Committee (FRC) agree to review the policy.
If only minor changes are required, they are addressed directly at FRC. If major changes are required, a policy drafting committee (PDC) with up three to six members will work on a new draft. The PDC members include one or two members appointed by the UW President, one or two members appointed by the FAUW President, and one or two members appointed by Senate.
Once the draft is prepared, it is submitted to FRC. If FRC determines that major revisions are required, the draft will get sent back to the PDC. If only minor revisions are required, FRC will implement them and pass the draft to the next step.
The draft is circulated to Senate, to the Vice-President Academic & Provost, and to the FAUW Board of directors. These bodies will consult with their respective constituencies.
Feedback from the consultation is reviewed by FRC. If the feedback from the consultation requires major changes, the draft may be returned to the PDC. FRC may also make its own revisions to the draft.
If there is support from the majority of both sides of FRC, the policy will move forward in the approval process. If such an agreement can’t be reached, the policy draft is shelved and Senate and the Board of Governors are informed.
The next approval step is the UW President. The President may approve the policy and send it to the next stage or return it to FRC stating the reasons for doing so. In the latter case, we return to step 5.
The next approval step is Senate. Senate may approve the policy and send it to the next stage or return it to FRC stating the reasons for doing so. In the latter case, we return to step 5.
The final approval step is the Board of Governors. The BoG may approve the policy and send it to the next stage or return it to FRC stating the reasons for doing so. In the latter case, we return to step 5.
Once the policy is approved by the BoG, it comes into effect.

The policy flowchart below summarizes the process.

Issues with the Policy Development Process

No set timelines: The process can be very slow!
Neither side has a legal duty to meet and bargain in good faith or to make reasonable effort to reach an agreement
Unnecessary confidentiality clauses
No ratification by the membership
Since agreement from both sides of the FRC is required to open a policy for review, it is unlikely for policies to be updated on a regular basis (e.g. every 2-3 years). Instead, policies are typically reviewed once in a faculty member’s career lifetime. This also means that many policies at UW are outdated.
No formal, codified dispute resolution process for policy development

Who are the Key Players?

SENATE:

Deals with academic matters (curriculum, admissions, appeals, degrees, faculty appointments…) at the University. Senators are typically elected by their constituencies and amongst them are included: 22 high-ranking administrators (UW President, VPs, Deans); the Presidents of the faculty, student, and graduate student associations; 18 faculty member representatives; 23 at-large faculty member representatives; 6 faculty members from the affiliated institutions; 8 undergraduate students, 4 graduate students; 4 alumni; 4 governors; and other members.

BOARD OF GOVERNORS:

Deals with any matters outside the purview of Senate (i.e., finances and operations). Governors are typically appointed and include: the UW President; the UW Chancellor; the Mayors of Waterloo and Kitchener; the Chair of Waterloo Region; 7 members appointed by Lieutenant Governor in Council; 7 members from and appointed by Senate; 5 students from and appointed by Senate (including 2 graduate students); 2 full-time staff members; 10 members from the community-at-large elected by BoG (including at least 3 alumni).

FACULTY RELATIONS COMMITTEE:

The committee is composed of 10 members in total, of which five are appointed by the Faculty Association President and five are appointed by the University President. The FRC is a place for regular discussion between members of the Faculty Association and University administrators. Negotiations pertaining to terms and conditions of employment for faculty members often occur here.

Policy
Flowchart

10 Most recent F/FS policy updates

Policy	Last Updated
03 – Sabbatical and Other Leaves for Faculty Members (F)	June 5, 2001
14 – Pregnancy and Parental Leaves (including Adoption), and the Return to Work (FS)	April 6, 2021
28 – Payment of Moving Expenses and Travel Allowances to Newly-Appointed Faculty and Staff Members (FS)	October 4, 2000
33 – Ethical Behaviour (FS)	June 30, 2010
49 – Extra-University Activity (Faculty Members) (F)	February 1, 2011
59 – Reduced Workload to Retirement (FS)	May 20, 2014
67 – Employee Assistance Program (EAP) (FS)	November 11, 2004
69 – Conflict of Interest (FS)	August 3, 2012
76 – Faculty Appointments (F)	April 5, 2011
77 – Tenure and Promotion of Faculty Members (F)	April 5, 2011

The Story of Policy 76/77 Revisions

Our take on the history of Policy 76/77 is summarized below.

Revisions began in 2014/15 and have been 8 years in the making.

The Key Players

FACULTY RELATIONS COMMITTEE:

POLICY DRAFTING COMMITTEE:

Committee of up to six members tasked to work on drafting a policy. The members include one or two members appointed by the UW President, one or two members appointed by the FAUW President, and one or two members appointed by Senate.

Timeline

2014/2015: Policy 76 is open for revision.
2015-2019: Policy Drafting Committee (PDC) works on a draft of Policy 76.
2021: The Faculty Relations Committee (FRC) supports the creation of a new PDC with a narrower directive to focus exclusively on revisions of Policy 76 as well as of Policy 77 regarding teaching stream faculty. Two representatives from the Faculty Association and two representatives from the University Administration form the new PDC. The PDC is tasked to complete the draft revisions by the end of August 2021.
August 2021: The PDC reaches tentative agreement on only a few points and fails to agree on substantial policy revisions.
November 2021: The Faculty Relations Committee reaches agreement on general terms of the policies.
December 2021: A joint memo from the Faculty Association President, and the University’s Vice-President Academic & Provost, is disseminated to faculty members. The memo summarizes points of agreement on Policies 76/77 including ranks, transition, participation in collegial governance, and pedagogical and professional development terms.
April 2022: The administration requests to change one of the points of agreement related to the pedagogical and professional development term.
May 2022: The Faculty Association has submitted a proposal for a path forward, although this has not been disclosed yet. The choice was based on a survey of which results were also not disclosed.

The Crux of the Problem

The employer is demanding that teaching stream faculty be expected to engage in scholarship of teaching and learning and demonstrate expertise in pedagogy in order to gain tenure/permanence and advance through the ranks. They have essentially reneged on the two-course reduction (Professional and Pedagogical Development term, formerly non-teaching term) that allows for adequate time and resources for this pedagogical and professional engagement. In other words, the employer does not want to provide resources for accommodating higher workload and expectations for the new teaching faculty stream.

A cost estimate for the PPD term can be found at the blog post “How much would a true non-teaching term cost?” from the FAUW Lecturers Committee. As the post discusses, the cost to the employer is quite reasonable. Where, then, is the reluctance coming from?