The MoA is long and tedious—we did the reading so you don’t have to! Our tl;dr (too long; didn’t read) series will summarize articles of the MoA and provide an analysis with a Lecturer lens.
What is program redundancy?
Our first dive is into Article 15 on program redundancy. The term is defined as follows:
“Program Redundancy refers only to direct termination of an academic program by Senate, whether or not it is accompanied by amalgamation, merger, reorganization, or full or partial closure of academic units, that may lead either to the lay-off of Members or to the transfer of Members into other academic units such that retraining will be required.”
To many of us, encountering program redundancy may seem unlikely. However, it's worthwhile to think through this "what if" scenario, especially considering the insolvency crisis that happened at Laurentian University. Ontario universities are facing the inadequacy of public funding, unstable student enrolment conditions, and increased privatization of postsecondary education.
The MoA defines an academic program as follows:
a group of courses offered by the University which may lead to a diploma, certificate, or degree;
a designated sub-discipline within a Department or Faculty;
some combination of the above.
Program redundancy may be recommended by Senate for one of two reasons:
Financial exigency (i.e., financial troubles at the university level)
bona fide academic reasons
The Senate’s recommendation is then forwarded to the Board of Governors.
What happens when a program is declared redundant?
What happens next depends on the reasons for the declaration of redundancy.
If the redundancy is declared for reasons of financial exigency, any assessment for layoff or transfer of faculty passes to the Financial Exigency Commission (FEC). This commission is comprised of three arm’s length individuals (one appointed by the University, one appointed by the association, and one jointly appointed) and two senior professors (one appointed by the University, and one appointed by the association). We will go into more detail on the FEC in our analysis of Article 16 (coming soon).
If the redundancy is declared for bona fide academic reasons, then the assessment for layoff or transfer of faculty passes to the Redundancy Committee (RC). The RC is comprised exclusively of tenured faculty members, of which three are appointed by the University, three are appointed by the association, and the Chair is jointly selected. Senior administrators (Dean or higher) and those in the affected academic programs are not eligible to serve on the RC. The RC has 60 days to prepare a report which assesses the reasons for redundancy and the impact on other programs, and provides recommendations on transfers (with rationale).
At all times, the priority of the RC, the University, and the association is “to protect the primacy of the academic work of the University” and so the University will make every effort to offer the affected faculty by either:
a transfer to another unit into an unfilled complement position (provided they are qualified or could become qualified in up to two years and that the unit agrees), or
a transfer into another unit into a new temporary complement position (provided they are qualified or could become qualified in up to two years).
Faculty presented with either of these options have 30 days to accept or reject the offer. Those accepting the transfer keep their rank, salary, and benefits.
Layoffs are considered a last resort; if the RC deems that they are unavoidable, the University has 30 days to prepare a detailed plan of action with names and timelines. Reasons for not following the recommendations from the RC must be put in writing. The association has 21 days to comment, after which the University has a further 10 days to produce the final plan, and must provide written rationale if recommendations from the association are rejected. We will go into more detail on layoffs in our analysis of Article 17 (forthcoming).
The Lecturer Perspective
An overarching point of concern for Lecturers is the fact that faculty membership in the FEC and the RC is strictly limited to tenured members. To focus on Article 15, the RC has the power to make recommendations about transfers and layoffs (although layoffs are a last resort); it is disturbing that Lecturer participation in this process is precluded.
We see two avenues to remedy the situation within the existing framework:
Ensure that tenure is extended to Lecturers; or
Change the MoA so that Lecturer membership on these committees/commissions is codified.
We believe that Option 1 is the best, given our previous discussions on tenure and the fact that policy negotiations are ongoing, which means that there is potential for a (relatively) quick resolution. Option 2 requires mutual agreement from the University and the association to review the MoA; it is unclear whether there is appetite for this, and whether Article 15 specifically would be up for rewriting. There are, of course, other options available which fall outside the current policy/MoA framework.
Full participation in collegial governance processes should be open to all faculty members, and additional care is needed to ensure that minority groups such as Lecturers have equal opportunity for participation. We deserve a seat at the table.
Comments