YUFA

Restructuring

 


   Home

   Feedback

   Archive

Restructuring Update

18 Sep 06 - The YUFA caucus of the Long Range Planning Subcommittee of the Joint Committee on the Administration of the Agreement (Susan Dimock, Ruthanna Dyer, Penni Stewart, Walter Whiteley and Brenda Hart) began communicating with YUFA members about the important issue of restructuring in a Restructuring Advisory in late August. This is an update to members. Significant developments have occurred since our issuing of the Advisory, including release by the Liberal Studies Working Group (chaired by Vice President Academic Sheila Embleton and endorsed by Deans Lenton and Drummond) of a “Draft Discussion Paper re. Restructuring on the Keele Campus of York University” (Pages 1-5 and 6-7; PDF) and a meeting of the Joint Long Range Planning Committee. The latter meeting took place on September 8, and was attended by all of the YUFA members of the Committee; the Employer was represented by Vice Presidents Embleton (Academic) and Brewer (Finance and Administration), Deans Drummond (Arts) and Lenton (Atkinson), Brian Abner (Associate Vice President Academic Resource Planning), Dianne Piaskoski (Senior Data and Statistics Officer) and Barry Miller (Director of Academic Employee Relations). In this update we refer to our understanding of the Employer’s position on a number of issues, as gleaned both from the Draft Discussion Paper and our meeting with them; this should be viewed as an exchange of information and not be construed as agreement with their position. We are not speaking for the Employer or the Administration of the University in what follows.

THREE OPTIONS (CURRENT CONFIGURATION OF FACULTIES NOT AMONG THEM)

The Draft Discussion Paper makes clear that the Employer does not consider the current configuration of Faculties to be an option. “It is clear that the status quo is no longer an option.” (p. 3) Restructuring will be imposed (subject to approval of Senate, about which we say more below). In this round of discussions it is restructuring within the Faculties of Arts and Atkinson that is contemplated, but the remarks that preface the options make clear that wider-ranging reviews are being undertaken, and colleagues outside of Arts and Atkinson should carefully consider the possible implications of each option for their futures. If a new Faculty focused around “liberal and professional studies” is created, for example, it is conceivable that the current Faculties of Education and / or Environmental Studies could in the future been deemed to be appropriately housed within such a Faculty. As the positioning of the options makes clear, this is only one stage in a comprehensive restructuring of academic programs at York: the creation of the Faculty of Health has been accomplished, the reorganization of Arts and Atkinson is upon us, and what is to follow though unclear in detail is certainly part of a larger process involving a majority of faculty at York.

The Draft Discussion Paper lays out three possible options for reorganizing the academic programs currently being offered by Arts and Atkinson. Quoting directly from the Discussion Paper, those options are as follows.

Option A: Single Faculty encompassing units and programs currently in the Faculty of Arts and the Atkinson Faculty of Liberal and Professional Studies, including the “professionally-relevant” programs offered in Atkinson.

Option B: Two Faculties: one focused around arts areas (humanities and social sciences) and one around liberal and professional studies (i.e., liberal studies-based professional programmes, e.g., Social Work, and professionally related liberal studies programmes). The latter sub-category would include liberal arts programmes whose focus of attention is a professional area and in which a professional stream exists or might be created to complement a critical liberal studies focus (e.g., Communications Studies, Applied Communications Studies).

Option C: Two Faculties: one focused around Humanities (and related professional programs) and one focused around Social Sciences (and related professional programs).

The Discussion Paper provides the central advantages and disadvantages, as seem from the Employer’s point of view, with respect to each option. It also indicates that Option C, which would see the creation of separate Faculties of Humanities and Social Sciences, “has not yet [been] discussed with the Working Group,” though our understanding from consultations with a number of members of the Working Group is that this idea was discussed and rejected as incompatible with the vision of York as the interdisciplinary university and would be too disruptive to a number of existing interdisciplinary programs to be workable. It is our understanding from our Long Range Planning meeting with the Employer that they, too, are aware of the resistance to such a proposal and that they do not consider it to be as viable an option as A or B.

A FOURTH OPTION

YUFA has been informed by John Parkinson, a colleague from Atkinson who has participated in the discussions of the Liberal Studies Working Group, that a fourth option has also been discussed and endorsed by some members of the Group.

Option D: Creation of a Faculty of Commerce and Information Technology. It would consist of (at least) the following Atkinson units: the School of Administrative Studies; the School of Information Technology; the Department of Economics. It might also include the School of Public Policy and Administration.

Though this option was not put forward by Vice President Embleton and Deans Drummond and Lenton in the Draft Discussion Paper, it is our understanding that on Wednesday, 6 September 2006 a motion to create such a Faculty was put to a straw vote at the Working Group, which resulting in 17 votes for and none against. We leave it to those who have developed this proposal to explain its rationale, which has considerable merit.

There are, then, four options thus far offered for our consideration. As a result of deliberations within academic units, more may emerge.

CONSULTATION PROCESS AND TIMELINES

The Discussion Paper makes clear, and the point was forcefully reinforced in our meeting with the Employer, that the Employer intends to rely upon what it called the “APPC process” (Brian Abner) in consultations over the Fall term. What that means is that the Senate Academic Policy and Planning Committee (APPC) will be charged with ensuring that appropriate consultations are conducted. This will include “opportunities for discussion in every Faculty Council and at least one open forum for faculty, staff and students.” (p. 6) It is not clear whether the latter refers to a single open forum or whether it contemplates separate open fora for each of the constituencies named. In either case, our discussion made clear that the Employer envisions consultations taking place principally through the structures of Senate, including Faculty Councils.

It is thus imperative that academic units begin discussions within their units as to their preferences with respect to the options presented and any substantive barriers to restructuring activities. It is our hope that there will be extensive collegial discussions of the options and their implications for the academic missions of units at the local level, so as to ensure that Chairs and other delegates to Faculty Councils will be able to bring the views of their units to the discussions at their Councils. All YUFA members are members of their respective Faculty Councils.

The time frame envisioned in the Discussion Paper is aggressive. Consultations will take place over the Fall 2006 term. If an acceptable and achievable consensus emerges from those consultations, the Employer hopes to develop a proposal early in the Winter 2007 term for consideration by Senate. Needless to say, we urge all YUFA members of Senate to participate in discussions of these issues at Senate, and ensure that the views of their respective Faculties are fully represented. As with the creation of the Faculty of Health, the Employer indicates that it will seek Senate approval of an option for the restructuring of Faculties before “details of implementation will be developed and put into effect”. The Discussion Paper contemplates that details of implementation will be developed by “the administration, bargaining units, and colleagues in the affected Faculties and units.” (p. 7) The Document indicates that the Employer has established a target date of July 1, 2008 for implementation, and in our discussions this target was explained by the need to reduce uncertainty about the future of particular units and faculty hiring plans.

MERGERS

Under any of the proposed options, some academic units and programs currently within Atkinson and Arts will be merged. Our first Advisory indicated some of the many issues that such mergers will raise, and the kinds of issues that must be resolved if such mergers are to take place in such a way that we have adequate resources to fulfill our professional responsibilities under our Collective Agreement.

In order to assist YUFA members in thinking through possible merger agreements with colleagues from other Faculties, we will post on the YUFA Website restructuring page agreements which have already been completed. These include the consolidation of Psychology units and programs in the Faculty of Health, the amalgamation of Information Technology programs in the School of Information Technology in Atkinson, consolidation of Public Policy programs in Atkinson, consolidation of Natural Science programs (including Natural Science and Science and Technology Studies) in the Division of Natural Science in the Faculty of Science and Engineering, and consolidation of Mathematics and Statistics in the Faculty of Science and Engineering (pending its approval by the Mathematics and Statistics Council). We hope that access to these documents will aid colleagues in thinking through the complex issues they will face in both the consideration of each restructuring option and the consolidation of programs in the future.

THE ROLE OF “ACADEMIC UNITS” IN RESTRUCTURING

The Collective Agreement recognizes the role of “academic units” within academic planning, including decisions concerning restructuring. Article 18.27 states:

The parties recognize the importance of effective academic planning in maintaining the well-being of the University. In exercising its role in the academic planning process, in particular through its decisions concerning the disposition of the University’s resources, the Employer shall respect the role of Senate in academic matters and shall also make reasonable efforts to ensure that all planning proposals are in conformity with the provisions of this Agreement. Further, in conformity with the collegial role in academic planning, the Employer shall inform academic units as early as possible of any proposal that would affect them, and shall provide academic units with reasonable opportunity to participate in the planning process. (Emphasis added)

Thus it is as academic units that members must consider which possible administrative structures would best serve their academic priorities and enable them to provide the academic programs that they wish to mount. Negotiations will then take place between units and their respective Deans concerning the provision of resources for those academic programs.

RIGHTS UNDER THE YUFA COLLECTIVE AGREEMENT

The Employer has extensive rights to redeploy YUFA members, including by compulsion. Such decisions may be occasioned by “efforts to implement a Senate-approved decision establishing particular academic priorities or emphases among programmes / units or within programmes / units.” (Article 18.32 (a)) The creation of new Faculties by Senate falls within the terms contemplated under the Collective Agreement which would allow the Employer to permanently transfer an employee’s unit of appointment without his or her consent.

The provisions of the Collective Agreement relevant to Restructuring and Redeployment are Articles 18.27-18.36.

Because the consolidation of programs currently within the Faculties of Arts and Atkinson will require the new amalgamated unit to provide programs to part-time students, members of the new unit may be required to make courses available in the summer, evenings, weekends and by Internet. The Collective Agreement allows that summer teaching may be assigned without the consent of the faculty member or librarian to whom it is assigned. Articles 18.22-18.24 stipulate the limitations upon such assignments. The Employer has indicated, however, that it recognizes that in redistributing responsibilities for part-time students to academic units which did not traditionally have such responsibilities, it is preferable that such responsibilities be assigned according to collegial processes. Because a faculty member will not normally be required to teach in three consecutive terms, or for more than 10 consecutive months, as a result of compulsory summer teaching assignments (Article 18.24), YUFA believes that units should consider adopting a three semester approach to the assignment of both teaching and service responsibilities. This may require adjustments to the academic administrative positions within units, as well as to how unit committee work is structured. Our understanding of the Employer’s position is that it is open to proposals which introduce the kind of flexibility needed to ensure that faculty members have sufficient time to engage in research and professional / scholarly / artistic pursuits within structures that contemplate extended teaching responsibilities. Article 18.08.1 of the Collective Agreement commits the parties to ensuring that teaching assignments are equitable, including compulsory summer teaching.

There is special protection for untenured faculty members while in candidacy. Article 18.36 states that “No employee shall be compulsorily transferred during his / her period of candidacy.” It is unclear, however, how this vulnerable group of colleagues will be able to enforce this right if their entire academic units moves or is moved from one Faculty to another. We urge all tenured YUFA members to consider the unique needs of our pre-tenure colleagues in their planning.

OPPORTUNITIES ARISING FROM EXTENDED TEACHING TIMES

YUFA is concerned to ensure that decisions concerning the assignment of teaching within the expanded teaching terms contemplated by restructuring are voluntary and equitable, consistent with the equitable distribution of service assignments, and made in such a way as to allow members adequate time free from teaching and service commitments to also fulfill their responsibilities for research, scholarly and creative activities. Collegial decision making with respect to such matters must be preserved.

Yet YUFA also recognizes that expanded teaching schedules may provide welcome opportunities within units to restructure how they fulfill their professional responsibilities and may provide new opportunities for program development. It may also be a positive opportunity for those units which have graduate programs, both by expanding the range of teaching opportunities in the Fall and Winter terms for graduate teaching assistants, and by making it easier for units to provide teaching assignments to graduate students in the Summer term, thus enhancing the quality of the summer guarantee. Units may wish to take such possibilities into account in their planning processes.

EMPLOYER RESPONSE TO PRINCIPLES

As we informed members in our Restructuring Advisory, the YUFA caucus of the Long Range Planning Subcommittee of JCOAA put to the Employer the following principles which we believe must be respected in restructuring.

  1. No YUFA member should be penalized or disadvantaged by a merger or transfer, including with respect to normal teaching load, workload, or support for their professional responsibilities under Articles 11 and 18. 

  2. Teaching loads in newly formed or amalgamated units should not exceed the uppermost load already existing in a Faculty, as established in the workload documents filed with JCOAA. Units that do not have up-to-date workload documents filed with JCOAA must correct this, and those documents must comply with all relevant provisions of the Collective Agreement. 

  3. There should be parity with respect to workload and resources across units in interdisciplinary programs. 

  4. The Vice-President Academic must ensure that transfers include the proper resources to enable YUFA members to continue to perform their full range of professional responsibilities at current levels or better (including but not limited to YUSA staff, computer support, replacement positions, conference travel funding, research funding and support).

  5. The Vice-President Academic must ensure that transfers include release time for academic administrative positions under Appendix P, as well as any occasional release that is required to meet extraordinary service commitments (such as curricular redesign or program review) required by transfers and mergers.

  6. Transition costs generated by transfers / mergers should be cost-neutral to the units being transferred / merged.

These principles were provided to the Employer on May 7, 2006. At our meeting with the Employer on September 8, 2006 we received their initial response to these principles. Speaking candidly, that response was for the most part deeply unsatisfying. Semantic word games, obfuscations, and a seeming unwillingness to distinguish between general principles, operational policies and possible anomalies impeded our ability to reach agreement on the majority of them. Principles 1 to 3 were rejected. Principle 4 was deemed to be covered by Article 18.37 of the Collective Agreement. Principle 5 was better received, with the Employer recognizing that additional resources may need to be made available to units during the restructuring process, but indicating that they could not be guaranteed. Rather, we were informed that Deans would be willing to negotiate such requests for additional course releases as needed, and that such requests would be favourably considered. Finally, Principle 6 was accepted, with the Employer accepting YUFA’s position that the costs associated with transfers / mergers would not be charged against academic units’ operating budgets. There was, however, no detailed discussion of what types of costs might accrue and thus be included under the terms of this principle.

What was interesting about the discussion of principles was that the Employer repeatedly insisted that it could not agree to the very general principles that we had proposed with respect to workload, teaching loads and support for research because doing so would unacceptably limit the kind of flexibility it wants academic units to have in their own planning. The theme of unit planning was returned to frequently, and the Employer repeatedly indicated that it wanted to allow units to decide for themselves how teaching loads and other aspects of professional responsibilities would be determined. We take this as clear support for the advice offered in our initial Advisory: we have an opportunity to rethink virtually all aspects of our academic programs, collegial structures and workload distribution. If we do not take that opportunity, the Employer may exercise its rights under the Collective Agreement to impose significant change upon us. All of this is, of course, predicated upon an assumption that a major change in the configuration of Faculties on the Keele campus level will be proposed to and ultimately approved by Senate. Whether that comes to pass will itself be determined by the will and engagement of YUFA members, who comprise a majority on Senate.

YUFA SUPPORT

Various members of YUFA have been engaged with the issues posed by restructuring, and they are a valuable resource. Your representatives on the Long Range Planning Subcommittee have issued these advisories in an effort to assist members. We shall provide on-going information on the restructuring webpage. We shall also be holding an information session for YUFA members on Thursday, October 5, 2006 from 1:30-3:30 in S167 Ross Building. We hope that members will come and share information about what is happening in their units and Faculty Councils with respect to developing a response to the Discussion Paper, their experiences in negotiating transfer agreements, etc. The members of the Long Range Planning Subcommittee will be there to answer any questions that you may have and to facilitate a strategic discussion about how YUFA members may move through this uncertain period. As always, the YUFA staff are available to discuss any concerns that individual members identify or groups of members share.