Note that only regular members of the Association (those members who've signed blue cards), are able to make motions or vote during the meeting.
David Barnard’s term as president of the University of Manitoba is ending in 2020 and a search committee has commenced its work to find his successor.
Earlier this winter, Senate recommended that, like searches for professors, department chairs and deans, the search for the U of M’s next president be open to the public. This would mean that those candidates could be assessed by everyone in the university community, whom they ultimately serve.
That recommendation was rejected by the University’s Board of Governors.
During the Senate meeting of February 6, where members of the university committee rallied in support of an open search, it was then proposed that the search process be amended so that the short-listed candidates would make a presentation to a closed session of Senate.
The Board of Governors also rejected this suggestion.
We’ve very disappointed that the Board has chosen to treat this search like a corporate exercise. While we can’t reverse their decision, we can let the search committee know what sort of president this University needs. UMFA has sent a letter to the presidential search committee outlining the characteristics we believe are essential for the incoming president to possess. The first page of that letter is below, with the entire letter available by clicking on the image.
May 6, 2019
The newly formed Gender Solidarity Working Group continues its work. You may wonder why we refer to “gender solidarity” rather than just the prevention of sexual assault and harassment. Our reasoning is that the working group has a mandate beyond the very important work of addressing sexual assault and harassment on campus: we see that the solutions to these problems require more than merely commenting on administration’s proposed policy and procedures.
To make this campus a safe and inclusive place to work and study, we need to create a culture of standing together to support each other. Effective collective agreements, policies, and procedures are necessary to achieve this, but they aren’t enough. Most of our members never end up filing formal grievances, but many nevertheless have experiences in their daily interactions that have far-ranging consequences that can include their career progression, their mental health, their feelings about their colleagues, or their enjoyment at work.
Promoting a cultural shift is a formidable task that will require a range of activities to help us understand each other, identify barriers to gender solidarity, and ways to create it. One of the first things we need to do is let you know that they’re not alone and that we’re here to help. The Collective Agreement provides certain protections which we can help you access – please, get in touch even if you just want to ask questions. What you say to an Association rep will be kept confidential. Please also have a look at the document linked below, which outlines some of your rights and some of the ways we can help you if you’ve suffered or are suffering discrimination, harassment, or assault.
We also need to continue to let the administration know this issue is important to us all, and that their approach to these issues has to change. Recently we assembled our professional staff, grievance officers and the Gender Solidarity Working Group to compile feedback on the UM’s Respectful Workplace and Learning Environment and Sexual Assault Policies and Procedures. While those drafts contain some important steps forward in regard to providing support for survivors of sexual violence on campus, we think the administration needs to go further and fully fund an arm’s length crisis centre on campus. Our understanding is that the University’s Board of Governors will be considering a revised set of policies at its meeting on June 25, and it must be considered by the Senate before then. Before that time comes, we’ll be reaching out for your support.
For more information, click this link: Know your CA: Discrimination, Sexual Assault, and Harassment
Gender Solidarity Working Group mandate (click link or image below)
Letter to UM Administration: UMFA's comments re: draft RWLE (click link or image below)
We have all seen messages from David Barnard and the Administration over the last few months regarding their distress at the instances of sexual assault and harassment at the UM and their resolve to root out this behaviour, protect members of the UM community, and discipline the offenders.
It is an employer’s responsibility to ensure a safe workplace for their employees and, in the case of a university, its students. It is the responsibility of a faculty association to ensure that the employer meets its responsibilities to Members, and that Members subject to investigation or discipline are accorded due process.
If you have experienced harassment or sexual violence, our job is to ensure that the employer does their job – treats your complaint seriously, ensures you are safe andget access to the resources you need, and follows appropriate protocols. Members accused of sexual violence or harassment should contact the UMFA office immediately to ensure that the administration acts in accordance with law and the collective agreement.
Nevertheless, there is room for improvement of the administration’s actions and UMFA’s interventions. Late last fall the Board of Representatives formed a Gender Solidarity Working Group to contribute to defending and promoting working relations across genders. That group includes representation from the UMFA executive, our professional staff, our grievance officers, our diversity and equity committee, and the Board Representatives.
One of the first, and most important, tasks of this group will be to hold gatherings in the coming months to hear survivors’ concerns and suggestions about preventing sexual harassment and assault on campus. The results of these gatherings, in tandem with solicited additional confidential/anonymous feedback, will be used to inform UMFA policy about how Members are supported, and inform demands made to the administration.
Based on that information, as well as UMFA’s past experiences, the working group will:
We will be in touch about the best way to meet with those who’d like to share their experience and knowledge. Please don’t hesitate to contact me or the UMFA office if you need help or have any suggestions for us.
Best wishes for the rest of the term.
President's Letter: Joint committee report tough on metrics, but admin refused language protecting Members
I’m writing you today with an update on our agreement with Administration on Research metrics, contained in Appendix H of the Collective Agreement.
The agreement was to strike a joint committee to study research metrics, including bibliometrics, and have the committee determine whether to adopt additional proposed language into the collective agreement (also found in Appendix ‘H’). That language would give each individual Member the right to choose whether or not metrics would be used to assess their work. Administration and UMFA each appointed three members to the committee, and four or more votes were needed to officially adopt the language in the CA.
Following an investigation of the existing research on bibliometrics, the working group unanimously agreed to several principles, including:
The UMFA Members of the committee devoted incredible time and energy to this work. Please join me in the thanking our UMFA appointees in particular: Fletcher Baragar (Faculty of Arts), Colin Garroway (Faculty of Science), and Sherri Vokey (Health Sciences Libraries). Julie Gibbings (Faculty of Arts) also contributed.
Despite this strong indictment of research metrics, however, the three administration appointees voted against the inclusion of the language in Appendix H due to disagreement “centred around the specific language being proposed”. That collective agreement language would:
Given the report’s indictments of research metrics, we were disappointed with the administration’s refusal to give Members the right to decide when, if ever, metrics could be used to assess their own work. No details regarding the disagreements with these proposals were provided in the report. So, we sought clarity from the administration.
We requested a president’s liaison meeting in April 2018 pursuant to Section 5.4 of the collective agreement. After much back and forth, we finally met with the president’s delegates, not the president himself, on October 26, 2018. We argued that the language in Appendix H did not prohibit members from submitting research metrics, but protected members from effectively having inappropriate and biased metrics imposed upon them.
This was an opportunity for UMFA and UM to demonstrate to our members and the community that we can work together collaboratively. The language would have helped to ensure that evaluation at our university is fair, accurate, and based on a full consideration of research quality. Our stand on performance metrics, and this language, drew support from faculty associations all over the world during our strike. We would have welcomed seeing UM take a leadership role in promoting academic freedom, protecting members of equity-seeking groups, and helping ensure academic assessment continues to be based on rigourous peer evaluation.
We had originally asked to hear the administration’s answer by November 16, 2018. The administration asked for several extensions and we checked back with them several times over the intervening three months. We finally said that if we heard nothing by February 13, we would have to assume that they are rejecting our proposal and proceed accordingly.
We received their response on the day of our deadline. While we hoped otherwise, we were not surprised that administration rejected our proposal to incorporate the appendix H language. They have instead suggested that we bring the committee back to work on alternative language that can serve as a headstart in our next bargaining round.
This is not a workable solution: the language in Appendix H was the compromise language, produced after months of negotiations. It was accepted by both parties because it responded to each side’s respective concerns by leaving the question up to the discretion of each individual member rather than the administration or the union. It was to be adopted if the committee concluded that metrics were problematic, and the committee did conclude that metrics were problematic. We’re incredibly disappointed that the administration has rejected language that in 2016 they agreed could reasonably resolve the issue.
We encourage all of you to read the report (located here). We all serve on promotion, tenure, grant, and award committees, so it is essential that we understand the problems with research metrics, many of which are also applicable to the use of SEEQ’s. It is also important that we educate our graduate students as future faculty members of the dangers of research metrics. They need to be trained to perform rigourous, fair peer evaluation, and need to learn how to explain the significance of their contributions to people inside and outside their discipline without resorting to the use of research metrics.
While we were not successful in persuading UM administration to protect vulnerable members from the imposition of research metrics, we did gain language in the 2016 bargaining round that gave each of us the power to improve the situation by protecting each other. Sections 20.C.2 and 19.D.5.2, adopted in 2016, allow promotion and tenure committee members to report concerns about procedural defects to the chair of the tenure committee, the dean/director (or University Librarian in the case of a committee for an academic librarian), the VP Academic, Staff Relations, or to UMFA. If, as a committee member, you feel that the committee failed to do an assessment based on a full review of the quality of the member’s contributions, and that research metrics were used as a substitute for a more comprehensive assessment of quality and quantity, please speak up.
An even more powerful way to prevent the incursion of bibliometrics into our academic lives is through your unit’s promotion and tenure guidelines. In 2016, we won far greater control over their development: guidelines will be produced by an advisory committee elected by members. The dean ensures that the promotion/tenure criteria are fair and appropriate for all disciplines, consistent with the CA, university policies and the law: as long as this is the case, your dean/director must adopt the guidelines if the majority of members vote for their adoption. Therefore, the language on research metrics proposed in 2016 can form part of your unit’s tenure and promotion guidelines even if they are not in the collective agreement: have the advisory committee incorporate them and the members voting to approve them. You’ll find details on how to do this in a document that I’m circulating with this letter.
The collective effort of improving our working lives doesn’t end in bargaining, but continues as we exercise the rights that together we’ve won. Please read through not only the report, but the attached description of how to revisit and revise your tenure and promotion guidelines. Understanding and exercising your rights is one of the most powerful ways to extend and improve them.
For your information, Knowing and Using your CA: Tenure and Promotion - Creating Fair and Effective Guidelines
UMFA compiles a daily list of articles featuring labour and education issues in the news.
To see the latest, click here: http://www.umfa.ca/news/labour-and-education-in-the-news