University Senators question legality of Susan Milburn’s position on U of S Board of Governors

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE - March 13, 2013. 

SASKATOON – Several University of Saskatchewan senators are questioning the legitimacy of new Board of Governors Chair Susan Milburn’s continuing membership on the Board, pointing out that the appointment of Ms. Milburn as the chair is fundamentally flawed according to University of Saskatchewan Act, 1995, c. U-6.1.

Senator Stefania Fortugno, a practising lawyer in Saskatoon, explains,

     In 2011 with Milburn's second and final term as Senate representative on the Board soon to expire, the Board requested that the Government appoint Milburn as one of its five appointees to the Board. However, the Government chose to appoint other individuals.

     There was a second option:  the Government was asked to amend the University’s governing legislation to enable Senate Representatives (Milburn) to serve a third term.  The legislation has not been amended.

     Milburn's maximum term expired June 30, 2012; she was granted an extension for the time being.   And yet on March 5th the Board made her Chair until 2016, four years beyond the maximum set out in the Act.

     Our argument is that the University is without doubt subject to the laws of Saskatchewan.

Knowing that Milburn’s term as a Senate-elected representative on the Board would officially expire on June 30, 2012, a new representative should have been elected at the April 2012 Senate meeting.  The Board, wishing to retain Milburn’s services in the interests of continuity, recommended to Senate that the position be left vacant for the interim while waiting for the government to address the issue. The motion was met with some opposition at Senate but passed with the understanding that this measure would be temporary and the position would be filled in 2013.

Because of her status as a provisional senate representative, a number of senators were surprised to find that on March 5, without Senate consultation, it was announced that Milburn had been selected to chair the Board until 2016. This means Milburn is expected to remain on the Board a full four years beyond her legally prescribed term as Senate representative, according the Act.  

Concerned senators ask: for how many years will the Senate be prevented from electing an appropriate representative to the Board?  The current situation requires that the Board of Governors and the Senate intentionally, actively and knowingly circumvent the Act. In Fortugno’s opinion, “This is not an example of good governance. This decision represents a failure to respect legal and democratic principles, including the rule of law.”

Susan Milburn’s skills and contributions to the University are not in question, say the senators. The law, as set out in the University Act must be respected.  The Senate needs to elect someone who can legitimately represent the Senate on the Board of Governors. This is an opportunity for the Board to uphold its legal integrity and to act on its  recently proclaimed commitment to transparency and good governance.

-30-

Please see appended information package.

Media Contacts:  Mary Jean Hande                                                Sandra Finley

  U of S Senate Member at Large                            U of S Senate Member at Large

  647-458-5326, maryjeanelizabeth@gmail.com    250-248-3526, sabest1@sasktel.net           

   

SP article: U of S aims to trim budget by 3%: Decisions still to be made.

The university had asked the province for a 5.8 per cent increase from this year's government grant. Last week's provincial budget increased provincial funding to the U of S by 2.1 per cent, aggavating an already-projected shortfall, Fairbairn said.

The latest provincial budget, plus a trend of decreasing government funds to universities across the country, are prompting the U of S to prepare itself to slash costs in the long run, Fairbairn said.

"In addition to whatever short term budget challenges we may face in the year ahead, there's a new environment for public funding of higher education that we need to take into account," he said.

Read more: 

Sask government uses U of S Nuclear Centre to pin a fig leaf over tar sands development.

Uranium production for the tar sands

Vancouver Cooperative Radio interviews author of "Follow the Yellowcake Road." 

Mark Bigland-Pritchard's SP article: Reactor Research Centre's Agenda

It is difficult to avoid the conclusion that the CCNI is the nuclear industry's chosen back-door route to achieve the goals which the people rejected so overwhelmingly, and that the Wall government is fully behind this anti-democratic move. Indeed, Enterprise Saskatchewan's 2010-2011 annual report bragged that the government was implementing 18 of the 20 recommendations in the rejected UDP report.

Meanwhile, Saskatchewan's universities are conducting scarcely any work on the renewable energy technologies (wind, solar, small hydro, sustainable biomass, etc.), smart grids and energy efficiency measures that are transforming electricity grids worldwide. A Canadian Centre for Renewable Energy Innovation would be a much better use of our money economically, environmentally, and socially.

Read more...

D'Arcy Hande's Briarpatch article on nuclear power, tarsands extraction, and the co-option of the University of Saskatchewan

Follow the Yellowcake Road

Nuclear power, tarsands extraction, and the co-option of the University of Saskatchewan

D'Arcy Hande

"After reviewing this brief history of collaboration between industry, government, and the university, one may be struck with a profound sense of the surreal. It is as though, like Dorothy, we are transported to an alternate reality, the Land of Oz. Here, all the talk is about the bright future of nuclear medicine and glittering isotopes. But go down the shady side path into the forest, and one encounters the dark underside of the nuclear agenda and its connection to tarsands extraction."

Read more... 

U of S Senators Demand Action from Board of Governors re: MacKinnon's Political Endorsement

November 3, 2011

Sandra Finley

656 Saskatchewan Crescent East

Saskatoon, SK   S7N 0L1

t 306-373-8078   e sabest1@sasktel.net

Members of the Board of Governors of the University of Saskatchewan

c/o  Dr. Lea Pennock

University Secretary

The University of Saskatchewan  

105 Administration Place

Saskatoon, SK                                               t 306-966-4632                                  

S7N 5A2                                                         e lea.pennock@usask.ca

cc:  Senators Miller, Hande, Fortugno, Schriml  (by email)

Dear Members of the Board of Governors of the University of Saskatchewan:

Re:    1.  PRESIDENT MACKINNON'S ENDORSEMENT OF ROB NORRIS' POLITICAL CAMPAIGN

See StarPhoenix, Hutton, October 28^th , at  http://www.thestarphoenix.com/news/MacKinnon+comment+conflict+prof/5620291/story.html#ixzz1c5BVLoig

“Rob Norris is the finest Minister responsible for post-secondary education that I have been privileged to work with in my thirteen years as President of the University of Saskatchewan”  (MacKinnon, September 2, 2011.)  Mr. Norris is the Saskatchewan Party candidate in Saskatoon-Greystone provincial constituency and is the incumbent Minister of Advanced Education, Employment and Immigration.  The endorsement is re-produced in his election pamphlet, with the permission of Dr. MacKinnon.

We, University Senators, request

-       In the exercise of its responsibility for the autonomy of the University, the Board of Governors censure the President for his compromising statement and subsequent authorization to use it in an election pamphlet.

Since Saskatchewan has fixed election dates, President MacKinnon would have known that this quote would be favourable to Norris’ re-election chances. He gave permission for its use after the writ was drawn up.  This is an inappropriate use of the position of President of the University.

President MacKinnon and Provost Fairbairn overrode the choice of the Search Committee for the Dean of Law to put in place University of Alberta Law Professor Anand, thesis supervisor of the president’s son.  This was also an inappropriate use of the President’s position.  It is documented at  http://sandrafinley.ca/?p=3366   

Censure is warranted.

RE:   2.  CHAIRMANSHIP OF PRESIDENTIAL SEARCH COMMITTEE

The U of S Conflict of Interest Policy states that a “Conflict of interest is a breach of an obligation to the University that has the effect of advancing one’s own interest or the interests of others in a way detrimental to the interests of, or potentially harmful to, the integrity of the University.  Conflicts of interest and the appearance of conflicts of interest must be avoided.”

We request

-        that the Board of Governors ask Governor Hopkins to permanently stand down as the Chair of the Selection Committee for the next President of the University.

Governor Hopkins is a member of the CAMECO Board of Directors since 1992, she stands to gain through her considerable holdings of CAMECO shares ($1.8 million as at end of 2009) if the University continues its friendly posture towards promoting the nuclear industry.  The University has done this in part through its hasty establishment of the Canadian Centre for Nuclear Innovation, CCNI  (University Council, 22^nd of September, 2011;  Board of Governors, October 14th, 2011).

In defence of the best traditions of the University,

_____"Sandra Finley"________

Sandra Finley, Elected Senator

On my own and on behalf of:  

Stefania Fortugno, Elected Senator

Mary Jean Hande, Elected Senator                                      

Jordan W. Miller, Elected Senator

Ronald Schriml, Elected Senator

ScandaloUS Bias

MacKinnon comment a conflict: prof

By David Hutton, The StarPhoenix October 28, 2011

"A University of Saskatchewan professor says president Peter MacKinnon's endorsement of Saskatchewan Party candidate Rob Norris in a campaign brochure is unprecedented and constitutes an "abuse of power."

read more...

Senators intend to present motions regarding Autonomy, Corporatization, Transparency and Communication at U of S Senate Meeting

The following are summarized motions that were submitted to the U of S Secretary, by elected senators, for inclusion in the October 15^th U of S Senate Meeting Agenda.  The motions were twice rejected by the Senate Executive on the basis that they were not “in order” and that they would like to “ensur[e] that sufficient time is given to the substantive issues that are on the fall meeting agenda.” As they are currently drafted, the U of S Senate Bylaws do not restrict individual Senators from placing motions on the agenda and the Senate Executive has conceded that these motions can be presented at the Senate Meeting for inclusion in the agenda.

That these motions were rejected by the Senate Executive, is just another example of the impoverished democratic climate on the U of S Senate, and emphasize the urgency of having motions such as these on the agenda. These are substantive issues that deserve proper consideration and discussion at the upcoming U of S Senate meeting and these Senators intend to see them discussed. If you’re concerned about Autonomy, Corporatization, Transparency and Communication at the University of Saskatchewan, we encourage you and all Saskatchewan community members to attend the October 15^th U of S Senate Meeting to show support for these motions.

Summaries of the three motions:

1. In light of an astonishing number of harassment and intimidation cases at the University of Saskatchewan, the senators seek clarification from the Board of Governors around the apparent dysfunctional role of the University administration in matters of dispute mediation and resolution.

2. In the past year alone, it was brought to the attention of the Board of Governors that their chair, Nancy Hopkins, appears to be in a significant conflict of interest by concurrently serving as a Cameco board member; and corporate and government interference has resulted in the inappropriate earmarking of $30 million of public money for the U of S Canadian Centre for Nuclear Innovation. Concerned that these instances represent a growing trend, the senators request clarification of issues regarding the apparent inability of the Board of Governors to protect the university autonomy from corporate and government influences. 


3.  At present, communication amongst U of S senators is restrictive and vetted by the University Secretary. USSWORD senators seek the formation of a committee to facilitate communication amongst all senators.

What: University of Saskatchewan Senate Meeting

When: 9:30AM, October 15, 2011

Where: Room 150, College of Law , University of Saskatchewan

Infographic Update

An updated infographic with footnotes has been added to the infographic page.  The infographic visually represents what appears to be a high degree of interconnectedness between the university, the government, and industry.

University/Corporate Connections

UPDATE: A new version of the chart, along with footnotes, is available here!

The following is a draft of a chart that graphically displays some of the connections between the University and the nuclear and oil industries.  It requires careful perusal, but raises some questions about the corporatization of the university.  A more developed and refined version will be available soon, so stay tuned.

Jack Jensen's Letter to the Editor, published in the Prince Albert Daily Herald

Letter to the Editor re. maximum exposure limits to radioactivity

September 6, 2011

The Editor,

Forget about the Saskatchewan government/Hitachi-GE memorandum of understanding to develop small nuclear reactors.  What is needed is fundamental research into the allowable exposure to radioactivity, regulations that have not fundamentally changed since 1958 - long before the discovery of DNA.  The nuclear industry has actively attacked such research by Eastern European universities, hence the need for a western university that wants to establish itself amongst pre-eminent universities to take up this research.  The existing  exposure limits were based on radioactivity on the skin, a relatively simple health  problem compared to exposure through inhalation or ingestion.   In the body, ‘hot’ particles created by nuclear fission are treated like their non-radioactive counterparts, radioactive iodine concentrating in the thyroid, strontium in the bones etc.  The ‘hot’ particles then continuously bombard the surrounding tissue, disrupting the DNA, which can lead to cancer. 

A short youtube video (www.youtube.com/watch?v=oBEipg81uLw) by Arnie Gundersen, Chief Engineer for Fairewinds Associates, illustrates the extent of airborne ‘hot’ particles from the meltdown of the Hitachi-designed Fukushima nuclear reactors.  Air was drawn through filters which were then examined for ‘hot’ particles.  The conclusion was that residents of Tokyo and its suburbs (population 30 million) inhaled an average of 10 ‘hot’ particles per day in April and that residents closer to Fukushima (population 2 million) inhaled  400 ‘hot’ particles per day!  How will this affect the health of these people and their descendants?  Who knows, but someone should be doing this research.

 If you agree that research into and acceptance of radiation exposure limits based on inhalation and ingestion be funded  before money is expended on creating more nuclear wastes, please advise Premier Brad Wall (premier@gov.sk.ca), Innnovation Minster Rob Norris (minister.aeei@gov.sk.ca) and U of S President Peter MacKinnon (peter.mackinnon@usask.ca).

Jack Jensen