Deadly Legacy

By Bryan Lee, The Starphoenix March 20, 2015 6:03 AM
http://www.thestarphoenix.com/technology/Deadly+legacy/10905348/story.html

Neil Alexander, executive director of the Fedoruk Centre stated in an interview that Saskatchewan's future could be much brighter, richer and cleaner if the province embraces nuclear power.

Brighter? For Cameco, Areva, Rio Tinto and others including Alexander. Richer? For the same groups. Cleaner? Enriched uranium causes cancer and birth defects. Enriched uranium placed in nuclear reactors to create steam to drive an electric turbine is the most lethal, toxic material known to humankind. Reprocessing of the high level toxic material produces plutonium that is only used for military purposes.

Science has never discovered how to detoxify or neutralize this material, which future generations will have to contend with for millennia.

I am disappointed that the Saskatchewan government funds the Fedoruk Centre and that the University of Saskatchewan continues to be influenced by the corporate interests. It amazes me that a public institution of higher learning promotes the nuclear agenda.

I am further disappointed at Premier Brad Wall's comment that, "The only program for First Nations and Metis is Cameco." This comment and the premier's international travel to sell uranium certainly underscore the need for leadership in the Saskatchewan legislature.

Bryan Lee

Metis representative on the U of S Senate

Christopher Lake

© Copyright The StarPhoenix

Columbia University launches community wide program to address rape culture

Columbia student Emma Sulkowicz vowed to carry her mattress everywhere she went until her alleged rapist was expelled from university. 

Emma Sulkowicz's #CarryThatWeight project (which she is doing as her thesis) garnered international attention. Rape culture on university campuses is an urgent problem and Emma's project inspired support from students across the USA - as survivors are feeling let down by the institutions that are supposed to protect them.  

This semester Columbia University launched the "Sexual Respect and Community Citizenship Initiative." As one part of this initiative, all Columbia students are taking part in new, required programming that explores the relationship between sexual respect and community membership. 

The programming options available to students include workshops, trainings, film screenings with discussion, videos and reflections, an arts option, and keys to resiliency, which are offerings specially intended for survivors, those who support survivors and others who have experienced trauma. 

Programs like this are a step in the right direction. However - Kirby Dick, director of a new documentary about rape on campus points out in his recent CBC interview that rape culture is alive and well.



In Canada 1 in 4 women will be sexually assaulted, that number is higher for first nations women and 83% of women with disabilities will be sexually assaulted in their lifetime. The impact this has on our communities can be addressed in a meaningful way and the University of Saskatchewan can play an integral role in setting an example for universities across Canada by raising standards, responsibility and expectations. 

VOTE NOW! 2014 U of S Senate Elections

The 2014 University of Saskatchewan (U of S) Senate elections are upon us (May 5 – June 20, 2014). As the U of S Senate is "the University’s window on the Province, and the Province’s Window on the University,” all members of U of S alumni are invited to elect Senate representatives.

All pertinent information for voting (including candidate profiles) can be found on the here. To vote, you must use your username (NSID) and click on the “vote” tab on the paws.usask.ca website. If you do not know what your NSID is, be sure to contact the U of S Secretary at university.secretary@usask.ca.

Read more...

Recent Closure of Emma Lake Kenderdine Campus

"The U of S recently announced the suspension of operations at the campus at Emma Lake north of Prince Albert, which has offered classes for biologists, fine arts students and others since 1935."

Read more...

Petition to Stop the Closure of the Kenderdine Campus. Sign here.

U of S Students Protest Tuition Hikes at Fall Senate Meeting

University of Saskatchewan students interrupted the fall Senate Meeting with a "mic check" voicing their opposition to tuition hikes and selling the university to the "military industrial complex, the nuclear industry or any other corporate interest." The video has since gone viral, circulating amongst networks from around the world. This is linked to repeated presentations and articles regarding the University of Saskatchewan intimate connections to the nuclear industry, namely Cameco, and now, more recently the war economy, namely Lockheed Martin.

See the video:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cavOfjaIi54

The Dominion Article: Green Bitumen?!

How is the University of Saskatchewan aiding nuclear development for tar sands extraction? Hande and Bigland-Pritchard explore the issue in The Dominion's latest issue.

"Largely outside public purview, and in close collaboration with the University administration, the Canadian Centre for Nuclear Innovation (CCNI) was established in 2011 with $30 million of government seed money, as was reported in Briarpatch earlier this year. In the CCNI Business Framework, the government establishes that CCNI must meet expectations for nuclear industry enhancement over the next seven years. In a linked move, the Hitachi business group was also funded to conduct "research into the design and feasibility of small reactor technologies," according to a 2011 Saskatchewan government news release."

Read more...

Statement of solidarity with the people of Québec

Statement of solidarity with the people of Québec

As organizers, activists and members of marginalized communities we are well aware of our governments’ austerity agenda. We know our governments are becoming less interested in the welfare of our society and particularly the education of citizens, as we continue to experience the effects of corporatization, and attacks on academic integrity and accessible education.

On May 22nd, 2012 more than hundreds of thousands students took to the streets of Montréal to commemorate the 100-day mark of the movement for change spearheaded by students in Québec. As a vanguard in the struggle for accessible education, Québec has demonstrated to the rest of Canada that people power can and will change policies at the federal, provincial and municipal levels. Students have been on strike and out on the streets for more than six months and continue to form larger and stronger contingents to demand accessible education for all.

The Saskatchewan community has rallied as well.  On May 30, 2012 several hundred Regina and Saskatoon residents marched through the streets, banging pots and pans in solidarity with Montréal students, but also bringing attention to issues of rising tuition and student debt in Saskatchewan as well. Our community recognizes that increased corporate donations, funding with strings attached, and ill-conceived austerity measures at the University of Saskatchewan have not benefited the student body or contributed to the well-being of the institution. The Saskatchewan government has reduced its share of public funding for advanced education, throwing the U of S into financial crisis; social science and humanities programs are being gutted in favor of industry-friendly programs skewing research towards corporate interest, not the public good. As a result, overall academic integrity has been systematically undermined. To make matters worse, tuition rates are higher than ever—increasing well above the rate of inflation—with no plan to reduce or even freeze student costs. It is time for Saskatchewan to reclaim the University.

In our efforts to address the issue of corporatization at the University of Saskatchewan and reclaim the University for the people, University Senators in Saskatchewan WOrking to Revive Democracy (USSWORD) stands in solidarity with the Québec student strike. We continue to work towards a University that:

1)   Is accountable to the public,

2)   Serves the public interest,

3)   Is accessible to the public and

4)   Esteems academic integrity, freedom and autonomy.

What started as a student strike has become a nation-wide movement against the criminalization of dissent following the legislative response of the provincial government of Québec. We believe in the power of direct action and the right for students and supporters to protest and demonstrate in public. What is denied in Québec today may soon be denied across our entire nation tomorrow.

We support the efforts of organizers and activists as they present clear demands for accessible education, environmental sustainability, financial transparency, an end to police brutality and the right to free speech. We will demonstrate in solidarity and wear our red squares with pride as we continue to connect our struggles and fuel this movement as it spreads nation-wide.  

Join us.

Please contact USSWORD (ussword@gmail.com) for more information or to “sign on” as a supporter. 

The following groups and individuals support this statement: Saskatoon Casserole, Anna Dipple (URSU VP External Affairs), Council of Canadians (Saskatoon Chapter), Regina Public Interest Research Group (RPIRG)…

U of S in a $15.5 million deficit for 2012-13. Town Hall meeting called to discuss options

Financial Town Hall May 16, 2012

U of S Campus Community,

As part of the ongoing process related to the current financial pressures our university is facing, we are holding our next Financial Town Hall (on the topic of "Emerging Strategy") on May 16 at 11:30 am in Convocation Hall. Everyone is welcome and we encourage you to attend. You may also watch the event live online at www.usask.ca/finances

At this town hall, we will talk about how the university's plans have started to come together since the last town hall on April 3, including the process, governance and timelines of upcoming initiatives to balance the university's budget. We will also discuss how your ideas assist in forming the strategy to narrow the gap between our revenue and expenses.

As you now know, we face a potential shortfall of $20 million to $40 million annually by 2016. The first challenge in narrowing this gap between our revenues and expenses will be to address the projected $15.5 million deficit for 2012-13. At their May meeting, the Board of Governors will consider actions that can be taken to mitigate a portion of the 2012-13 projected deficit through the detailed operating budget; details of these actions will be shared with you at the May 16 town hall.

In connection with the first town hall, we asked you for your ideas, comments and suggestions. We have heard from individuals from all areas of campus, including students, alumni, staff and faculty. We are very pleased with the participation we have seen so far, and we continue to look to all of you to share your thoughts with us atfinances@usask.ca. 

Submitted ideas range from short-term to long-term solutions and include suggestions such as offering more online classes, allowing more flexible work weeks and looking at more energy-efficient options to reduce utility expenses. On behalf of the Provost’s Committee on Integrated Planning (PCIP), the two of us are assembling an ad hoc committee to oversee the process of budget adjustments and to receive and consider ideas from across the campus. This committee will consider these ideas as we use the initial campus community consultations to co-ordinate a strategy to address the gap. At the town hall we will say more about this committee and its make-up.

Hearing from you will continue to be a vital part of this process. Key to our deliberations and actions as a university will be focus: focus on the priorities all of us have already identified in integrated planning; focus on choices; and focus on sustainable long-term solutions. In light of the budget pressures we face, we must continue to invest our resources in the areas we have identified in Promise and Potential, our third integrated plan, while also mitigating the risks inherent in our situation.

For more information, including the presentation and video from the last financial town hall, we encourage you to visit www.usask.ca/finances

Kind regards, 

Brett Fairbairn
Provost and Vice-President Academic 

Greg Fowler
Acting Vice-President Finance and Resources 

For more information, contact:
Provost's Office at 966-8484

Open Letter by Professor Emeritus Michael Hayden Re: Proposed revisions to Senate Bylaws

April 19, 2012

An Open Letter to the University of Saskatchewan Senate

            In my opinion, as the author of the only peer reviewed history of the University of Saskatchewan, the proposed revisions to the bylaws of the U of S Senate are a further step in a decade-long multilevel process of substantially increasing the number of university administrators and giving them greater powers though the development of complex bureaucratic procedures, while turning faculty members into employees and students into customers. Now the plan is to reduce senators to silent observers, acquiescing to the top-down dictates of the university cum corporation. 

            The original senate was the supreme academic body of the U of S. The majority of its members were elected by Convocation. Over time university and appointed members came to  outnumber elected members. The University Council was originally the executive of the Senate.  In 1909 the Council became a faculty council and it evolved into the major academic body. Thus historically the Senate had become a rubber stamp, though it retained and occasionally used certain powers such as determining affiliation.

            The 1968 University Act maintained the Senate’s powers, but in a 1970 amendment many of these powers were transferred to Council.  In the 1968 Act the Senate became a means for the university to explain itself to the public and provided a forum for the public to present non-binding suggestions to the university.

            Inspired by the 1990 report of the Governance Committee of Issues and Options, whose primary author was Peter MacKinnon, the University of Saskatchewan Act of 1995 gave the Senate two special powers. The first is to “recommend to the board or the council any matters or things that the senate considers necessary to promote the interests of the university or to carry out the purposes of this act.” The second is to “do any other thing that the senate considers necessary, incidental or conducive to exercising its powers, to promote the best interests of the university or to meeting the purposes of this act.”

            The proposed bylaws begin with a noble statement that seems to support the Senate’s function as the university’s window on the province and the province’s window on the university.  But the bylaws then severely restrict the ability of members of the senate to exercise the powers granted to it in the University Act by greatly reducing the types of issues that may be raised and by giving too much power to the executive to determine which of the now restricted  allowable issues may actually be discussed.   In my opinion, in the interest of preserving the mandate of the Senate, as reflected in the 1995 Act, the proposed revisions are regressive and I urge senators to give them serious reconsideration.

Michael Hayden

Professor Emeritus of History

University of Saskatchewan

Media Advisory: Would proposed bylaw revisions further restrict democratic debate in U of S Senate?

Proposed U of S Senate bylaw revisions further limit senators’ ability to act as “province’s window on the University” and unnecessarily divide senators.

What: University of Saskatchewan Senate Meeting

When: 8:30AM, April 21, 2012

Where: Exeter Room, Marquis Hall, University of Saskatchewan

At the upcoming Senate meeting, an ad hoc committee will present revisions to meeting procedures for approval by senators. These revisions grant the Senate Executive Committee the authority to reject motions based on criteria of “personal claim or redressing a personal grievance against the University, any employee, officer or director of the University, or any body of the University, or primarily for the purpose of promoting general economic, political, racial, religious, social or similar causes unrelated to the activities of the University."

Several University senators and alumni believe that this language is too general, leaving room for the Executive Committee to reject potentially valid motions. These senators believe that it is important to have the ability to debate matters of politics, economics and environment to fulfill their role as the province’s “window onto the university,” as stated in the preamble to the proposed bylaw revisions. Such issues are just as vitally important to the University as they are to everyday Saskatchewan citizens.

“I would like to see senators achieve as close to consensus as possible,” said Jordan Miller,  “At present, the proposed revisions are likely to create great divisions in the Senate body that are entirely unnecessary.”  

In light of these concerns, USSWORD senators will argue that many of the proposed revisions should be returned to the committee for further consideration.

The proposed bylaw revisions can be found in the April 21, 2012 Senate meeting agenda

(p. 123). 

Since the Senate is the bridge between the U of S and the Saskatchewan community at large, the public is always welcome and encouraged to attend Senate meetings. 

Rejected USSWORD motions

The following motions were presented by USSWORD senators and rejected because the Senate Executive Committee, "was guided by the principles underlying the draft procedures and bylaws that will come before Senate at the upcoming meeting, and also by the belief that these matters are outside the purview of Senate." A discussion of the proposed bylaws can be found here. 

Motion A

  

PRESENTED BY: Mary Jean Hande, Member at Large and Jordan Miller, Member at Large

DATE OF MEETING: April 21, 2012

SUBJECT:             Clarification as to actions taken by the Board of Governors Chair and the                                    President to avoid potential conflict of interest.

DECISION REQUESTED:

                        It is recommended:

That the Senate assembled here asks clarification from the Board of Governors as to whether or not Ms. Hopkins and Dr. MacKinnon recused themselves from the discussion and vote regarding appointment of the CCNI board of directors on December 9, 2011 and, if they did not, to determine if these governors were in a conflict of interest by participating in that discussion and vote.

                       

SUMMARY:

The University Conflict of Interest Policy (http://www.usask.ca/university_secretary/policies/operations/4_01_01.php) sets out that it may constitute a conflict of interest should employees or governors of the University:

·       Accept gratuities, gifts or special favors from entities or individuals with which the University does or may conduct business; or

·       Influence the appointment of family members, relatives and affiliates to positions at the University.

The University Board of Governors appointed the board of directors for the Canadian Centre for Nuclear Innovation (CCNI) at its meeting of December 9, 2011.

The Digest of Board of Governors minutes indicates that Cameco vice-president Engie Ozberk was among those appointed to the CCNI board of directors. However, this digest of minutes does not indicate whether or not President Peter Mackinnon and Board of Governors Chair Nancy Hopkins recused themselves from the discussion and vote regarding appointment of the CCNI board of directors on December 9.

In light of the fact that Ms. Hopkins is a shareholder and member of the Cameco board of directors, and that Dr. MacKinnon accepted a gift of an excursion to Cameco’s northern operations and its lodge on Yalowega Lake in 2009, as reported to the Board of Governors in October 2009, there is reason to believe their apparent failure to recuse themselves from the above mentioned discussion and vote constitutes a conflict of interest.

Motion B

PRESENTED BY: Sandra Finley, Member at Large and Mary Jean Hande, Member at Large

DATE OF MEETING: April 21, 2012

SUBJECT: Developing an explicit policy to outline standards of conduct regarding political endorsements by University administrators

DECISION REQUESTED:

                        It is recommended:

That the Senate assembled here urges the University Administration and the Board of Governors to develop an explicit policy to outline the standard of conduct regarding political endorsements by University administrators.

                       

SUMMARY:

The Bylaws of the University Board of Governors (III. 5) stipulate that it is the responsibility of all governors “to protect and defend University autonomy.” To that end it has always been convention that the University President maintains public neutrality in partisan political affairs.

However, in the 2011 provincial general election the current University of Saskatchewan President publicly endorsed the candidacy of the current Minister of Advanced Education.

In one of his election campaign brochures, the Minister Norris, candidate in Saskatoon Greystone, quoted Dr. Mackinnon as saying, “"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."

The President gave explicit permission to the Minister to use this quote for his campaign material as documented in an article in The Star Phoenix: “Norris's office asked for permission and MacKinnon said he did not object” (David Hutton, October 28, 2011). In fact, the President stated that the Minister "was entitled to use it” and the Minister noted that, "(Endorsements are) appreciated as they arrive" (ibid). These facts are corroborated by reports of private conversations with both Dr. MacKinnon and Mr. Norris.

ATTACHMENTS:

1.     David Hutton’s October 28, 2011 article in The Star Phoenix, “MacKinnon comment a conflict: prof.”

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... 

Senate Election 2012

It's time again for U of S Senate Elections nominations!! Please send in your nominations before March 1, 2012.
Please visit the website of the Office of the University Secretary for more information and nomination forms!

http://www.usask.ca/university_secretary/senate/senate_elections.php

From the website of the Office of the University Secretary:

"An election will be held in the spring of 2012 for seven (7) Senate districts and five (5) member at large positions that expire on June 30, 2012. Elected Senators serve three-year terms beginning July 1 and are eligible for re-election to a second consecutive term.

As a Senator, you are part of the university's tri-cameral governance structure (Board of Governors, Council and Senate), and are responsible for some critical areas of operations, including: Non-academic student discipline; granting honorary degrees; establishment or disestablishment of colleges, schools and departments; examinations for professional societies; and promoting the interests at the U of S."

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...

U of S Administration uses legal system to threaten and intimidate.

Long time U of S Professor likens University administration to the Politburo

The University of Saskatchewan . . .  is no longer the People's University of Saskatchewan that it was intended to be when first chartered near the turn of the century. Governing bodies at the University of Saskatchewan are virtually meaningless in a democratic sense.  The “politburo rules”. Members of Council tend to go along with what the Presidents, vice-presidents, deans, vice-deans and administrative advisors come up with, which have been very much influenced by corporate interests and corporate donations of late.  Faculty members of Council seem to live in an unconscious and understandable climate of fear—they do not want to oppose administrative plans for fear of keeping their own programs at the departmental level viable and properly funded. They tend to express homilies in support of top-down policies already made. They are constantly intimidated by the cycle of departmental reviews mandated by the former Provost as well as the tedious, time-consuming, ever-present, and incomprehensible Integrated Planning cycles, where the University collectively contemplates its navel rather than getting on with the job of actually serving students and the people of Saskatchewan .

read more . . .