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...

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

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." 

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 . . .

Corporatization at the University of Calgary

Jonathan Kay: The ‘climategate’ shoe is now on the other foot

Remember “Climategate?” That was the apparent scandal that began in 2009 when hackers downloaded and publicized thousands of emails from the Climate Research Unit of the University of East Anglia. Climate-change skeptics claimed that the emails showed that scientists were engaged in a massive conspiracy to suppress the “truth” that man-made warming was a giant hoax perpetrated by Al Gore, George Soros, the United Nations, and the Sierra Club.

As it turned out, there was no scandal. Six separate investigations into”climategate” all showed that the supposed damning evidence was just cherry-picked, decontextualized sound bites from candid discussions among scientists. As Scientific Americanmagazine reported: “Nothing in the stolen material undermines the scientific consensus that climate change is happening and that humans are to blame.” (In any event, as any thinking person already knew, the East Anglia data set was just one of several showing the massive warming pattern on earth.)

None of this subsequent investigation and exoneration has done anything to reduce the fever pitch of the warming-denier community, who see Climategate in epic terms. As I’ve argued previously, climate-change deniers think in ways that are at best cultish, and at worst conspiratorial. And they are not above twisting the available evidence in eccentric ways in order to blame warming on sunspots or (their new favourite) assorted “cosmic rays from space.”

I thought of this crowd today when I saw news that oil-industry-funded research accounts at the University of Calgary have been used to pay for anti-warming propaganda:

The records showed that the strategy was crafted by professional firms, in collaboration with well-known climate change skeptics in Canada and abroad, allowing donors to earn tax receipts by channelling their money through the university. All of the activities and $507,975 in spending were organized by the Friends of Science, an anti-Kyoto Protocol group founded by retired oil industry workers and academics who are skeptical about peer-reviewed research linking human activity to global warming observed in recent decades.

Hmmm … An academic institution’s ostensibly neutral fact-finding mission being scandalously compromised by ideologues with an axe to grind on the subject of climate science? It’s almost as if there is some kind of climate-themed Watergate-style scandal at work here …

A sort of “climate-gate,” if you will.

No doubt, we will be hearing lots of firm denunciations of this real scandal from all the same fellows who still find space in their newspaper columns to decry the fake scandal of Climate-gate. Following the latter episode in 2009, a Financial Post colleague wrote that the controversy “requires a full investigation by competent scientists and official bodies.” In his next column, I expect he will be demanding that UCalgary gets the same treatment.

National Post
jkay@nationalpost.com

Welcome to the USSWORD blog!

USSWORD is concerned to the point of taking action against the corporatization of the University of Saskatchewan.

We believe that the University is the knowledge base for the Saskatchewan community. It is intended to serve all of society; it should be funded and supported publicly without strings attached.

The gradual reduction in public funding in recent years has opened the door for the University to seek out, and thereby become beholden to, corporate funding and corporate interests.

The challenge for the University is to develop a base of support among citizens that will lobby for more satisfactory public funding and a University that serves the public interest.

This USSWORD blog site is your opportunity to get actively involved with us on these important issues.

Please take just ten minutes right now with a few simple actions that will start the process of immediate, meaningful change at the University of Saskatchewan:

• Familiarize yourself with the fundamental issues by reading the pages in this blog site
• Write a letter to the University Presidential Search Committee expressing your concerns and your vision for future leadership at U of S [must be submitted by August 31, 2011]
• Consider letting USSWORD post your letter to the Search Committee on our blog site

Drop USSWORD a few lines (confidentially if you wish) letting us know about your experiences, both positive and negative, at the University. (Your input will greatly help us Senators to raise issues in future Senate meetings.)

Corporatizing the University

The Corporatization of the University: Part I — Guest Post By Agnes Larson

Published by Briggs at 7:52 am under Culture

Agnes Larson is a long-time university insider. This article is Part I of a three-part series. Read Part II, Part III

Background

As early as 1918 Thorstein Veblen bemoaned the fact that the American university had been taken over by businessmen. No longer was a college a place of higher learning, but a specialized jobs-training workshop to prepare people for ready-made careers. Such specialization, argues Veblen, widens “the candidate’s field of ignorance while it intensifies his effectiveness within his specialty.”¹ Veblen would not be astonished to see today’s university, which is run for a most part, like a corporation. He expected nothing less.

For our purposes, the phrase “corporatization of the university” means that the university is taking on forms and structures that hitherto had been in the realm of for-profit organizations. American universities have always worked hand in hand with wealthy supporters. Often successful businessmen were sought after and appointed to the board of trustees. Walking through any campus one is bound to encounter the equivalent of Cornell University’s Sage Chapel and McGraw Tower—not named for notable faculty but for notable funders. Up for grabs these days are auditoriums, stadiums, and individual programs. Another dimension of what is loosely defined as corporatization is that presidents of universities profitably sit on boards of directors of corporations.²

Globalization

One feature of the 21st-century corporation is its often transnational nature. Universities are traditional brick-and-mortar institutions with typically one location. Land-grant universities frequently maintain some kind out outreach activity that supports their core mission, but it is not typical for these outposts to offer degree programs. This kind of university presence is different from the satellite campus—miles away from the alma mater, such as University of Michigan-Dearborn or UM-Flint. In sparsely populated areas, the community college is increasingly becoming the home of the four-year degree. The community college itself does not issue the diploma, but one of their partner schools. A student in Petoskey, Michigan can earn a bachelor’s degree in information technology from Southfield-based Lawrence Technological University without leaving town.

Another feature of the modern university is its international reach. According to the Chronicle of Higher Education, 671,616 international students, both graduate and undergraduate, were enrolled in American institutions for the 2008-09 school year. US institutions desire international students because they will pay full tuition and not require/be eligible for financial aid. As a bonus, the home school has no obligation to provide job placement. The understanding is that the students will go back home upon completion of their coursework and their job prospects are someone else’s problem.

Universities are reaching outside of the US, with mixed results. Michigan State had to close its campus in Dubai in the summer of 2010. Originally, the plan was to enroll 100-200 students into each graduating class. Cornell has more success with its outpost of the Weill Cornell Medical Center in Qatar. In 2001, President Hunter Rawlings announced that Cornell would establish the Weill Cornell Medical Center in Qatar. Cornell has made many partnerships with colleges in China. Former Cornell president, Jeffrey Lehman, is chancellor and founding dean of an American-style law program at Peking University.

There is a quieter debate than in the past regarding should an American university pursue and agenda in another country. Some try to say that the homegrown academic offerings will be diluted. Others see opportunity and more tuition dollars—through both credit and non-credit certificate programs

——————————————————–

¹Tellingly, the title of Veblem’s work is The Higher Learning in America: A Memorandum On the Conduct of Universities By Business Men, 1918.

²Goldschmidt, Nancy P. and James H. Finkelstein. “Academics on Board: University Presidents as Corporate Directors.” Academe. 2001. URL: