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...