1. No category

10 (b)
(2015-04)
Report of the Ad Hoc Committee to Review The Application for Class A membership in CAUT by the Mount Royal Faculty Association Vic Catano Saint Mary’s University March 16, 2015 I have been appointed as an Ad Hoc Committee of one to review the application of the Mount Royal Faculty Association (MRFA) for Class A membership in CAUT. The CAUT General By-­‐-­‐-­‐Lay lays out the requirements for Class A membership. In carrying out my investigation I assessed each criteria stated in the By-­‐-­‐-­‐Law, Appendix A. The MRFA made an application to the Chair of CAUT’s Elections and Resolutions Committee in a form that was acceptable. The application letter included a copy of the MRFA General By-­‐-­‐-­‐Laws (available at http://www.mrfa.net/files/MRFA_Bylaws_2014_.pdf) and Minutes of the meeting called to consider the CAUT application and the results of a motion to that effect. As stated in the application MRFA represents 770 full-­‐-­‐-­‐time and contract staff at Mount Royal University. All academic staff are members of MRFA as a condition of employment. It is the only representative of academic staff. According to the Minutes the following motion was adopted: THAT the MRFA apply for membership in CAUT, with the application to be considered at the November 2014 or May 2015 CAUT Council. Vote: 139 in favour, 5 opposed and 1 abstention Carried The meeting quorum is 70, which was met. A review of the MRFA By-­‐-­‐-­‐Law shows that it is democratic organization whose goals and practices are compatible with those of the purposes of CAUT. MRFA engages in Collective Bargaining with Mount Royal University. The employer does not dominate it nor is it influenced by the employer to undermine its role as a bargaining agent. MRFA has negotiated strong statements on Academic Freedom and tenure in its Collective Agreement with Mount Royal University. The clauses in the Collective Agreement on Academic Freedom and Tenure may be viewed at http://www.mrfa.net/CA I also had to review the nature and extent of degree programs at the institution employing the academic staff who have applied for membership. The Mount Royal University website indicates that it offers over 35 bachelor’s degrees in a variety of disciplines (http://www.mtroyal.ca/ProgramsCourses/Degrees/index.htm). As part of the investigation, I had to request written commentary on the application from all CAUT organizational members in the Province of Alberta. I sent the MRFA application materials to all organizational members on February 2 and requested written comments by March 15. I received replies from ACIFA and a joint letter from AASUA, ULFA, and AUFA. Both of those letters are attached to this report. In both cases, ACIFA and AASUA, ULFA and AUFA argue against membership. MRFA is a current member of ACIFA but voted 69 to 61 to leave ACIFA when it voted to apply for membership in CAUT. CAUT Class A organizations may belong to multiple organizations; there is no constitutional requirement that the MRFA’s membership in CAUT be exclusive of other organizations. I am required to forward a recommendation on the application to Council. In terms of the General By-­‐-­‐-­‐Law, MRFA’s application for Class A membership meets all of the technical requirements specified in the By-­‐-­‐-­‐Law. There is no technical impediment to approving MRFA’s application for CAUT Class A membership and on that basis I recommend that MRFA be admitted to Class A membership in CAUT. However, Council must also consider the arguments against membership made by ACIFA and AASUA, ULFA and AUFA. These arguments are political and beyond the scope of my inquiry as they do not address the technical requirements of the By-­‐-­‐-­‐Law; they will inform the debate at Council on admitting MRFA to Class A membership in CAUT
Appendix A CAUT General By-­-­Law 5.1 5.1 Class A Members [Faculty Associations and Federated Associations] a. Class A Members shall be limited to Faculty Associations and Federated Associations that are admitted to membership in the Association upon a special resolution of the Members entitled to vote at Council duly passed. b. Faculty Associations – Criteria for Admission to Membership i. Council shall consider the following when deciding whether a Faculty Association should be admitted as a Class A Member of the Association: 1. 2. 3. an application for membership from the Faculty Association in a form satisfactory to the Elections and Resolutions Committee, and duly authorized by the membership of the Faculty Association at a meeting called for that purpose; the constitution of the Faculty Association; a statement from the Faculty Association of: A. the total number of Academic staff eligible for membership in the Faculty Association; and B. the number of Academic staff who belong to the Faculty Association; 4. the result of the vote or referendum conducted by the Faculty Association on the question of membership in the Association; 5. the report and recommendation of an ad hoc committee as described in paragraph 5.1bii of this By-­‐-­‐-­‐law; and 6. such other information as Council may, in its discretion, require. ii. The ad hoc committee shall be appointed by the Elections and Resolutions Committee. It shall conduct such inquiries as it may deem necessary and shall provide Council with pertinent documentation, including the nature and extent of degree programs offered by the college or university whose Academic Staff the applicant Faculty Association represents. In making its inquiries, the ad hoc committee shall request written commentary from all the Organizational Members located in the province where the applicant Faculty Association is located and such commentary shall be included in the ad hoc committee’s report to Council. The ad hoc committee shall make a report on the manner in which the Faculty Association meets the following criteria: 1. the Faculty Association’s goals and practices are compatible with those of the purposes of the Association set out, above, in article 2 of this By-­‐-­‐-­‐law; 2. the Faculty Association’s constitution is democratic in character; 3. the Faculty Association’s constitution and activities show a commitment to the principles and practice of academic freedom and tenure; 4. the Faculty Association's organization and practices show it is not dominated by an employer, nor so influenced by an employer that its fitness to represent employees for the purposes of collective bargaining or otherwise is impaired; and 5. except in unusual circumstances, as determined by Council, the Faculty Association shall be the largest such association representing Academic staff. Appendix B MRFA Application for CAUT Membership Appendix C Letters from ACIFA and AASUA, ULFA and AUFA March 12, 2015 Dr. Victor M. Catano Department of Psychology McNally South 325 Saint Mary’s University 923 Robie Street Halifax, NS B3H 3C3 Re: Mount Royal University Faculty Association application for class “A” membership in CAUT Dear Vic, Thank you and CAUT for seeking our consultation on the matter of Mount Royal University Faculty Association’s (MRFA) application for independent membership in CAUT. We feel that a successful application under the circumstances will harm provincial level faculty associations, and risks damaging relations between CAUT and provincial associations. The Alberta provincial faculty associations, the Confederation of Alberta Faculty Associations (CAFA), representing research intensive universities, and Alberta Colleges and Institutes Faculties Association (ACIFA), representing colleges, institutes, and teaching intensive universities that MRFA belongs to (at least until June 30th), have built strong ties. CAFA and ACIFA, partner in promoting post-­‐secondary education and its funding in a provincial jurisdiction where the government is always challenging, and often hostile toward the goals of faculty associations. The best course in such an environment, is solidarity of CAFA and ACIFA and their member associations, with the presentation of a unified front. The move by MRFA, one of ACIFA’s four larger associations, to leave ACIFA weakens it, and indirectly weakens CAFA as well, in our joint efforts in dealing with the Alberta government. The Alberta government would be delighted to exploit the calving off of individual associations in this manner, and the possibility, with the mere existence of MRFA outside of the provincial associations, of saying that not all associations in Alberta hold a common and unified view for what is needed in the province. As a member of ACIFA, MRFA receives the dual benefits of belonging to a provincial association for local Alberta matters, and at the same time federated representation at CAUT through ACIFA, for matters at a national level of importance. Through its membership in ACIFA, the MRFA representative also attends as an observer in all CAUT Page 1 of 2 activities and can directly interact with ACIFA and CAUT at these events in the interest of MRFA. MRFA voted to depart from ACIFA, and by their current application, seeks to replace ACIFA membership with independent membership in CAUT. If CAUT encourages, let alone supports this sequence of actions by MRFA, it may be replicated elsewhere and lead to the weakening and possible eventual destruction of provincial faculty associations in Alberta and across the country. CAUT should not expand its membership at the direct cost of provincial associations on moral grounds, if not practical grounds. It is our view that MRFA should stay in ACIFA to receive the dual benefits mentioned above, and all our Alberta associations would benefit from the solidarity that CAUT should also support and encourage. A second option is that MRFA belong to the provincial faculty association (ACIFA in this case) and CAUT. That is what many of our associations do, including our own. We are not opposed to dual association, ACIFA and CAUT, by MRFA. In fact we heartily encourage that option. If the financial cost is currently in the way of the dual association option (we do not know if this is an issue or not) and membership in only one association is possible at this time, the logical choice would be continued membership in ACIFA with its dual benefits, described above. The vote to leave ACIFA by MRFA was 69 for and 61 opposed. That close vote can be taken to reflect the ambivalence of the membership overall on that issue. Since that time, things have changed in the Alberta landscape. For example, since that close vote, ACIFA and CAFA, working together, have gained unprecedented access within the Alberta government including regular meetings with the Minister of Innovation and Advanced Education, and others close to the Premier. Those within the two provincial associations, will be able to have their voices heard where it counts, but others who are independent of the provincial associations may lose out on these and other opportunities. We recommend that MRFA reconsider its proposed withdrawal from ACIFA and instead stay in ACIFA, and withdraw their application to CAUT, prior to the CAUT spring Council meeting, or to strike their application from the agenda at that meeting. We cannot support the application by MRFA for independent membership in CAUT, should it be put forward to a vote at CAUT Council, for the reasons indicated above. The only possibility for our support would be if MRFA exercises the option we suggest of dual membership, i.e. continued ACIFA membership and the addition of CAUT membership. Sincerely yours, Dr. Kevin Kane Dr. Lawton Shaw President of AASUA President of AUFA Dr. David Kaminski President of ULFA Page 2 of 2