Bargaining Bulletin #3
FANC has been busy at the bargaining table, and we have tabled new language for multiple Collective Agreement articles. Bargaining is like putting together a puzzle, and we have filled in some of the corners and edges and worked a bit on a couple of foreground objects. But most articles are inter-related and further progress will depend on working on more central issues in the months to come, like workload and salary.
FANC has introduced new language in Article 11: Evaluation of Teaching and Scholarly Activity that empowers faculty to make their case for teaching effectiveness using a broad variety of metrics, from peer evaluations to teaching reflections. Many faculty members at MacEwan find student feedback reports a useful means to assess the student experience; FANC, therefore, does not propose eliminating them, but instead provides faculty with a broader array of options when it comes to assembling dossiers and writing annual reports. Moreover, the language recognizes that student feedback may take many forms, all of which have some informational value. The Board’s Team also asked FANC to solicit our members for feedback about ways that Article 11.6: Evaluation of Scholarly Activity could be expanded. Following member engagement, FANC introduced articles that recognized the value of work as a subject matter expert, evidence-based inquiry related to professional practice, and training of HQPs (“Highly Qualified Personnel”), which form a major component of tri-council funding applications.
The Board’s Response: The Board’s team indicated that any dossier that did not include university-administered student feedback reports would “raise eyebrows.” It maintained that Deans should be empowered to consult material not included in an annual report or tenure/promotion dossier when assessing performance, though it did agree to a “show your work clause” that provides for a written explanation in the exceptional event that material outside that provided by the member was considered when making an assessment. The Board’s team disputed that the clear arbitration decision at TMU had established that student evaluations of teaching were unreliable measures of teaching effectiveness. Lastly, although the Board’s Team asked FANC for suggestions about expanding article 11.6, it provided revised language that rejected all of FANC’s suggestions without providing an explanation, except to say that they believed the current language already covers that which FANC suggested. FANC has reintroduced language that maintains the substance of our original positions.
In Article 8: Appointment of Academic Staff, FANC has proposed language that makes the process of hiring more open and democratic. Members express frustration that the hiring process often seems centralized and secretive. New language allows members of an academic unit who are not on a search committee to nonetheless review the CVs and publications of applicants, which is the practice at most “real universities.” FANC further introduced language to provide greater flexibility in the composition of search committees, offering the option for a committee to be composed of 4 members of an academic unit instead of 3 members plus an external, and it introduced language indicating that EDI representation should be a consideration in committee composition. Finally, FANC introduced language clarifying that the search committee should be empowered to provide a formal ranked list of candidates and that the fate of that rank-ordered list as it moves through the administrative levels of hiring completion should be transparent. As MacEwan grows and matures, our membership believes it is imperative to hire the best candidates possible, and that faculty should be positioned to do more than simply determine whether a job applicant meets a minimum threshold of qualification.
The Board’s Response: The Board’s Team introduced revised language that indicated a willingness to provide members of an academic unit with a larger role in making hiring decisions. It removed any language indicating that matters of equity and diversity should be included when forming a committee, and it maintained that faculty’s role on search committees is simply to determine whether any candidate is suitable, not to provide a ranked list of candidates. FANC has reintroduced language that retains the essence of our original language.
In Article 13: Chairs, FANC has introduced new language that spotlights the diverse and important role of department Chairs at our institution. Article 13 language has not been updated in a generation, despite considerable change and evolution as MacEwan has transitioned from a community college to a university. FANC language recognizes the multifarious work of Chairs as leaders of their academic unit, from curricular development, accreditation, and program review to budgeting and operational health and safety. We have also introduced language that provides for a more manageable workload for chairs, including greater autonomy, improved course release and administrative leave provisions, and an increased stipend.
The Board’s Response: The Board has indicated they have an interest in making the role of Chair more attractive because the administration has faced challenges recruiting members into the role. In discussions, they pondered whether hiring chairs externally might help resolve that challenge. FANC’s Article 13 proposal has not yet been countered with revised language. However, in the name of a “streamlined collective agreement,” the Board’s team questioned whether the Collective Agreement should recognize the diverse duties of a Chair in such an article, and has indicated that discussion on stipends and course releases for Chairs will need to wait until monetary proposals are exchanged. This will happen in the new year.
Finally, FANC has introduced new language regarding Article 14: Annual Reports and Annual Performance Review. In the past decade, FA members have faced substantial workload creep that has impugned on our time and compromised our ability to deliver the goals of Strategic Vision 2030. Our membership widely regards Annual Reports as time-consuming and unhelpful. FANC proposed shifting to a graduated system of reporting in which new and tenure-track members continue annual reporting, while tenured and established members with a record of positive reviews transition to a more manageable triennial system of reporting. Many other institutions in Alberta have already either agreed at the table to move away from annual reporting and review or have that already as a feature in their collective agreements. FANC also proposed placing clear guidelines and word limits on annual report reflections, and it has proposed moving the Annual Report deadline to October 1 in order to provide faculty with more time to complete the reports, while mandating that Deans provide feedback by the start of winter semester. On a 3-year cycle, the expectation is that Deans would have the time to provide faculty with more meaningful and formative feedback than the vague, boilerplate comments faculty currently report they often receive.
The Board’s Response: The Board has indicated that it has a shared interest in making annual reports less time-consuming. At the same time, the Board has insisted that the reports remain annual for every faculty member, and that it is important to monitor all faculty every year in order to ensure that the ~1% of faculty who are not always meeting expectations do not slip through the cracks. The Board has also rejected any clear limits on the length of annual reports. The Board’s team suggested language about minimum expectations as a means to “skinny-down” the annual reports to make them less time consuming, but this is likely to be about as effective as a weight-loss program that simply advises “eating less”.
The Board’s team did also propose a Letter of Understanding that would create a committee to “discuss the performance report template” where such discussions would include consolidation of the current report template, word limits for relevant sections, and appropriate guidelines for completing the annual report. However, such a committee would only be empowered to discuss these issues, they would have no authority to implement meaningful changes. The Board’s team further indicated that e-CV software is controlled by the IT department and that, despite considerable and widespread dissatisfaction with the platform, there is “nothing that can be done” to replace it with something more effective and streamlined (like the simple, cost-neutral Google forms that are already used for a wide variety of data-collecting functions at MacEwan). Finally, the Board has proposed a September 1 annual report submission deadline instead of the October 1 deadline that FANC proposed, but has insisted the deadline for decanal feedback remain February 1, which gives Deans more time than they currently have, but causes feedback to still come too late for faculty to implement changes based on feedback in winter semester. FANC and the Board’s team remain divided on Article 14.
Other proposals involving Articles 2, 7, 18, 26, and 27 as well as a Letter of Understanding involving the hiring of sessional-extended Lab Instructors into more permanent roles will be covered in the next update. Looming on the Horizon is Article 12: Workload, which constitutes a major interest for our membership. There will be no shortage of information to read and stay abreast of; we appreciate your engagement along with us at the table.
FANC