Dear Members of the Reappointment Committee for the Provost:

Our Position

We are writing on behalf of AUFA and its members to express our strong opposition to the renewal of Dr. Matthew Prineas’ term as Provost at Athabasca University. The Provost is a pivotal academic role in the university, and is central to providing space for an academic community to flourish, but also for building an equitable and supportive workplace enabling all employees to do excellent academic work. Under Matthew Prineas’ watch, AUFA has seen exponential growth in issues culminating in grievances that expose AU’s toxic workplace culture and a diminishment in our ability to be leaders of academic excellence.

The recent employee engagement survey report supports this position, in addition to what members are telling us directly. AUFA is extremely concerned about chronic low staff morale, deteriorating mental health of members, and the routine exclusion of staff from key decisions that impact the future of Athabasca University. The lack of engagement from the Provost with faculty and significant challenges faced by them has undermined their ability to be responsive to students, work collegially, or even maintain good health. 

Failures to Deliver on Justice, Equity, Diversity, and Inclusion (JEDI)

AUFA is alarmed by the record number of serious grievances  reporting discrimination, harassment, and harm being experienced by our members. In response, instead of addressing these concerns in a collegial manner, they are ignored and consequently require being escalated to arbitration to attract any meaningful response from HR. Worse, the Collective Agreement, Article 7: Discipline, is being used to target and isolate members, particularly pre-tenure, equity-deserving members, in response to reported conflicts, all under the watch of Dr. Prineas acting as the primary executive officer responsible for overseeing affected members. The pattern can be named: it is systemic institutional racism.

After decades of institutional inaction, over the last year AUFA and its members have repeatedly raised concerns, naming serious equity issues. These concerns continue to remain unaddressed, or at best received vague and ill-defined responses. The incumbent Provost has refused to engage with AUFA members on the development of an equity office, signed on to the Scarborough Charter without meaningful commitment to supporting the flourishing of Black academics and staff members, and made empty promises on moving forward with conciliation with and active support of Indigenous Peoples, including with our own faculty and staff members.

AU needs a diverse faculty to engage with a diverse student population, including at the graduate level. The Provost has failed to attract and retain a diverse faculty, and members of equity deserving groups are grossly underrepresented at AU. As an academic institution that purports to support EDI and decolonization, AU is at odds with its Mission to reduce barriers to education. The lack of active engagement on issues of JEDI is jeopardizing AU’s responsibilities to the Tri Council policies on Equity, the Scarborough Charter, and the TRC Calls to Action, which now invites significant reputational harm to AU and its faculty. 

The ILE Debacle and Unsustainable Mismanagement

While the ILE promised much, under the management of the Provost, it has delivered little. The result to date is a general sense that the expertise and knowledge of staff members is irrelevant, and managerialism has been allowed to run amok, stifling true innovation. Massive financial investment in the ILE project has deprived faculties from maintaining their staff complements, and workloads for those who remain are increasingly unmanageable. While enrolments continue to drop, payouts to departing executives are up, and executive positions have ballooned.

The disproportionate emphasis on MSCHE accreditation, at the expense of reaching underserved Albertans, most notably Indigenous, single-parent students, and students seeking accommodations for learning differences is disappointing. This misuse of faculty time and resources is a demonstration of yet another ill-conceived project of the Provost. While AU employees have asked for an analysis of the benefit of this program, the Provost has provided nothing.

Our members collectively hold extensive institutional memory. From our perspective, the Provost has much to answer for in the lackluster performance of the entire executive team, particularly with the management of the Human Resources Department. We have watched HR extend its scope into affairs that normally function under the purview of the VP Academic, making decisions that used to be part of a functioning collegial governance model. Reliance on external legal investigations of our members based on specious allegations is particularly troubling. 

The Provost has managed an embarrassing and harmful EDI and decolonization response, and led us toward the current unsustainable financial trajectory. While attention has been devoted to failing projects, the lack of institution-wide strategic and academic planning itself is a cause for alarm. We therefore implore the Provostial Review Committee to weigh these concerns, and rather than acquiesce to Dr Prineas’ appointment renewal, to put the needs of AU’s faculty and students first and foremost. We deserve better. 

A Call to Members to Respond

The reappointment of a Provost is subject to AU’s Appointment and Reappointment of Academic Vice-Presidents Policy, and related procedure. Under this Policy, a call out and election are required for appointment of committee members (Section 4.10). This process is part of required collegial governance and provides an important opportunity to hear from each faculty. 

The President has further invited each of us as valued community members to provide written contributions to the renewal committee. We encourage members to write individual submissions, which are impactful in ways an Open Letter may not be. Feel free to elaborate what’s most important to you, and why.

Signed, written contributions should be submitted in confidence to the committee at provostrenewalsubmissions@athabascau.ca by Monday, April 17, 2023 at 4:30 p.m. (Mountain).

AUFA member’s open letter to AU Research Office about Elsevier’s PURE

https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Boycott_Elsevier_2.png

From: Mark McCutcheon  
Sent: February 1, 2023 9:27 AM 

Subject: Re: Researcher Profile Data Request (Stage 2)  

I’m writing to reiterate my considered and principled refusal to provide any data, personal or professional, to any Elsevier service or platform, including PURE. I have several reasons for standing by this decision. 

First, AU’s intellectual property policy recognizes that intellectual property rights (e.g. copyright) in research belong not to the university but to the individual researcher. (See 4.3.c at https://www.athabascau.ca/university-secretariat/_documents/policy/intellectual-property-policy.pdf). That policy empowers me to manage my research activity and products as I best see fit. The university has no claim to my intellectual property. That said, I do allow the university to host or represent my research in appropriate forums and spaces – meaning those aligned with Open Access and, indeed, with our own university’s open mission. For example, the AU library’s “AU Space” open access repository now includes most of my published work. But beyond what I decide to permit the university to license, the university has no claim on my research. 

Second, my commitment to open access research and publishing is squarely opposed to Elsevier as a massive corporation that, for years, has attacked and worked against the open access movement. I have published work that openly criticizes Elsevier. I deliberately publish in journals and books that are not Elsevier-owned. Since 2018 I have served AU Press as Chair of its editorial board; AU Press only published in open access. And for a decade I have been my Faculty’s academic rep on the office of the president’s ad hoc copyright committee (CC’d). Our work in that committee has focused on promoting and developing open access, and on organizing and lobbying scholars across Canada against repeated legislative attempts to toughen copyright law. My name is on several petitions and scholarly mobilizations against Elsevier. In light of that principled opposition, I categorically will not contribute anything to Elsevier, because I refuse to help the business, reputation, or profitability of a firm that has so persistently attacked AU’s mission for so long. 

Third, I understand this situation as a question of academic freedom, per Article 11 of the AUFA collective agreement (see https://aufa.ca/collective-agreement). That article includes this language: “Members of the University community are entitled, regardless of prescribed doctrine, to freedom in carrying out research and in publishing the results thereof” (p. 52). That language entitles me to conduct and share my research as I see fit. Since my research publication record has dealt extensively with the issue of open access, I consider it an infringement on my academic freedom to be obliged to provide free data to an organization I resolutely oppose and have published my opposition to. To participate in an Elsevier platform would for me pose a risk of reputational harm. In this context I must point out that there is a risk of reputational harm to AU, not only because becoming an Elsevier client would make a mockery of our hard-earned position as “Canada’s open university,” but also because our copyright committee has, for decades, taken a leadership role among Canadian universities in lobbying the federal government for fairer copyright and in organizing research universities across the country in such mobilizing efforts.  

Fourth, I note that PURE has been used at other universities for performance assessment purposes. AU’s administration has not yet spoken about that potential function, to my knowledge. I would, however, point out that performance assessment at AU for AUFA members is a negotiated matter of annual reporting, detailed in Article 3.3.4 of our collective agreement. If AU intends to use PURE for assessing the performance of faculty members, doing so could run afoul of that Article if the process is not properly negotiated in bargaining. 

For these reasons, I am refusing to provide any data to an Elsevier platform. With this notice, I would also ask the university not to list or name me on the PURE platform, even in a placeholder capacity.  

Thank you for hearing me on this matter. 

best 

Mark A. McCutcheon (he/him) 

Chair, Centre for Humanities 

Professor, Literary Studies 

Past president, CAFA (2015-17 

Past president, AUFA (2013-14) 

Athabasca University 

AUFA Condemns Employer Disruption and Mismanagement; Calls for Concrete Action

AUFA condemns the Board of Governors’ callous firing of Dr. Scott who lost his wife only weeks ago. The surprise announcement of the termination of former AU President Dr. Peter Scott and the appointment of Dr. Alex Clark to fill this role has left faculty and staff at Athabasca University reeling.  AUFA members have been experiencing callousness and disruption beyond the recent upheavals and actions of the BOG and are growing weary of the cycle of crises facing this institution – a cycle that is taking its toll on staff morale and student enrolment alike. Yet we also remain committed to the university’s open mission and hopeful for some stability and calm so we can focus on our work in service of this mission.  

This blog post will analyze how we got here and outline a path forward. Our core message to the university administration and the Board of Governors is that, to right this ship, faculty and staff need to lead the way.  

Problematic Process 

The sudden announcement of a change in presidents left many wondering, how did this happen? While the full story likely won’t ever be revealed, it is clear from multiple (and in some cases, conflicting) media reports that the process by which this decision was made was extremely problematic, including the callous way in which Dr. Scott was “released.” It is difficult not to see the roots of this decision in the heavy-handed approach to AU overhauling board membership and issuing institutional directives adopted by the Minister of Advanced Education Demetrios Nicolaides since last March.  

AUFA is aligned with the Confederation of Alberta Faculty Associations (CAFA) and the Canadian Association of University Teachers (CAUT) in calling for all presidential searches at post-secondary institutions to be as open and transparent as possible. Instead of being surprised by the announcement of a new leader selected through a completely closed and secretive process, faculty, staff, students, and the broader community should have meaningful exposure to potential candidates and an opportunity to provide input to the selection process.  

While we remain critical of the process that got us to this point, AUFA calls on Dr. Clark to provide very different leadership than what we’ve experienced over the last several years – one that is more responsive and prioritizes stability and employee well-being over unproductive disruption.  

“Disharmony”  

The Board Chair referenced “staff strife and disharmony” as a key factor motivating this decision. We might characterize the situation slightly differently, but it does point to the worsening of both morale and working conditions over the past several years. AUFA members have weathered blatant union-busting, aggressive bargaining, continuous and cumulative breaches of our rights under the collective agreement, and a generally callous disregard for our well-being. AUFA staff and volunteers can scarcely keep up with the onslaught of contract violations, disciplines, and other issues facing our colleagues.  

While AUFA as a union is occasionally vilified by university leaders or painted as the source of problems, the reality is that we simply would not have to fight so much if university leadership, particularly decision makers within Human Resources, demonstrated even the slightest bit more care and regard for employee well-being. Well-intentioned, good faith efforts to raise concerns about employee wellness are routinely ignored or rejected.  

AUFA is committed to doing its part to meet in good faith and attempt to resolve current, long-standing, and emergent issues directly with the employer and to reduce the number of cases that are escalated to arbitration at the labour board. We call on the university administration to come to the table with the same good faith.  

Words and Actions  

One of the most common complaints we have heard from AUFA members over several years of regular surveys and other engagement efforts is the disconnect between the rhetoric of university leadership and their concrete actions. This has been experienced most acutely in the university’s so-called commitment to Equity, Diversity, and Inclusion (EDI).  

Despite proclamations about intentions to champion EDI, including signing the Scarborough Charter, previous initiatives left much to be desired. We still are waiting for a university-wide plan and policy, supported by appropriate personnel and overseen by a body independent from HR, for fostering an equitable, diverse, and inclusive work environment and articulating institutional accountabilities. While we wait, faculty, staff, and students who are experiencing systematic forms of gender, sex, racial, anti-Indigenous, and anti-Black harassment are left with little recourse.  

AU’s actions and rhetoric on EDI need to come into closer alignment – urgently, not pushed to some distant future. AUFA calls on the university administration to prioritize the establishment of an independent Equity Office that has both an appropriate mandate and sufficient resources to be effective.  

Mismanagement 

Over at least the past year AUFA members and our colleagues have been grappling with increasingly unsustainable workloads and worsening working conditions, making it more and more difficult to maintain the services and quality of courses that students deserve and expect.  

There are many contributing factors, but topping the list are the many ways in which IT functions have been extremely poorly managed by top leaders while also being increasingly severed from academic oversight and governance. From the poorly handled reorganization of the IT department to the incessant pushing forward with ill-fitting and costly technological changes, staff within IT have been working within an increasingly corrosive working environment, and negative impacts are being felt across nearly all university departments.  

We want a chance to be excited about change, to exercise our professional judgment, and to actually use the skills for which we were hired in the service of the university’s open mission. We want to break out of unproductive siloes and to understand how our individual work contributes to achievable, shared goals. AUFA calls on the university administration to pause the implementation of the Integrated Learning Environment and prioritize staff agency and input in an honest and transparent reassessment of technological change initiatives.  

Time to Start Listening 

Of course, there are forces at play that are larger than AU alone. The post-secondary sector across the province and beyond is strained by many of the same issues, and the current provincial government has contributed to many crises and challenges across institutions. But AU is not simply a victim of circumstances. There are many things that are fully within the university’s power to change.  

The top-down, managerial, corporate-style leadership adopted over the past several years is not working, nor is the increased reliance on external vendors. Our strength as a university comes from within – the dedication and commitment of those who do the real work in the service of students is the reason AU has survived despite abysmal failures of leadership.  

As a faculty association, we have frequently engaged our membership in order to gather meaningful feedback and input on both internal union decisions and broader university questions. Our understanding of the current situation is grounded in countless hours of respectful listening, reading, writing, and discussions with colleagues. Yet we have been consistently ignored, sidelined, or belittled by successive university leaders. We expect that our colleagues in our sibling unions have had a similar experience.  

We believe that, for the university to achieve stability and grow in its mandate as an open public institution, senior administrators and the board of governors need to hear, respect, and meaningfully respond to the concerns and suggestions raised by faculty, staff, and students. Better yet, AU needs to move beyond listening and empower faculty and staff to actively and meaningfully participate in decision making processes, including those at the highest level.  

AUFA calls on the Board of Governors and the university administration to refocus on core, mission-driven work; to prioritize stability and faculty and staff well-being; to empower employees to exercise meaningful agency; and to strengthen collegial governance by increasing transparency and participation.  

Rhiannon Rutherford, AUFA President 

Your Turn 

The AUFA executive will be identifying more specific priorities to present to the new university leadership. Use this space to share your priorities or any other thoughts about the recent announcement and how AUFA should respond.  

Spring survey results: Continued distrust in AU executive and strong strike threat

In June, volunteers with AUFA’s Membership Engagement Committee (MEC) completed the sixth membership engagement survey. This survey included the usual climate questions as well as explored issues related to the recently concluded round of bargaining, the jobs in Athabasca issue (which has since become a significant issue), and AU’s implementation of Netskope surveillance software on members’ computers. 

This iteration of the survey was delayed from the targeted April/May timing, which likely impacted response rates. Eighty-two randomly selected members (just under 20% of the membership) completed the call-based survey, with representation across departments and employee types. 

Climate Questions 

Survey callers asked four recurring questions on the general climate at AU. Overall, members report continued distrust in the AU executive, while AUFA’s work is broadly supported. There is an interesting discrepancy between the 39% of members who reported high morale compared to 77% who reported enjoying starting work in the morning. This likely reflects members’ appreciation for the work they do while also reflecting their frustration with their working conditions. 

Looking further at the question of trust in AU’s executive team, there was a slight increase since the last survey (in fall 2021), from 15% to 20% expressing trust, which is still far below the highest rate of 30% who agreed with this question in the very first survey (in fall 2019). There were no clear trends in terms of which member groups are more or less likely to agree or disagree. For example, when analyzing responses based on length of service, new hires reported around the same level of distrust in executive and trust in AUFA as longer-serving staff. 

In the comments provided by members regarding AU’s executive, most expressed strongly negative feelings, with the following emerging as themes: 

• feelings of being mistreated, belittled, or disrespected by the employer  

• dissatisfaction with the communication and information provided to faculty and staff 

• perceptions of mismanagement, ineptitude, or hidden agendas 

• perceptions of a lack of understanding of the university’s culture and values 

• desire for following through with a vote of non-confidence in the current executive 

In terms of factors contributing to these feelings, the employer’s opening position in bargaining featured prominently. Members also spoke about how the various reorganizations at AU—including the IT reorganization and the near-virtual transition—have been and continue to be handled poorly, which is negatively affecting morale.  

Contract Negotiations 

Having narrowly avoided a strike this spring, MEC queried members’ willingness to have withdrawn their labour. The vast majority of members (88%) indicated were likely to have withdrawn their labour during a strike or lockout, with just 6% saying they were unlikely. This reponse suggests AUFA’s strike threat was a credible one. A credible strike threat enhances the bargaining power of the union. 

Members had mixed views about the final contract that was ratified. The largest chunk of repondents (44%) indicated they were “somewhat satisfied”; neutral and “somewhat dissatisfied” responses each received 22%. Very few members indicated they were either very satisfied (5%) or very dissatisfied (about 7%). This distribution of responses suggests that members are feeling rather ambivalent about the settlement.  

Survey respondents provided a wide variety of comments on the contract language, but the issue most members identified as concerning was (unsurprisingly) the loss of Research and Study Leave for professional members. Comments were broadly aligned with the discussion among members during bargaining, which includes broad, but certainly not unanimous, support for this benefit.  

In addition to the RSL issue, cost of living, inflation, and wages were frequently mentioned. Members broadly felt the cost-of-living adjustment was inadequate. Cost of home office was identified as needing to be addressed. 

Jobs in Athabasca 

As previously reported, a majority of respondents (73%) supported AUFA’s current position that, while no current AUFA member should be forced to re-locate, AU should make an effort to hire a portion of new staff to the Athabasca area. MEC also asked if AUFA should take a position on this issue at all, and a majority (67%) agreed that it should. 

Understanding that, as a union, we are often dealing with multiple priorities, MEC also asked about the relative importance of this issue. There was more disagreement on this question, with only 51% of respondents suggesting it was important that AUFA take a position. That is, there seems to be a portion of members (about 15–25%) who think AUFA should take a position and who agree with AUFA’s current position, but who don’t see this issue as a top concern. There were some identifiable differences when analyzing this question in more detail, so it’s worth taking a look at where some of this discrepancy comes from.  

There were some notable differences here when comparing new employees with those who have been at AU for longer. This issue is important to just 31% of employees who have been at AU fewer than 10 years, while 81% of those who have been at AU more than 20 years said this issue was important to them. 

It is also worth noting that support for AUFA’s position on this issue varies widely between faculties and departments, with the strongest support in FB, FHSS, and the IT department, and weakest support in FHD, FST, and other departments. 

Member comments were diverse. Some members noted that requiring candidates live in Athabasca may narrow the applicant pool unacceptably. Other suggested that candidates could be enticed to live in Athabasca through meaningful incentives.  

Some members felt AU’s primary role is to educate students, not contribute to the economy of Athabasca. Other members note that AU’s location was chosen for economic development purposes and there is no necessary conflict between providing online education while having a portion of jobs located in the Athabasca area. 

Other members were concerned that successive Boards and executives had mishandled this issue (primarily by ignoring it) and that the government was intervening due to political pressure. Some members suggested that the university executive should be expected to model a commitment to Athabasca by living in the Athabasca area, at least part of the time. Others suggested rethinking this issue in order to take advantage of the possibilities a rural campus offers.  

While a lot has happened since this survey was conducted in June, the AUFA executive’s open letter points to several ways in which this issue might be resolved in a constructive and mutually beneficial way.  

Netskope and Privacy 

Members were strongly in favour of AUFA taking steps to protect their privacy after AU installed surveillance software called Netskope on member computers without forewarning or data governance. 

Members’ comments provide many insights about their concerns with this program being used on their work computers, with some common themes: 

• It constitutes a breach of privacy. Members feel concerned about this being a breach to their right to privacy, confidentiality, and security in the workplace. 

• It creates a culture of mistrust between workers and the employer, as they feel not trusted and feel spied and surveilled by the employer. 

• Lack of transparency. Members manifested being concerned about not being properly informed on the reasons why this program is being used, about the data that is being collected, and about the implications that this may have for their privacy in the workplace. 

• It jeopardizes research participants’ right to security, anonymity, and confidentiality. Members who manage and storage research data collected among vulnerable populations (including Indigenous, racialized, and those with precarious legal status) think that the tracking of this information jeopardizes the security of research participants and their right to confidentiality and privacy, making researchers to incur in violations of research protocols. 

• Lack of informed consent. Members feel concerned about the fact that the decision to install a program to collects information was made on a top-down manner, without previous consultation, proper notice, or consent. 

• Insecurity in the workplace. Members fear that the information that is being collected can be used to punish those engaged in disputes with the employer. 

• Threat to safety. Members feel unsafe in the workplace, as they have no clear understanding of what type of information is being tracked and collected, and as they have no clear understanding if this information includes family/personal information. 

• It affects productivity and morale, as the feelings of being spied “all the time” discourages engagement with the job. It also discourages the search of information that can be seen as “suspicious” from the point of view of the employer. 

• There are no clear policies and rules governing the use of this software in the workplace. 

The AUFA executive is following up with the employer about the use of this software and the timelines for a privacy impact assessment, but have so far received no new information.  

The survey also asked members about their use of the AUFA website. This feedback has been shared with the communications committee and will help inform future work to improve the website for members.  

MEC extends its thanks to its volunteer callers as well as the members who took the time to answer the survey. The next MEC survey is planned for this fall. If you would like to be volunteer to help with survey calls, please email engagement@aufa.ca. 

Rhiannon Rutherford 

AUFA President

Open letter: Grounding AU in Athabasca

After receiving many excellent and thoughtful contributions to our last blog post and through a townhall meeting last week, we have developed an open letter that presents an alternative path forward for the current stalemate. This open letter was sent to both the Minister of Advanced Education and the Board of Governors of Athabasca University on August 24.

Along with a set of constructive ideas that could actually help to resolve this long-standing issue, we have emphasized the need to take forced relocations off the table, the need to back up rhetoric with real action, and the need to involve faculty and staff more meaningfully in decision making.

Access the full letter through the link below:

https://aufacultyassociation.squarespace.com/s/Open_letter_Athabasca.pdf

Thanks!!

Rhiannon

University should consult on response to Ministry on jobs in Athabasca

The question of Athabasca University’s presence in the Town of Athabasca has once again made headlines. This blog post aims to summarize recent developments, concerns with the near-virtual strategy, and AUFA’s position on the issue.  

In brief, AU administration and the provincial government seem to be locked in a dispute about the future of AU in Athabasca. While AUFA supports increased hiring to the town, we vigorously oppose forced relocation of existing faculty and staff, especially when these expectations appear not to extend to AU executives. AUFA further supports collegial governance, which requires administration to consult meaningfully with faculty and staff on decisions that affect them. It should be clear to decision-makers that we all have a stake in their decisions, especially on something so basic as where we and our families work and live.  

Recent developments 

This blog post from earlier this year summarizes how we got here: AUFA and jobs in Athabasca. The nutshell version is that, due in part to the efforts of a local advocacy group concerned about AU’s diminishing presence in the town of Athabasca, the Alberta government requires AU to reverse this trend and increase jobs in the area. The university has been publicly defiant about the government’s demands, insisting that the near-virtual strategy meets the needs of the community. It’s not clear at this point, whose ‘needs’ are being considered in AU’s strategy. 

Clarification: Members have requested that we clarify that this group has accessed the services of a well-connected conservative lobbyist. There are also many in the region who share many of the same concerns but don't necessarily agree with all of the goals of the Keep Athabasca in Athabasca University group.

The June 30 deadline to submit a plan to attract and retain more workers to the Athabasca area passed with little fanfare. Neither AU administration, nor the Minister provided AUFA any information about the university’s submission to the government. This past weekend, it was reported that the Minister of Advanced Education was not pleased with AU’s response and has threatened to cut funding if AU leadership doesn’t submit something more in line with the government's expectations by September 30.  

Near-virtual woes 

The university’s “near-virtual” strategy seems to be a sticking point in this fight. We have heard very little positive feedback about the university’s near-virtual strategy and implementation. Rather, AUFA members and our colleagues have shared many concerns and frustrations about a process that seems needlessly complicated, inflexible, and contrary to chatter about AU’s desire for reconciliation with Indigenous Peoples. 

For example, in June, Athabasca-based employees went through a role assessment process under the near-virtual framework. The process was confusing, contradictory, and involved multiple delays in communicating with staff. Despite short notice, a June 14th meeting saw an extremely high level of engagement from staff, who respectfully posed valid questions and raised significant concerns about how assessments would be conducted, only to be met with impatience and exasperation from university representatives.  

What was clear from the June 14th meeting was that administration flatly rejected a hybrid model that would allow Athabasca-based staff to opt to split their time between working from home and from a dedicated office space. Instead, staff could elect to work exclusively from home or on the Athabasca campus, with some drop-in office space available. Administration has plans to reconfigure office space in some way, but no details were provided, making it difficult for staff to make an informed decision—one that they will be unable to change, with few exceptions, for at least three years.  

Many employees, including members of AUFA and AUPE, have expressed significant frustration about the near-virtual plan and implementation. Many of the concerns raised stem from the managerial approach taken, limiting the question of job location to whether a role could be performed virtually (based on job descriptions that are often very outdated), rather than on what employees might need or want to be able to do their jobs most effectively.  

For many AUFA members, especially professionals, the insistence within the near-virtual plan on roles and “objective criteria” rather than human or even operational needs is reminiscent of how administration has approached other concerning initiatives, including the development of a new designation policy and the restructuring of the IT department. For academics, most of whom can work remotely all the time, there is no consistency on how (or if) the “near-virtual” policy applies to them, given the seemingly arbitrary requirement of some, but not all, academics to live in the province.  

One concern that both AU administration and the Minister seem oblivious to, is the importance of place for Indigenous research and researchers. The reduction of AU’s presence in Athabasca will undermine important research opportunities that rely on connection to community and respect for Indigenous protocols. “Near-virtual” simply does not facilitate reconcilation, and undermines the TRC Calls to Action for educational institutions to establish respectful and equitable relationships with Indigenous Peoples and their communties.  

The timing and lack of meaningful consultation or even clear communication about the university’s priorities and intentions are contributing to the significant work-related stress and anxiety many AUFA members and our colleagues are experiencing. Some have described the anticipated fallout of work-related stessors as a coming mental health tsunami, one that is being further fueled by the confusing and contradictory approach to implementing AU’s “near virtual” plan. 

AUFA’s position 

Since about 2015, AUFA has advocated that a portion of new hires should report to offices in the Athabasca area, but that no current members should be forced to relocate. This position received majority support (73%) in a recent membership engagement survey (for which a more fulsome report will be provided soon).

Update: Further context for this number has been provided in a subsequent post.

The current conflict is between the governing party and AU administration, and there is currently no clear mechanism for AUFA to formally intervene. Nonetheless, we recognize this latest threat from the government has increased the stakes and increases concern from members about their very livelihoods.  

While AUFA is supportive of increased hiring to the town, the government’s recent threats seem counterproductive at best, as university staff and students are the ones who would bear the brunt of funding cuts. There are many more positive ways to support the town, including meaningful incentives that would encourage relocation while still offering employees agency, flexibility, and choice. This is yet another example that leads AUFA members to wonder when AU administration will begin to demonstrate the iCare values of Integrity, Community, Adaptability, Respect, and Excellence, which they purport to hold so dear. 

The intransigence of AU’s current executive team is frustrating, to say the least. Repeated membership engagement surveys have indicated that AUFA members overwhelmingly lack trust in their leadership, and the related issues of jobs in Athabasca and the near-virtual strategy certainly contribute to this dissatisfaction for many members. The top-down, managerial approach to developing strategies and implementing new policies is also concerning as it undermines collegial governance. This discontent is so deeply felt by members that many members have hinted at imminant resignations, making a public declaration of a loss of confidence in AU leadership from those who remain inevitable.  

All faculty and staff have a stake in this situation and will be impacted by any decisions made by the university administration and Board of Governors. We implore the university to consult—openly and meaningfully—with faculty and staff about the response to the government’s directive, including a genuine role for collegial governance bodies. 

Rhiannon Rutherford, AUFA President 

Myra Tait, AUFA Vice President 

Your turn

Open letter to Dr. Peter Scott and AU’s Executive Team

Dear Dr. Peter Scott and members of AU’s Executive Team,

As you are likely aware, collective bargaining between AU and AUFA has not been going well.

We fully respect that you are maintaining distance from the process to allow AU’s bargaining team to represent the employer’s interests at the table. However, the current context does suggest that some direction from the Executive Team may be necessary to bring this extended conflict to a mutually satisfactory conclusion.

Specifically, there are significant contextual factors that are important to highlight.

AUFA members want a fair deal

AUFA members recently rejected a mediator’s proposed settlement by 77%, with 91% of members voting. This sends a strong and clear message that the concessions AU has been seeking in this round of bargaining are simply not acceptable.

No one is looking forward to a strike or lockout that could entail significant disruptions for learners. But AUFA members have also demonstrated that they are not willing to accept significant concessions that would erode working conditions, collegiality, and student experiences over time. Despite previous framing of AUFA as the aggressive party in this dispute, AUFA members are fully aware that our true position is that of defending valued protections and benefits from an unnecessarily aggressive employer.

Not all our members agree on every issue—that is the nature of a democratic organization—but our ongoing engagement efforts have revealed some clear themes that provide important context for determining what a fair deal might look like in this context.

We want to be excited about the future of AU

Our members have told us they believe deeply in the mission of this university. The strongest consensus that has emerged from our consultations is that we care about students and about learning. We want to be excited about our work. We want to be innovative, creative, and rigorous. But we feel blocked by a combination of factors and forces.

The most common concern is that our members feel overwhelmed by work and stripped of agency. Professional members affected by reorganization and major change initiatives feel they are denied the chance to do their best work. Academic members worry about the erosion of collegial governance while pressure increases a sense of precarity, especially for those newer to AU. Our members tell us key decisions are made in ways that shut out our expertise, experience, and enthusiasm.

We don’t oppose change and transformation, but it matters how that change happens. We don’t want to feel bullied, belittled, or ignored. We want you to listen to our feedback—really listen—and meaningfully include us in decision-making processes.

AUFA members are realizing that the process of collective bargaining offers a rare chance to assert our own agency. We don’t have to passively accept negative changes to our working conditions. Instead, we can demand the respect we deserve. We have heard from many members who suggest that they don’t want to strike but they will if necessary.

It’s about more than the language on the table

We all know this round of bargaining doesn’t exist in isolation. Our collective agreement has a long history and context and is intertwined with other aspects of our work environment.

There are a wide range of management decisions that influence how we feel about what’s going on at the bargaining table. There are many examples of this, so we’ll only name a few.

• The IT Optimization project was a really negative experience for most of our affected members, many of whom continue to feel devalued and stripped of agency.

• Top-down decisions affecting members in the Faculty of Health Disciplines, in particular, have combined with the pressures of educating front-line workers throughout the pandemic to create significant stress and erode morale.

• Many members have experienced the Near-Virtual initiative as stressful and contradictory.

• Many members have expressed concern about the lack of consultation and transparency during the implementation of the Integrated Learning Environment.

• We routinely field calls from members looking for clarification and support with navigating AU’s own processes, including significant concerns about a lack of support from HR with basic employment needs and an unnecessarily adversarial approach to labour relations.

• Members continue to feel anxious about AU’s threat to de-designate them from the union.

These experiences illustrate why we see a clear signal in our surveys that our members have extremely low levels of trust in AU’s leadership. Trust was already low when we started the surveys during Dr. Neil Fassina’s tenure, and it has only dropped since. In November 2021, only 15% of members surveyed said they agreed with the statement, “I trust the executive team of the university,” while 58% said they did not. AUFA members are not alone in this. Many AUPE and CUPE members have shared similar frustrations.

This low level of trust affects how we interpret communications from AU. Many members describe feeling insulted or outraged when reading AU’s communications, even on topics unrelated to bargaining, and have described it as incomplete, misleading, or disingenuous.

To be clear, this is not a reflection of the way our members who facilitate AU communications do their work. Rather, this reflects frustration and even exasperation with the lack of meaningful, transparent, and timely communication shared by AU’s top leaders.

It’s important for you to understand that our members have learned over the years to be suspicious or skeptical of the information and spin offered by AU’s leadership. What this means is that platitudes and vague promises won’t win our trust back. We need concrete and tangible actions.

You have the power to change course

The AUFA executive and volunteers will keep listening to AUFA members. In the past few weeks, we have heard that many members feel distracted and demoralized, and that most would very much appreciate an end to this lengthy battle. But our members are also focused on safeguarding and advancing valued protections and benefits.

It is clear that the university is the body with the power to change course. You have the opportunity to set a new tone that foregrounds respect for the workers of this university. You have the chance to open a new chapter of improved labour relations and increased collegiality. Give us all—our members, our colleagues, and our students—the chance to look to the future of AU with renewed optimism and energy.

We ask that you send a strong signal that you are ready to acknowledge, respect, and value the work we do. It’s time for you to demonstrate that you’re prepared to empower us to do our best work in service of our shared mission to remove barriers and increase equality of educational opportunity for adult learners worldwide.

Respectfully,

AUFA Executive and Members

This letter, with 130 AUFA members' signatures included, was delivered to Dr. Scott and the AU Executive on April 5, 2022. We are hopeful this will help to encourage the employer to take a different approach to bargaining than we've seen over the past several months.