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).

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

New Member Preliminary Survey Results

In November, AUFA’s Membership Engagement Committee (MEC) sought feedback from new AUFA members about their experiences of joining AU. This short survey was the first step in what will be a deeper look at the needs of new AUFA members.

Thirty-three AUFA members who were hired after January 1, 2019 responded, with an even split between new academic and new professional members. With one exception, the results were similar for academic and professional members. Key themes include:

• New AUFA members did not have enough information to effectively negotiate an offer.

• AU provided inadequate orientation to their jobs and to the organization.

• New AUFA members struggled to self-orient because of inadequate and incorrect documentation and the absence of mentors.

• Social isolation has intensified the challenges faced by new AUFA members.

In the spring, MEC members will be undertaking more in-depth interviews with AUFA members about their onboarding experiences.

Negotiations at Hire

Q1. During your hiring, did you have enough info to negotiate an offer effectively with AU?

The vast majority of members identified that they lacked information during the hiring process, and this affected their ability to negotiate. Negotiations are important because starting salaries are the pivotal factor in life-time earnings.

In their comments, respondents reported that AU would not answer questions, was unwilling to meaningfully negotiate, and refused to provide support to members having to relocate. Members also flagged that, when they became aware that their starting salaries were inequitable, there was no meaningful remedy available to them.

Orientation to Job

Q2. During your first two weeks on the job, were your job specific duties adequately explained to you?

Q3. Do you know the criteria against which your performance will be judged at the end of your probationary period?

In their comments, many respondents emphasized that their orientation to their jobs was inadequate. This included tasks, duties and how their work fit into the organization which was not explained or shifting as time went on. What information was provided was provided in an overwhelming volume without adequate context. Respondents also repeatedly emphasized that organizational documentation was often out of date, they often had no one to ask questions of, and the answers to questions often conflicted (depending upon who one asked).

Orientation to Organization

Q4. Do you know what you need to do to take a few days of sick leave?

Q5. Do you know what your PD account can and cannot be spent on?

Q6. Do you know how to book a vacation?

Q7. Do you know how to get help with IT problems?

In their comments, respondents also identified that their orientation to the organization was inadequate or non-existent. Many struggled to understand their entitlements, actual processes almost never matched written policies and procedures, how different parts of the university worked and interacted were unclear, and they struggled to find anyone who could answer their questions. Over time, new AUFA members navigated processes by trial and error.

Isolation and Workload

In their comments, new professional and academic members noted that the isolation created by COVID and the near-virtual model intensified their difficulties understanding their jobs and the organization. There have been few opportunities to develop informal connections and social networks and AU has made no effort to address this issue.

Staff (mostly professional) also identified rising workloads as a significant problem. These comments are, in part, related to AU’s disastrous IT Optimization process, but workload concerns are not restricted to only IT and course production staff. Enrollment growth, additional job responsibilities or workload volume (often associated with the move to working from home), and delays in staffing were factors contributing to workload problems.

Next Steps

In the spring, the New Member Research Committee will be conducting more in-depth interviews with new AUFA members. A final report is due in June. This report will include identifying areas for improvement for AU (which is primarily responsible for orienting new staff) as well as for AUFA.

As interim measures:

• In June, AUFA posted a new member handbook providing a basic overview of rights, entitlements and processes. Based upon member feedback, AUFA will be reframing this as simply a member handbook in the near future.

• In September, AUFA began phoning all new members on a go forward basis and providing an orientation to the union and the collective bargaining agreement. New or long-serving members who wish to receive such an orientation can email engagement@aufa.ca to set up a call.

• In December, AUFA will be developing a 2022 calendar of important dates for AUFA members.

Your Turn

The New Member Experience Committee would appreciate any further feedback you have on this topic as it prepares to commence interviews.

Corina Dransutavicius, Eloy Rivas Sanchez, Susan Cake, and Bob Barnetson

AUFA New Member Experience Committee

AU Walks out on Mediation over IT Optimization

AUFA has had to deal with multiple grievances relating to AU’s so-called ‘IT Optimization’ strategy, including layoff language forcing members into new jobs, coercive language, and the exclusion of AUFA members from the bargaining unit. Most recently, AU abandoned the mediation that it had proposed to resolve many of these issues.

The IT department, as a result of this upheaval, is in a bad state.

Current State

The problems in IT are complicated, but are broadly categorized into issues with backward planning, unclear job descriptions, inadequate transition plans, and absent training. Normally, completion of a major reorganization would rely on documenting the current state of the department and establishing transition and training plans.

AU instead completed the major reorganization first, and then tried to coax the current state of the department into establishing transition and training plans. The expectation from IT leadership was that this ought to be accomplished in 2 – 4 months.

Not surprisingly, a smooth transition has not happened. As of writing many AUFA members are dealing with multiple jobs, confusing squad assignments, poor communication on training, inappropriate job descriptions, and a lack of management over their old work. This is particularly true with members moved from the Faculty of Business, whose original jobs were not understood at all by the central IT department. There is no indication of progress on resolving these issues. Nothing is documented, and service from the IT department is suffering.

The most recent message to members from IT deputies is that transitions can’t happen until all new hires are complete. This is the third time the goal posts have moved on transition plans, which have only been communicated verbally with no acknowledgement of the past timelines.

IT leadership have thus far refused to acknowledge any problematical issues, and statements from HR and the employer’s legal counsel have reinforced the belief that the IT department is working well, and that staff are happy.

Results from a recent survey sent to IT members last month suggest otherwise.

Grievances and Mediation

AUFA has launched multiple grievances due to problems in the IT department:

• The use of layoff language to force staff into new jobs without consultation

• A “take this job or quit” approach to redeployments

• The exclusion of IT middle managers

• Denial of Research and Study Leave (despite repeated claims all requests will be honored)

• Denial of leave time for AUFA duties (historically always granted)

• A reclassification request that was never processed by HR for two years

• A harassment complaint that was ignored by IT management and HR

Every issue in this list has been forwarded to arbitration. The employer’s lawyer contacted AUFA over the first four issues and requested mediation. AUFA requested VPIT Jennifer Schaeffer attend this mediation.

She refused.

Nevertheless, the first day of mediation was productive. We discussed a potential settlement that would walk back aspects of a grievance in exchange for a commitment from IT management towards documented, accountable solutions for issues in the department. Unfortunately, just one day before the second meeting, the employer pulled out of mediation, claiming entirely unrelated posts on the AUFA blog as a reason. This continues a pattern of the employer refusing to engage in good faith collaborative measures with AUFA, and instead push every issue to arbitration no matter the cost to AU.

Everything is being overruled and nothing is documented

In the new IT department, the average staff member reports to a manager, director, deputy, and then the VPIT. None of these four layers of management appear to have any power within the department; every request related to IT Optimization problems goes directly to the VPIT.

And there it is typically overruled.

There is now a familiar pattern of members raising issues: getting ‘buy-in’ from managers up the chain, followed by a period of awkward silence before news of the rejection arrives.

IT’s hierarchy seems to exist solely to keep staff away from the VPIT who, it’s worthwhile noting, only appears in once-monthly staff meetings where recordings are not shared and questions are not permitted.

There is also a dire absence of documentation in the department. The way the new model works—assurances for training, transition timelines, and so on – is mostly done verbally. New roles such as Technical Lead, for instance, require management-level work from AUFA members, and yet their actual duties were only ever communicated in a brief introductory presentation of the model earlier in the year.

With nothing documented, the promises and timelines from IT management are fluid and can change constantly with no memory to the past. As a result, the department is stuck in place and unable to advance. Without documented plans, accountability, and empowered managers, there is no way forward.

What’s Next?

AUFA will continue to pursue its legal strategy as it brings multiple grievances in IT to arbitration. This is a slow process, and although we hope for a positive outcome, results will take time. In the meantime, the status of the IT department continues to worsen. IT leadership has shown no interest in even admitting to, let alone resolving, issues as they have been repeatedly raised by AUFA and AUFA members in every possible venue.

It takes two parties to negotiate. Going forward, AUFA will continue working with members of the IT department on member-driven solutions to these issues.

Solidarity,

David Powell

AUFA President