Picketing and the Virtual Strike

AUFA’s Job Action Committee (JAC) is at present tabulating the results of its consultation on striking, strike activities, and strike pay. The short version is there was overwhelming member support, and the consultation generated many excellent ideas, some of which we are adopting. There will be a full report-back in early January. A townhall meeting and ratification vote on a slightly revised set of recommendations will take place in later January.

During the consultation, members asked a variety of questions. Some questions are answered in our Work Stoppage FAQ while others will be answered in the new year via a blog post. This post explains how JAC will organize picketing given AUFA’s distributed membership and the effective closure (temporarily or permanently) of all campuses.

The Logic of Strikes and Picketing

Workers withdraw their labour (i.e., strike) in order to apply financial pressure on their employer to come to a mutually acceptable agreement. Strikes generate pressure primarily by disrupting the employer’s ability to deliver service to their customers and, thus, make money.

JAC has completed a preliminary analysis of the impact of AUFA members ceasing their teaching, internal service, and professional duties. This analysis suggests a strike will significantly degrade AU’s ability to operate and, indeed, function at all. This, in turn, will cause students to defer new registrations, thereby imperilling 50% of AU’s revenue.

Further, any work stoppage will negatively affect AU’s reputation as a reliable and responsible provider of post-secondary education. The risk for the employer (that escalates over time) is that students may decide to take their tuition money elsewhere.

Workers picket to discourage customers, suppliers, and replacement workers from entering the worksite. Essentially, picketing is designed to intensify the operational disruption of a strike as well as attach reputational costs to the employer’s unwillingness to bargain. Intensifying the pressure on the employer is designed to shorten the length of the strike. Picketing often entails walking the sidewalk or blocking a plant gate, carrying signs, handing out leaflets, and the like.

Traditional picketing makes little sense at AU. Effectively, no work occurs on AU’s campuses and no students ever visit them. Further, many AUFA members do not live in close proximity to an AU location. Consequently, JAC is considering two main alternatives to the traditional picket: flying pickets and digital pickets.

Flying Pickets

A flying picket is essentially an in-person picket that moves around (instead of a static picket outside a workplace) and operates for relatively short periods of time. It can, but does not always, entail carrying picket sign. Some examples of flying pickets include:

• Campus visits: Going to a campus that sends many visiting students to AU, having one-on-one conversations with students about our issues and concerns, and asking them not to enroll at AU until the strike is over will apply reputational and financial pressure to AU.

• High-Traffic Pickets: Holding a traditional picket at a high-traffic location (e.g., important intersection at rush hour) to raise public awareness about AU’s behaviour.

• Door Knocking: Informing voters of how the government’s mandate (which presumably shapes AU’s financial offer) is affecting us may generate government pressure on AU to settle (e.g., by agreeing to non-financial improvements).

• Secondary Pickets: Picketing organizations with close ties to the AU or the government may generate pressure from these organizations on AU to settle.

• Pressuring Leaders: Picketing or leafleting at businesses operated by AU Board members or in the neighbourhoods of AU Board members and executives may pressure them to seek a settlement.

Flying pickets address the absence of a meaningful workplace to picket. At present, JAC plans to hold regular flying pickets in Athabasca, Calgary, and Edmonton. These locations are home to approximately 75% of our members and are where AUFA has the deepest bases of local organizers. Flying pickets are possible in other locations if there are enough AUFA members and local organizers available.

Digital Pickets

Approximately 25% of members do not live in or near Athabasca, Edmonton, or Calgary. To accommodate these members, as well as those members for whom flying pickets are not viable, JAC is also developing digital picketing strategies. A digital picket is an activity designed to apply pressure to AU to settle that can be performed regardless of one’s physical location. Some examples of digital picketing include:

• Shareables: The posting of shareables (e.g., memes, infographics) on social media applies reputational pressure to AU, particularly when coupled with a specific time-bound ask (e.g., during a strike, don’t register for AU courses or refrain from donating to AU). Shareables also allow non-AUFA members to amplify these tactics. Social media accounts, including anonymous ones, are readily available and easy to operate.

• Outreach: Targeted contacts (e.g., email, phone calls, letters) can be operationally disruptive as well as apply financial and reputational pressure to AU. Targets can include AU Board members, executives, donors, students, MLAs, and allied organizations.

• Education: Digitally delivered “teach-ins” are a way for AUFA members to interact with members of the public (as well as other AUFA members), build an understanding of why we’re striking, and recruit allies.

• Creative activities: Creative activities, whether self-directed or structured (e.g., limerick, haiku, photo, and song contests), offer an important way to build morale, engage with one another, and apply reputational pressure on AU.

In addition to flying and digital pickets, JAC and the AUFA executive will be working on other pressure tactics, including transfer-credit boycotts, advertising, and media coverage. Ideally, AUFA would like to have a suite of strike activities available that allow all members to meaningfully participate in winning better working conditions.

We hope this brief discussion of AUFA’s approach to strike activities is helpful. If you have any questions, you can contact me at barnetso@athabascau.ca.

Bob Barnetson, Chair

AUFA Job Action Committee

Your Turn

JAC would like to hear your feedback on the approaches outlined above as well as any ideas you have.

Strike prep: 500 days without a contract

Today marks the 500th day that AUFA members have been working without a contract. Indeed, we don’t even have a full opening offer from the employer yet. AU’s bad-faith bargaining is making it impossible to negotiate a new contract. Since the employer won’t bargain, AUFA’s Job Action Committee (JAC) has begun preparing for what seems like an inevitable strike.

A few weeks ago, JAC asked members to suggest tactics designed to pressure AU to agree to an acceptable contract settlement. A credible strike threat is necessary to get a fair deal at the table, and AUFA members should have some input into the tactics AUFA employs.

This blog outlines a high level overview of some of those member-suggested tactics. It also answers some of the questions AUFA members asked JAC. Over the coming weeks, JAC will discuss these tactics in some detail, as well as strategize when and how best to use them.

Suggested Tactics

The suggested tactics fall into three broad categories:

• Operational: When AUFA members withdraw their labour, AU processes that rely on AUFA members’ work will slow or stop.

• Financial: A strike (or its prospect) disincentivizes students to enrol in courses, thereby reducing institutional revenue.

• Reputational: Strike-related communications (before or during a strike) can do long-term damage to AU’s reputation as a good place to work or go to school.

AUFA members suggested four main operational tactics:

• a work slowdown or working to rule,

• refusing certain or additional work assignments,

• signing a “no scabbing” pledge with AUPE and CUPE, or

• fully withdrawing labour (i.e., a strike).

AUFA members suggested a number of ways to apply reputational pressure to AU. In these examples, please read “bosses” as meaning members of both AU’s executive and AU’s Board of Governors.

• contacting bosses and/or politicians (in person and electronically),

• bringing in a mediator to bargaining sessions (creating an observer effect),

• holding a non-confidence vote in AU’s bargaining team or the Board,

• conducting a media campaign highlighting AU’s bargaining position and behaviour,

• organizing information pickets (e.g., pickets, car convoys, leafleting) that target bosses and MLAs’ homes, offices, and businesses, as well as meetings of the Board of Governors,

• publicizing data related to bosses’ salaries and administrative bloat,

• informing and/or pressurizing the new president about how AU’s bargaining is affecting staff relations, and

• organizing a national campaign of censure over AU’s bargaining approach.

AUFA members suggested a number of ways to apply financial pressure to AU, including:

• organizing a student boycott for the duration of any work stoppage, and

• asking colleagues to refrain from recommending that students attend AU or accept transfer credits from AU until bargaining is settled.

A small number of members noted that a work stoppage would lead to students experiencing delays in completing their education. Other members identified the risk that reputational harm might persist after a new contract is settled.

Questions

Members asked a number of questions. JAC has endeavoured to answer them below.

Q: Will AU save money during a work stoppage?

A: AU’s expenses during a work stoppage will decline because it will not pay AUFA salaries or benefits. This means that, for a strike to be effective, the financial impact of a work stoppage on AU’s revenue must be sufficiently large to offset these savings.

Q: Will we lose our jobs if we strike?

A: Unlikely. Alberta’s Labour Relations Code bars employers from terminating staff for participating in a strike. Article 12 of our collective agreement does allow AU to lay off staff (with notice), but AU would only be permitted to do this if a) “the employer permanently discontinues some or all of its operations, or no longer employs employees to do certain work” or b) AU is able to show financial exigency.

It is of course possible that AU will trigger a reduction in tuition revenue by forcing AUFA to strike. But AU normally manages enrollment fluctuations by reducing CUPE members’ teaching loads, so the risk of layoffs resulting from a strike is very low.

Q: How will I afford to live during a work stoppage?

A: A few weeks ago, AUFA provided information about strike pay and benefits as well as strategies AUFA members may wish to use to prepare for the financial impact of a work stoppage.

Q: Will the reputational harm cause long-term damage to AU?

A: Maybe. AU’s approach to labour relations over the past few years (e.g., repeatedly seeking unnecessary rollbacks to our collective agreement, adopting an unnecessarily antagonistic approach to labour relations, trying to bust the union) has made AU a less attractive place to work. Forcing AUFA to strike would only reinforce this view. A strike would also make AU look like an unreliable provider of education. AU could avoid these outcomes by changing its behaviour, both at the bargaining table and in the workplace more generally.

Q: Why does AUFA use Lego graphics in its blog posts and information updates?

A: Lego is a low-cost way to create custom graphics that convey the gist of AUFA blog posts and information updates in a quick and accessible way. These graphics drive up readership of the blog in a way that clip-art posts or posts with no graphics do not. The graphics also attach costs to bad behaviour by AU’s executive (e.g., by lampooning them) which, over time, appears to reduce their willingness to continue behaving badly.

Q: What is the status of the unfair labour practice complaint AUFA filed?

A: AU has delayed the hearing of the unfair labour practice complaint (as well as AUFA’s application for an ESA exemption) by providing few dates when AU is available to attend Labour Board meetings and hearings as well as by continually asking AUFA for additional information.

Q: Why is AUFA talking about a strike while bargaining is still underway?

A: Planning a successful strike takes time, so we need to start now. Members also need time to prepare. Preparing publicly to strike gives AU time to recognize that the threat of a strike is real, to consider whether it wants to alter its behaviour to avoid one and, instead, to negotiate a new contract (which is the ultimate goal).

Q: Is it common to wait until the end of bargaining to negotiate wages?

A: Sometimes parties choose to negotiate language before tackling monetary issues (e.g., AU and AUPE Local 69 are doing this). This decision is often justified as being a way to gain momentum at the table before tackling harder issues like wages.

It is worth noting, however, that the supposed dichotomy between monetary and non-monetary issues is a false one. Almost every piece of contract language has monetary implications.

One of the consequences of settling language issues before talking money is that doing so reduces the number of bargaining chips available to AUFA (and AU, for that matter) to structure a final deal that is acceptable to both sides.

Given AU’s track record and its lawyer’s assertion that AU’s full proposal is so bad that AU expects AUFA to strike, AUFA’s bargaining team thinks it is advisable to see the entirety of AU’s opening proposal before agreeing on any changes.

Q: Why is AUFA focused on complaining about AU not providing a full offer instead of telling us about wins at the table?

A: AUFA’s bargaining team provides updates after each set of bargaining dates. There have been no wins at the table to report. This is, in part, because AU’s partial opening offer contains a large number of rollbacks for which there is no justification.

Further hampering bargaining is AU’s unwillingness to present a full opening offer (see question above). It is unfortunate that AUFA has to pressure AU into doing the bare legal minimum required to engage in good-faith bargaining. But that’s a function of how AU is approaching bargaining.

Bob Barnetson, Chair

AUFA Job Action Committee

Update: Member engagement meetings and visiting student boycott

This week, AUFA’s membership engagement committee hosted two meetings with AUFA member. Monday’s meeting was with academics who will be facing tenure or promotional reviews in the next few years. Tuesday’s meeting was with AUFA members in the Faculty of Health Disciplines. 

Previously, AUFA met with members in IT and academic coordinators. The purpose of these smaller meetings is to address topics of interest to each sub-group and allow for more back and forth than is possible in general membership meetings. 

Tenure and Promotion 

Academics soon to be facing tenure and promotion reviews received a brief introduction to the review process. The majority of the meeting was then used to answer questions about these processes as well as strategies for success. Thanks are due to Eric Strikwerda for facilitating this portion of the meeting. 

Workload and COVID 

The latter portion of the meeting was used to discuss the impact of COVID on new academics. The discussion included conversations about the impact of COVID on tenure and promotion applications and possible solutions. Thanks to Alexa DeGagne for facilitating this portion o the meeting. 

Termination of Dean 

Significant concerns were raised in both meetings about the de-stabilizing effect of the termination without cause of the dean of Health Disciplines. This issue was the primary focus of the meeting on Tuesday, where the discussion was centered on possible member responses to mitigate the damage this abrupt decision may cause. 

The AUFA Membership Engagement Committee will be following up with affected members to continue exploring options; anyone interested in participating in these discussions is encouraged to reach out to engagement@aufa.ca. 

Update on Visiting Student Boycott 

As part of AUFA’s response to AU’s efforts to de-designate up to two-thirds of AUFA members, AUFA has been developing a visiting student boycott threat. Essentially, if AU de-designates AUFA members, then other faculty associations will tell their members to stop sending visiting students to AU. The purpose of this threat is to attach a profonde financial cost to AU’s union-busting efforts. 

Over the past month, 6 more faculty association have joined boycott, including Cape Breton, Laurentian, Northern British Columbia, St Mary’s, Toronto, and Windsor. 

This brings out total to 16 potential boycotters as well as 2 associations that written letters of support, but have not yet signed on to the boycott. AUFA’s goal is to have 50 faculty associations from across the country to pledge their support. 

The pledge letters demonstrate strong support for AUFA. There is clear recognition that de-designation is union busting. For example, the Laurentian University Faculty Association told Laird: 

By any standard, this is union busting. There was no impetus inside the faculty association to take such a step. It is also no accident that his move is being contemplated by the Board at the same time the union is headed into bargaining for a new collective agreement. 

There is also a clear commitment to boycott AU if designation proceeds. For example, the St. Mary’s University Faculty Association told Laird: 

Should you decide to de-designate members from AUFA, our Union will advise your members to no longer recommend Athabasca University to their students as a place to obtain additional credits as visiting students. 

And some associations are recommending stronger action. For example, the University of Northern British Columbia Faculty Association noted: 

Were this to occur, the UNBC Faculty Association would have no choice but to discourage UNBC students from taking courses through Athabasca University. In addition, we would immediately work through CUFA-BC and CAUT to support a nationwide publicity campaign to discourage students from taking classes at AU. 

AUFA thanks our colleagues at these institutions for their support. AUFA will continue to build its boycott threat over the winter months. 

Dave Powell, President 

Rhiannon Rutherford, Chair, Membership Engagement Committee

AU Transfer Credit Boycott - Explained

At a recent Connect with the President session, Neil Fassina commented on the transfer credit boycott claiming he did not understand the boycott, and that it was unrelated to the Designation as Academic Policy. There seems to be some confusion about this, so here is some clarifying information.

What is the transfer credit boycott?

Since August, several faculty associations from universities across Canada have contacted Athabasca University. Their letters indicate that if members are removed from AUFA without consent, they will instruct their members to stop recommending AU for transfer credit.

Currently, there is no active boycott. There is the potential for a boycott if AU proceeds with removing members from AUFA.

Why is AUFA doing this?

AU recently passed a new Designation as Academic Policy. This policy can be used to kick members out of AUFA through de-designation. If removed from AUFA, our members could lose protections and pay, and they could be removed from their pension plan.

Representatives from AUFA, AUPE, and CUPE participated in six months of consultations about this policy and raised many concerns. AUFA members are extremely grateful to AUPE and CUPE for their remarkable solidarity in opposing this new policy. AU, however, forged ahead with passing the policy despite not providing any rationale for why it is necessary or articulating what benefit it might bring to AU.

Now that the policy is live, AUFA faces the potential of complete destruction by AU. In an effort to fully represent and defend our members, we reached out for assistance to our sister associations across the country. AUFA has no desire to negatively affect students or enrolment growth at AU, but we have an obligation to do whatever we can to protect our members and prevent the destruction of our union.

Is it working?

Yes. Shortly after the potential boycott was announced, AU made last-minute changes to the policy that softened its immediate impact. To date, no members have been removed from AUFA, though it is still within AU’s power to do so.

We believe that if the potential boycott remains a concern, AU is less likely to remove our members. As such, we will continue to solicit commitments to boycott from other faculty associations. If AU agrees to not remove members from AUFA without consent, we will instruct all associations to stand down and the potential boycott will be off the table.

Why did Neil say he does not understand the boycott?

It is not clear why President Fassina would discuss this potential boycott in the way that he did. He would have had access to all the letters from our sister associations and was present at a half-hour presentation AUFA gave to the Board of Governors about designation. That this potential boycott is not yet active—and that it is within AU’s power to prevent it—should be very clear to him.

Any AU staff members (not just AUFA members!) with questions about AUFA’s actions are encouraged to contact AUFA.

David Powell

President, AUFA

MRU joins de-designation boycott; AUFA proposes resolution

Edit: This post originally stated there was no member of AU Executive Team at the meeting. This is incorrect as the Chief Human Resources Officers is a member of executive. The post has been corrected.

This blog provides an update on AUFA’s efforts to resist AU’s plan to de-designate, including AUFA’s latest proposal to resolve the issue.

Mixed messages by Fassina

In his September 24 Connect with the President session, President Fassina asserted that AU had no “master plan” to de-designate staff when changes to the Designation as Academic Policy were introduced. This is difficult to reconcile with the named exclusion of positions from AUFA that AU included in all but the final versions of the policy.

These named exclusions included deans, associate deans, managers, and systems analysts (basically some or all IT staff). The inclusion of named exclusions demonstrates that AU did have a plan to exclude at least some AUFA members from the union when the policy was introduced. It is unclear why Fassina would say otherwise.

Fassina also indicated that AU does intend to implement the policy that the Board passed. Despite being pressed for clarity, Fassina declined to disclose when this implementation would occur, who would be affected by it, or how they would be affected (e.g., the pension implications).

MRU joins boycott pledge

The faculty association at Mount Royal University has signed on to AUFA’s visiting student boycott pledge. The MRFA indicated that, should AU de-designate AUFA members, MRFA will:

“…advise its faculty to no longer recommend AU for letters of permission. We will ask them to point our students to other institutions such as Thompson Rivers University for letters of permission. The Association will also advise its members to review all AU transfer arrangements with a view to delisting them.”

MRU is the latest faculty association to sign on, joining the associations at Alberta, British Columbia, Brock, Lethbridge, Manitoba, Saskatchewan, Simon Fraser, and Western.

De-designation in the media

One of the business risks associated with AU’s efforts to de-designate AUFA members is reputational harm. This week, we saw the first indication of that de-designation will damage AU’s reputation among potential students. The University of Manitoba student newspaper reported on the issue after an interview with U of M faculty association President Michael Shaw.

“Shaw also recently issued a letter to the chair of Athabasca University’s (AU) board of governors on behalf of the UMFA in support of the Athabasca University Faculty Association (AUFA), joining the visiting student boycott pledge. AU’s board of governors passed the designation as academic policy Sept. 11, which AUFA said in a post on their website would “give [Athabasca University] a way to carve out approximately two-thirds [of] AUFA’s members from the bargaining unit.”

“Precarious employment is a huge issue for universities across Canada, really around the world,” Shaw said.

“And there are some places that people have job security so that they have full and fair academic freedom to state controversial opinions and to really expand on learning for the students.

“And when you take away that academic freedom, when people are moved into a precarious position, it really significantly impacts the quality of the teaching that can occur.”

The faculty associations of the Universities of Alberta, Saskatchewan, Western Ontario and Lethbridge have all issued similar letters condemning the policy and advising AU that members will no longer be recommending Athabasca to students to complete credits if any AUFA members are de-designated.

“We are encouraging our members not to do that, not to use University of Athabasca resources if they continue down this track,” Shaw said.

“We can certainly tell our students there are good options at Brandon [University] if you don’t have an option here, there are good options at U of W if you don’t have an option here and there [are] options at the University [College] of the North, so you don’t have to use Athabasca.””

AUFA proposes settlement of designation fight

In an effort to limit further reputational and financial harm to the institution, AUFA proposed a possible resolution during today’s labour-management meeting. In short, AUFA proposed:

• AUFA would stop the visiting student boycott and cease organizing anti-designation protests if

• AU agrees that, for a period of five years, de-designation of current AUFA positions can only occur if AUFA consents to the de-designation.

The President and the Provost, who normally attend, did not attend the labour-management meeting so AUFA left this offer with the HR representatives in the meeting.

David Powell, President

AUFA update: Designation, OHS and arbitration delay

This blog post provides a series of short updates on AUFA activities over the past two weeks.

OHS Inspections

The main campus joint occupational health and safety committee conducted a physical inspection of the campus on September 28. The primary focus of the inspection was COVID-19 protocols. The main control AU has implemented for COVID-19 is having staff work from home. There were fewer than 30 staff on campus during the visit.

Other controls included social distancing in common areas, the use of masks, and enhanced cleaning. Overall, there was high compliance with COVID protocols and facilities staff have done a very thorough job. A very small number of non-COVID issues were flagged for remediation.

Membership Meetings

The Membership Engagement Committee has begun holding department specific meetings to discuss issues with members and answer questions in a less formal environment that larger membership meetings. The first of these was held October 2 with IT staff (56 members in attendance) and touched on de-designation, KT optimization, and workload issues. Additional meetings will be held in the next few months targeting those departments or groups with members potentially at greatest risk of de-designation.

Visiting Student Boycott

Two more faculty associations have pledged to join AUFA’s visiting student boycott. The faculty associations at Brock and Manitoba Royal have joined faculty at Alberta, British Columbia, Lethbridge, Saskatchewan, Simon Fraser and Western. These associations have agreed to instruct their members not to send any visiting students to AU in the event that AU de-designates AUFA members. AUFA continues to pursue pledges from other faculty associations.

Arbitration delayed

An arbitration scheduled for this week was delayed due to witness illness. This arbitration concerns a member whose position was declared redundant. Article 12.2 stipulates that, when a position is declared redundant, members receive 12 months of working notice plus a variable amount of pay (up to a maximum of 6 months). Article 12.2 allows AU to provide the member with pay in lieu of the working notice period.

In this case, AU decided that it was only required to pay out the salary for the notice period. AUFA, on behalf of the member, asserts that AU is also required to pay out the value of the benefits the member would have earned during the notice period. This would include the employer’s pension contributions, health care premiums, PD allotment and discretionary benefits payment.

Dave Powell, President

Designation policy passes: Pickets and boycotts begin

This post provides an update on designation-related matters, including this morning’s picket, AUFA’s visiting student boycott, and AUFA’s plans going forward.

Designation Policy

Last week, Athabasca University Board of Governors passed the new Designation as Academic Policy. This policy gives AU a way to carve out approximately two-thirds AUFA’s members from the bargaining unit. AU has committed to consulting with AUFA prior to any de-designation. Given our experience with the development of this policy, we expect these consultations will be meaningless formalities, but we remain open and hopeful.

To date, AU has not indicated which group (professionals, academic coordinators, deans or managers) that they will seek to de-designate first or any timeline for de-designation. The AUFA executive is prepared to challenge all de-designations at the Labour Relations Board. Our lawyer’s advice is to hold all challenges until AU makes a move.

Picketing Convocation Taping

In the meantime, the Membership Engagement Committee (MEC) has been charged with maintaining pressure on AU. This morning President Neil Fassina and the executive were met by a picket line outside the Winspear Theatre. Fassina and company were on their way in to pre-record portions of the 2020 convocation. Additional picketing of events attended by Fassina as well as AU Board members will continue indefinitely.

MEC members also contacted all AUFA members who had RSVPed to attend the platform party taping to appear as silent floating heads. These members were asked to not attend as a way of showing support for their colleagues who are under threat of de-designation. This action was chosen because not participating in the taping has no material impact on students’ education. Faculty are, of course, free to attend the convocation itself in October.

Visiting Student Boycott Pledge

The faculty associations at the University of British Columbia, Simon Fraser University and the University of Victoria have signed onto AUFA’s visiting student boycott. The associations join the associations at Universities of Alberta, Lethbridge, Saskatchewan, and Western, who have already pledged support.

The boycott pledge essentially commits these associations to direct their members to not send any visiting students to AU if AU de-designates any AUFA members. Western has gone further and indicated its faculty will be asked not to approve transfer credit from AU.

AU is significantly reliant upon visiting student tuition and this pledge attaches a financial cost to de-designation. AUFA’s executive is presently seeking pledges from faculty associations at the remaining top-10 sending institutions before turning its attention to securing pledges from other universities and colleges.

Meetings with Affected Groups

The MEC will be organizing meetings with groups of AUFA members who are under clear threat of de-designation. These meetings will be scheduled in October and will include a brief presentation about the impact of de-designation, suggestions for direct action, and a Q&A session.

Dave Powell, President

Board to discuss de-designation policy in secret

Last week, AUFA provided analysis of AU’s latest de-designation policy draft. At the end of that post, we identified that we may need AUFA members to attend the Board of Governors meeting that will occur Friday morning. Subsequent to that post, AU has decided it will be discussing the de-designation policy in a closed Board meeting (i.e., one that precludes public attendance).  

The most likely explanation for this secret meeting is that President Fassina is seeking to control what the Board members see and hear about his proposed policy. It is unlikely the Board will be thrilled to find out his proposal entails no legitimate benefits for AU and, now, includes substantial financial and reputational risk associated with AUFA’s visiting student boycott. Keeping AUFA members from interacting with BoG members is the best way to control the narrative and pass the policy.  

AUFA president Dave Powell has been invited (along with representatives from AUPE, CUPE and AUGSA) to this closed meeting. Together, they were granted 30 minutes to make one or more presentations and answer any questions from the Board members. Attendees were threatened with being barred from speaking if they made available to their members the link to the closed meeting. 

AUFA will provide an update once the secret Board meeting is concluded and the Board’s decision is known. AUFA is planning further actions to protest this proposed policy. 

Bob Barnetson, Member 

Membership Engagement Committee