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 Solidarity Statement

Public allegations have been made that during the public session of the Athabasca University Board of Governors meeting on December 9, 2022, a member of the Athabasca University Board of Governors made racist and exclusionary comments. This board member’s comments are alleged to have been made in an open question period following a presentation made by two Athabasca University student leaders who were highlighting the extraordinary financial pressures AU students are under.  

AUFA is releasing the following statement:  

AUFA condemns all forms of overt, covert, and structural racism. Please refer to our equity statement to understand the breadth of AUFA’s commitment to anti-racism and decolonization.  

We value diversity in our students, and we care deeply about students’ learning conditions, especially their feelings of belonging at AU. We therefore denounce the alleged comments that specific students and/or programs of study are less valuable or less worthy of inclusion in our university community.  

We are in solidarity with our colleagues who have been harmed by racism, and we support their right to work in an environment free of racism. We acknowledge that when alleged comments like this come to light at our workplace, people with lived experiences of racism are harmed. Racism in the workplace causes significant physiological and psychological harm, making the workplace a distressing space and increasing the efforts needed in order to conduct one’s work. AUFA is working to be a place where these experiences can be brought forward and members can trust they will be believed, taken seriously, and their concerns acted upon.  

We are in solidarity with the critical work that the Athabasca University Students’ Union (AUSU) is doing to advocate for our students, including their call for a tuition freeze and increased financial support for students. It matters if students are increasing their use of food banks. If students are having to drop out or take fewer courses because the cost of tuition is prohibitive, this is a serious concern for all of us.  

In lieu of an AU equity office to which to take this issue, AUFA has sent a formal request for information clarifying the alleged comments to AU President, Peter Scott, and Sara Kunto, Chief Governance Officer. These allegations are very serious, and they have already had harmful effects among students, staff, and faculty. We look to our leaders for an investigation and an appropriate remedy. 

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

Bargaining Update: Mediator Issues Report

After three days of mediation (March 11, 17 and 22), the mediator has issued a report to the parties with recommendations for a possible settlement. The AUFA bargaining committee has decided to forward the report directly to AUFA members for their consideration. A vote on whether to accept the report will be held on Tuesday, March 29 in lieu of the planned strike vote. There is a Town Hall on Friday, March 25 at 2 pm to discuss the report and next steps. 

Significantly, AUFA’s bargaining team is not making a recommendation to members on whether to accept or reject the report. Instead the bargaining team has elected to remain neutral during the voting process. The decision to hold a vote on the report is anchored in AUFA’s broader commitment to democracy, and to AUFA members’ right to make the decisions that will shape what is, ultimately, their collective agreement. 

This blog post outlines the key recommendations in the mediator’s report. The Town Hall will provide further analysis of the recommendations. Members can find a copy of the mediator’s report here.

Wages and Allowances 

The mediator is recommending the same cost-of-living (COLA) settlement seen at other universities: 

• July 1, 2020: 0% 

• July 1, 2021: 0% 

• July 1, 2022: 0%  

• April 1, 2023: 1.25% 

• December 1, 2023: 1.5% 

• An additional 0.5% retroactive to December 1, 2023, payable in February or March 2024 subject to a “Gain Sharing Formula” linked to provincial GDP growth 

AUFA members will also receive enhancements to their working-from-home allowances: 

• Members who have not received $2000 for home-office set-up will be paid the difference between what they were paid and $2000 (e.g., members who received $1000 will receive an additional $1000). This payment is taxable. 

• Academic staff members who previously received $2000 for office set up and have been employed for at least six years shall receive a one-time taxable $800 payment for home office expenses. 

• Going forward all members required to work from home will receive $35 biweekly for printer and internet expenses (up from $61/month for academics and $25/biweekly for professionals).  

Research and Study Leave (RSL) 

Professionals, except librarians, will no longer be eligible for RSL as of the date of ratification. Professional members who are currently on RSL or have RSL approved will have their leaves honoured.  

Going forward, professionals will be allowed to carryover their annual entitlement of 21 days of PD leave to a maximum of 84 days (i.e., the equivalent of 4 years of PD entitlement) and will be able to request leaves up to that maximum. 

Professionals will have two options for dealing with accrued Research and Study Leave entitlements: 

• Option One: Unused RSL leave can be surrendered in exchange for a one-time payment of $10,500. Any unused Professional Development days dating back to 2020 shall be returned to the member’s PD bank. 

• Option Two: Members convert accrued RSL leave to PD leave up to a maximum of 12 months at 100% salary (using the conversion calculation in the current collective agreement). They will be allowed to request leaves up to the amount in their PD leave account. Carryover of PD days will not begin until the member’s account drops below 84 days (i.e., members will continue to earn PD days, but cannot carry them over at the end of the year). 

Employer proposals regarding academic RSL are withdrawn and the status quo remains.  

Other Provisions 

Employer-sought concessions regarding discipline (Article 7), grievance procedure (Article 8), appeals (Article 9), position reduction for academics (Article 12), layoffs for professionals, and probation review for professionals are withdrawn. In all cases, existing language remains. Small changes are made to professional position evaluation review, but members retain the right to appeal decisions under Article 9. 

The mediator recommends establishing a joint committee to review the current academic tenure and promotion process (in Article 3) to make recommendations for the next round of bargaining.  

Some recommendations address AUFA concerns in bargaining, including: 

• Enhancing occupational health and safety language (Article 25). 

• Reforming the Joint Benefits Committee to make it more effective in addressing AUFA members’ benefits concerns. 

• Extending unpaid compassionate care leave to 27 weeks and expanding eligibility to include circumstances of “grave illness”. 

• Inserting language in Article 3 to allow Indigenous Elders and knowledge holders to be recognized as eligible external reviewers for promotion applications from Indigenous academic members. 

• Including a new letter of understanding that involves the joint employment equity committee in an advisory capacity in the development of AU’s equity, diversity, and inclusion action plan and in an employment equity review process. 

• Both parties agreeing to abide by the Labour Relations Board decision regarding the status of Deans in the bargaining unit.  

Vote Results and Next Steps 

The results of the March 29 ratification vote will determine the next steps of the process.  

If members vote to accept the mediator’s report, then it will be considered a ratification of a new collective agreement, bargaining will come to an end, and the provisions in the report take effect as part of the collective agreement.  

If members vote to reject the report, then the parties will return to the bargaining table. The parties are free to bargain directly or continue to use the services of the mediator. Each party will revert to their previous positions before mediation. The mediator’s recommendations may or may not be considered in future bargaining.  

On behalf of the bargaining committee, 

Jason Foster 

AUFA Equity Audit Is Underway

Early in 2021, AUFA’s Executive prioritized making meaningful progress toward building a more inclusive union. As an initial step, AUFA President David Powell reported to the May 2021 General Membership Meeting in this way:

AUFA has begun an Indigenous Audit by hiring Dr. La Royce Batchelor who is examining AUFA’s documents and culture to create a series of recommendations towards a more inclusive and decolonized construct by shifts in language, inclusion, equity, diversity, and community. What that has meant is to look at what is written and what is said, and what that means. To question what power relationships are enforced through how our contract and other documents are written, and to whose advantage.

Since then, Dr. Batchelor has provided AUFA with several reports and recommendations. As an example, in a recent email to the AUFA Executive, Dr. Batchelor explained the link between union practices and the broader culture at AU:

It is a common misperception that it is the employer that determines corporate culture. However, repeated studies have demonstrated that it is the largest mass of participants that shapes corporate culture, or functional operations. If members of AUFA decide to function or operate in a different way the administration must shift.

In November, the Executive struck a committee to examine and respond to Dr. Batchelor’s observations. At present, the committee includes Myra Tait, Gail Leicht, Rhiannon Rutherford, and David Powell. Following both the letter and the spirit of Dr. Batchelor’s suggestion that the ‘largest mass of participants shapes corporate culture,’ however, many others will be needed in different capacities at different points throughout the process. The work is complex and requires us to examine biases, assumptions, structures, and long-standing practices. It’s also essential, especially if we, as a collective of over 400 individuals, are serious about addressing inequities and promoting inclusion both within our union and within the university.

To that end, while this project was initially conceived of as an Indigenous Audit, we think a better way to conceptualize it is as an Equity Audit. This more expansive and inclusive process title, we think, better reflects the audit’s broad scope and many different perspectives on power structures and relationships within AUFA and AU.

As an AUFA member, you are encouraged to review AUFA’s Equity Statement, and to consider adding your name as a signatory or offering feedback.

The Equity Committee appreciates all member feedback on the Equity Statement. We are an active committee, meeting on a monthly basis to consider a wide range of equity issues at AU. As we consider your comments, our hope is to revise the Statement on an annual basis, for presentation at the AUFA Annual General Meeting.

For the initial stages of the audit, Dr. Batchelor conducted detailed analyses of AUFA’s foundational documents, including our constitution, bylaws, and collective agreements, in addition to the Post-Secondary Learning Act, as well as the more dynamic content on the AUFA blog and website. Current and future stages will see Dr. Batchelor conduct a series of surveys designed to probe organizational culture.

Getting Started: Language Matters

Dr. Batchelor is especially attentive to how language is used – both in foundational documents as well as in our daily work and interactions. Language, of course, is powerful, and it can either reinforce inequitable power relations or promote an inclusive and welcoming organizational culture.

In the first report, Dr. Batchelor wrote,

It is difficult to focus on a dramatic organizational shift at the same time society is struggling with health and welfare as well as AUFA fighting for the jobs of its constituents. However, it is highly recommended that AUFA 1) establish a clear list of goals both current and aspirational, 2) examine definitions both connotative and denotative to ensure future clarity, and 3) question ALL language but especially language of an obvious power distance or punitive nature.

This emphasis on language is the focus of the first survey tool. The “Concepts and Definitions” survey invites participants to identify different definitions of key terms. For example, a particular term may have a different operational function than does its dictionary definition. It may also have other meanings and connotations within our organizational culture. These different definitions can sometimes stand in stark conflict with one another, and potentially contribute to inequitable power relations. Dr. Batchelor further explains:

The goal is to determine if the definitional and functional differences in words commonly used in AUFA foundational documents are also used in functional operations. If the words do not appear to have the same definitional drift in functional operations then the redress can be focused on the documents themselves. However, I am already finding that the definitions drift further in functional operations. This means that not only are there profound differences in the definitions across foundational documents, the definitions are also different in functional operations. We cannot conduct any meaningful shift in Inclusion, Diversity, Equity, and Accessibility if everyone is using a different functional definition.

The differences in definitions doesn't only exist in documents. Research reveals that less than 17% of employees actually read foundational documents. They rely instead on the functional operations definitions. Therefore it is necessary to understand not only the differences in document language, but also the understanding of those that rely on those documents for their livelihood. We can have amazing policies, but if the functional operation understanding does not match then we still have exclusion, homogeneity, favoritism, and inaccessible systems.

Next Steps

Some of the AUFA Executive piloted this first survey tool. For the next pilot group, we will draw from a representative sample of approximately 30 AUFA members. Responses are, of course, entirely voluntary, and will be sent to Dr. Batchelor directly, kept confidential, and analyzed for content only.

A request for participation will be sent to a random and representative sample of members, but any interested members are also welcome to submit responses. Download this file and send it to Dr. Batchelor.

In the coming months, Dr. Batchelor will use a series of additional survey tools to further compile member demographics, identify challenges or barriers members face, and propose solutions. We will share more details about these surveys as they are available.

We will also seek to increase ways members can engage in this process more directly as it unfolds. There will be a townhall meeting on Tuesday, February 1, at 1:00pm MST.

Dr. Batchelor has already provided some concrete recommendations, including a full bylaw review and changes to AUFA’s organizational structure. The committee and the AUFA Executive will be seeking to make progress on these tasks over the next several months. Our hope is to have language and structure changes ready to present to the full membership for discussion at the May 2022 General Membership Meeting.

We are grateful for Dr. Batchelor’s efforts and insights so far and look forward to learning and sharing more information with AUFA members in the coming months. This is an exciting opportunity for AUFA to re-invent itself to better meet the needs of all members towards inclusive solidarity.

Myra Tait and Rhiannon Rutherford