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 Condemns Employer Disruption and Mismanagement; Calls for Concrete Action

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

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

Problematic Process 

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

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

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

“Disharmony”  

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

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

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

Words and Actions  

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

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

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

Mismanagement 

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

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

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

Time to Start Listening 

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

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

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

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

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

Rhiannon Rutherford, AUFA President 

Your Turn 

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

Analysis of University of Lethbridge Settlement

The University of Lethbridge Faculty Association (ULFA) recently ratified a new settlement following a lengthy strike. This blog post provides an overview of the ULFA settlement. Overall, this settlement extends the public-sector and PSE wage pattern but with some additional monetary and language improvements.  

Term and Money 

This four-year deal has a term of July 1, 2020 to June 30, 2024. The cost-of-living adjustment (COLA) for all salaries and grids is as follows: 

July 1, 2020:	0%
July 1, 2021:	0%
July 1, 2022:	0%
April 1, 2023:	1.25%
December 1, 2023:	1.5%
Additional increase December 1, 2023:	0.5% (not guaranteed)

The additional increase scheduled for December of 2023 is contingent upon the province achieving a real GDP for the 2023 calendar year that is at or above 2.7% as of February 2024. If this condition is met in February of 2024, U of L will retroactively apply an additional 0.5% COLA to December 1, 2023. If this condition is not met, then no additional increase will be forthcoming.  

This means the ULFA settlement could see an (uncompounded) COLA increase of between 2.75% and 3.25% over its four-year term. Even with the addition of gain-sharing payments, this settlement will not maintain the purchasing power of ULFA salaries over time. For example, year-over-year inflation as of January 2022 was 5.1%.  

The ULFA settlement matches the COLA agreed to by AUPE for its government services bargaining unit, the Mount Royal Faculty Association (MRFA) settlement from late February, and the Association of Academic Staff: University of Alberta (AASUA) from early March. This appears to be the current “secret’ financial mandate issued the government. 

Extra Compensation 

In addition to the COLA settlement, ULFA was able to negotiate some additional changes. Key changes that have clear monetary implications include: 

• Grid floors rise: Effective July 1, 2022, sessionals will see an 8% increase to the minimum stipends. Assistant and associate professors and some librarian grids will see a 10% increase to their grid floor. Assistant professor and one category of librarians will also see a 2% increase in salaries.  

• Benefits: The employee and family assistance plan will be extended to cover sessional and term staff. A flexible benefit spending plan of $250 per year for all members except sessional or term staff was created. 

The value of this additional compensation is unclear. Additional compensation in non-salary form is also a feature of the AASUA, MRFA and United Nurses of Alberta deals.  

Language 

There were a significant number of language changes which vary across categories of employees. Of relevance to AUFA members include improvements in equity language that include: 

• An expansion of the definition of service to better recognize work often done by members of equity-seeking groups, 

• A larger equity committee with clearer terms of reference and purpose, 

• A requirement to perform regular EDI studies, including pay equity studies, with redress of inequities normally within 12 months, 

• Clearer language on what medical information is required for an accommodation, and 

• New Indigenous evaluation language. 

You can read the full ratification package online.  

ULFA and the U of L also negotiated a returned-to-work protocol (a common thing after a strike). This protocol includes Board agreeing to allow ULFA members to purchase their pensionable service during the period of the strike as well as the Board agreeing to pay travel, professional, and research/grant expenses incurred during the strike. The U of L also agreed to destroy all surveillance data collected during the strike, and that ULFA members will face no strike-related disciplinary measures, reprisals, or legal action. 

Analysis 

The ULFA agreement provides a cost-of-living increase of between 2.75% and 3.25%. This mirrors the provincial and PSE wage pattern (and the government mandate). This is the same deal that AU offered AUFA on February 28 after filed for mediation. Additional compensation, in the form of benefits, grid, and salary improvements, adds to the overall improvement of compensation. 

ULFA also appears to have achieved some language improvements, particularly around equity issues. Notably, the ULFA deal does not appear to contain any of the massive language rollbacks that AU is trying to push on AUFA members.  

To get this deal, ULFA was required to strike for approximately 40 calendar days. The U of L was not available to bargain for the first 23 calendar days. One way to read this delay by the U of L is as a form of punishment for ULFA striking.  

Social media comments by ULFA members also suggest that the government was very much involved in the structure of the eventual agreement. This includes reports that the U of L negotiator had to call to get permission from the government to agree to certain outcomes. Whether this was actually the case or whether this was some sort of elaborate “talking to the manager in the back” ruse is unclear. 

ULFA’s language improvements likely reflect that, in order to get ULFA to accept the government’s lousy wage-mandate, the U of L had to agree to some of ULFA’s other proposals. Time will tell if AU prefers this option to a work stoppage. 

Jason Foster, Chair 

AUFA Bargaining Committee 

Bob Barnetson, Chair 

Job Action Committee 

Bargaining Update: AU refuses to present monetary offer because it fears an immediate strike

AUFA and AU met on September 14 and 15 to resume negotiations. AU continued to refuse to provide its full proposal or its monetary position or provide a timeline for when it will table them. AUFA once again articulated that AU’s refusal to provide a full package is undermining trust and impeding progress at the table.  

One of the reasons AU gave for not presenting their monetary proposal was that they believe that, when they do, it will lead AUFA to want to strike immediately. “As soon as we table it, you will immediately declare impasse and strike”, said Chantel Kassongo, AU’s external lawyer contracted to lead negotiations.  

It is useful to know that AU has an opening proposal ready. It is not surprising that AU is likely going to seek wage rollbacks. That AU expects its opening proposal to trigger a strike does not absolve AU of its obligation to provide a full proposal as part of its duty to bargain in good faith. 

During the exchange, Kassongo expressed displeasure with how AUFA is communicating with its members. AUFA’s bargaining team responded by saying AUFA’s communications with its members are no concern of AU’s. In response, Kassongo said “It is our concern. They are our employees before they are your members. If they don’t have a job, they aren’t members”. It is hard to know what to make of that statement. An employer interfering in a union’s communication with union members would be committing an unfair labour practice.  

As for substantive matters, AU presented a revised proposal regarding academic freedom. They abandoned their original proposal of entirely new language and instead presented amendments to existing language. The new proposal addresses some of AUFA’s concerns but other concerns remain, including removal of “freedom from institutional censorship” and inclusion of a statement placing academic freedom in the context of the university’s responsibility to its academic mission. The biggest concern is AU’s continued insistence on removing professional freedom from the agreement entirely.  

AU also proposed changes to the equity provisions. AU’s proposal eliminates the Employment Equity Committee entirely and includes a letter of understanding (commitments that do not make up a part of the permanent agreement) promising to deliver an “institutional equity, diversity, and inclusion framework and action plan” by April 1, 2023. AU’s proposal does not indicate what process will be used to develop this framework or if AUFA members will be included in the process. In the AUFA bargaining team’s evaluation, the proposal amounts to removing the one formal, albeit flawed, process we have for improving equity at AU and replacing it with a “trust us” approach to developing a plan. 

AUFA was able to present in detail our proposal around occupational health and safety (OHS), which aims to codify in the agreement workers’ safety rights and an effective joint health and safety committee. This conversation was productive. 

The parties also continued discussion on the grievance procedure, to which AU proposes significant changes. The parties have a better understanding of each other’s position on this issue. 

We have two more days of bargaining scheduled on October 25 and 29. AUFA’s bargaining team is not hopeful AU will present the remainder of their opening proposal or their monetary position on those days.  

Overall, the AUFA bargaining team is growing increasingly frustrated with AU’s unwillingness to present some of the most important parts of their offer after nearly six months of bargaining. AU’s unwillingness to present an opening offer is, frankly, bizarre and I’ve seen nothing like this behaviour in 25 years in the labour movement. 

The bargaining team invites AUFA members to express any concerns they have about AU’s behaviour at the bargaining table directly to the three members of AU’s bargaining team who are AU employees. 

Alain May, alainm@athabascau.ca 

Margaret Kierylo, mkierylo@athabascau.ca 

Jessica Butts Scott, jscott@athabascau.ca 

Perhaps hearing directly from AUFA members will change AU’s behaviour to the bargaining table. Please copy AUFA (aufahq@aufa.ca) on your correspondence. 

Jason Foster, Chair 

AUFA Bargaining Team 

AUFA's response to AU's Equity Diversity and Inclusion (EDI) survey

Along with all staff at the university, AUFA members will soon be receiving an Equity Diversity and Inclusion (EDI) survey from the EDI Co-Chairs of the newly constituted Athabasca University (AU) EDI committee. The EDI survey was designed by KPMG, an audit, tax and advisory firm. KPMG has been retained by AU to "guide" the EDI process at AU. Given the circumstances of its release, AUFA’s executive has decided to provide members with this accompanying blog post, to better frame both the survey and the history leading up to its release. We hope this information will be useful for our members as they navigate answering the survey’s questions and understanding new EDI initiatives at the University more broadly. 

A Brief Timeline

On May 26th, AUFA’s executive was contacted by an HR representative, on behalf of the EDI committee Chairs, who shared the final draft of the EDI survey and requested consent from AUFA to distribute it to our membership. This survey and email correspondence were then shared with AUFA’s Equity Committee who, along with the executive, provided a response to the Chairs. It quickly became clear that although consent was officially requested from AUFA, the EDI committee Chairs were not open to incorporating feedback or suggestions on how to improve the survey. We have included this email communication, which the Chairs allowed us to share, below.

Ultimately, we understand this exchange to be a request for the union’s consent without proper consultation. The AUFA executive was informed that the survey would either be circulated to the membership in its current form, or not circulated to the membership at all. We further learnt that AU was obligated to ask for the union’s consent because this is a statutory freeze period in bargaining – meaning that the university cannot make changes to working conditions while we are in bargaining. In the end, AUFA attempted to consent with the caveat that the anonymous, unaggregated survey data be shared with the union. This request was denied.

The AUFA executive does not believe that we should withhold consent for the entire membership of AUFA. However, we do not support this EDI survey for several reasons: 

• DATA: Access to the raw anonymized data will be solely in the control of the third party, KPMG and the AU executive. Given that AUFA Executive will not have access to this data, it’s not clear whether this data could be used against the interests of members in this upcoming period of bargaining.

• EXTERNALLY DRIVEN PROCESS: KPMG was hired prior to the formation of the EDI committee at AU and the AU EDI Survey is structured by KPMG’s Assessment Framework that they had previously developed and used elsewhere.

• NO CONSULTATION: AUFA has been given no opportunity to offer comments or revisions to the survey that will be collecting data on its membership. For instance, we had at the very least hoped to include an “N/A” rating response as we are concerned that “neutral” answers will be coded as positive. 

• METHODOLOGY: The survey may not uncover/reveal substantial equity issues at AU, bring to light the equity work that members of AU are engaged in, and/or capture the ideas AU members have about equity and justice. 

• PRINCIPLES AND SUBSTANCE OF EQUITY, DIVERSITY AND INCLUSION: The historical contexts in which we find ourselves in this moment, reveal that despite all of our intentions to start from hoping and assuming equity (“One AU,” “One Nation,” etc), there are systemic barriers for many. It is appropriate to tease apart the acronym EDI and recognize that the barriers that “EDI” is meant to address require significant engagement with those constituencies in our communities, rather than imposed ‘boiler plate’ models.

Externally driven EDI initiatives that are implemented with a top-down approach do not result in substantive institutional change. Yet, given that this process is ongoing, AUFA is considering how our own parallel process could support a transparent, accountable, collaborative, and consultative approach to equity, diversity and inclusion - one that is attentive to systemic forms of discrimination and oppression, and animated by a commitment to just working conditions for its members.

Next Steps 

Your perspectives on, and experiences of inequity matter to the AUFA Executive. At this early stage, there are a few key ways that AUFA members can support a more rigorous engagement with equity and social justice:

1. As part of AUFA’s long-term commitments to equity, the upcoming July survey of the Membership Engagement Committee (MEC) will include questions about AUFA members’ identities, and equity experiences, views, and needs. Future MEC initiatives will include more robust questions about EDI at AU.

2. In filling out AU’s EDI survey, members are encouraged to make use of the comment boxes to offer substantive comments on the importance of equity at AU and your concerns about the survey’s methodology and the lack of consultation.

3. Members can be in touch with AUFA directly to share your thoughts on equity, diversity and inclusion that were not captured in the survey. AUFA will use this information to inform its equity process and future consultation with members.

Communications between AUFA, and a human resources representative and the EDI Co-Chairs

AUFA had several questions regarding the survey, how it was organized, how accessible the data will be and what does informed consent in this context mean.

The University agreed to AUFA sharing the questions and corresponding responses the University provided with respect to the EDI survey, in their entirety to AUFA members. These are the answers that we received from the university (indented as quotes):

---

1. What was the consultation process for producing the survey?

The survey was created by KPMG based on the methodology and experience they bring to the table. The survey was further reviewed by the EDI Committee for discussion and the agreed to edits incorporated. The updated survey had a final review conducted by Matt and Charlene as executive sponsors. KPMG has currently sent out the survey to the EDI Committee for testing purposes.

2. Who will have access to the raw data of the survey? Will AUFA have access to the raw data to inform our support of AUFA members?

The external consultant, KPMG, is administering the survey. After the survey is closed, the EDI Co-chairs and EDI Engagement Committee will receive the aggregated data from KPMG. This data will be reviewed and discussed, and based on these discussions, KPMG will create a Current State Findings Report that will help inform the development of AU’s EDI Strategy and Framework. The EDI Engagement Committee, Champions, and Sponsors will review the Current State Findings Report and provide comments/modifications to the recommendations. Once finalized, this report will be made public through the AU EDI Intranet page. KPMG will provide AU with the raw data upon completion of the AU EDI Strategy and Framework in a password protected format. This raw data will reside only with the CHRO and will be used for benchmarking. For clarity, the raw data will not be shared with AUFA.

 3. How will the data be analyzed? Will the results be analyzed in relation to participants’ identity markers?

Our members have raised concern with many of the questions of the survey, including those that ask participants to answer whether their immediate supervisor / manager treats them differently based on a list of identity categories. The nature of systemic oppression is such that employees are often not aware of when they’ve been discriminated against. Thus a “strongly disagree” or disagree” response can’t be substantiated. How will the survey analysts account for these methodological issues? This is one example of several issues that our members have with the survey.

The EDI survey is intended to provide a starting point for understanding the AU environment and how it relates to EDI. The data collected through the survey will be analyzed to help understand trends and gaps where they exist; this will include statistical analysis where relevant. The information that is provided in Part 2 of the survey will only be used to help identify aggregate trends where they might exist and will not be used to identify individuals at AU in any way. All open-ended questions will be analyzed using a sentiment analysis tool to help determine any trends in the responses submitted. The aggregated data that KPMG will provide to AU upon completion of the survey, will include the themes and trends from this analysis, but will not include statements or phrases that could be used to identified individuals at AU.

The data that a survey participant provides is entirely optional and confidential. A participant does not need to answer every question, or any question that they are not comfortable responding to. The data that is provided in the survey will be analyzed to understand where any gaps or trends lie in relation to the current state of equity, diversity, and inclusion at AU.

 For the questions in relation to an immediate supervisor or manager, a participant does not need to respond to them, or is able to check the “Unknown Reason” box indicating that they have noticed or experienced the described behaviour for a reason that cannot be determined or specified. Each of these questions is also followed with an open-ended section, where participants are able to describe any additional information related to their experiences. We understand that systemic oppression may in some cases be undetected, and are pairing the findings and analysis from this survey with other methods of analysis, such as focus groups and documentation reviews to help identify potential gaps at AU. Specific strategies to address systemic barriers will be identified, based on the survey results and discussions and ideas from AU team members. The overall goal is to embed EDI into all aspects of AU work and create an environment that is equitable, diverse and inclusive with the participation of team members from across AU

4. How will data be used? Will this survey inform and guide the rest of the EDI plan?

The data provided by this survey will first be used to develop a Current State Findings Report, that will then be used to inform, guide, and develop the AU EDI Framework, Strategy and Action Plan in conjunction with the findings. The EDI Framework, Strategy and Action Plan will be prepared by AU in conjunction with KPMG and the EDI Engagement Committee.

5. What is the timeline for the survey production and completion?

The survey is planned to be launched on Tuesday, June 16, 2020 and close on Tuesday, June 30, 2020.

6. Has the Tri-Agency and CRC program obliged AU to produce and administer a survey such as this one?

The Tri-agency has created specific requirements to ensure that EDI is incorporated into all aspects of the CRC program. Data from the specified scans and reviews will be included in AU’s CRC EDI Action plan due to the Tri-agency in November 2020. The required data collection methods as identified by the Tri-agency will provide a broad context of AU and whether the CRC characteristics are representative of systemic barriers for under-represented groups. The proposed EDI survey is required to provide a comprehensive and thorough set of data from which a specific action plan can be created. The Tri-agency expects progress, and PSI’s across Canada have been informed of the consequences of not complying with Tri-agency requirements (i.e., future CRC nominations will not be reviewed, CRC stipends may be cancelled) 

7. Is the EDI committee open to making changes to the survey in consultation with AUFA?

The EDI Engagement committee, co-chairs, the sponsors guided by KPMG have worked diligently on the development of the questions over a number of meetings and weeks. The methodology for the survey has been tested to be valid and reliable by KPMG and utilized by them successfully at other PSIs. Major changes to questions or sections cannot occur as it will not align with the methodology.

---

In Solidarity,

AUFA Executive and AUFA Equity Committee