On April 23, Principal Tom Williams released a report that addressed the financial challenges facing Queen’s University. In response to his findings, the Queen’s University Faculty Association (QUFA), as reported by the Journal on May 26, accused the istration of misleading the public about negotiations to reduce the amount of the University’s budget allocated to salaries. The Principal’s proposal to save $400,000 a day by closing the University for five unpaid days per year was rejected by QUFA, and rightly so. In order to understand the disagreement between the istration and QUFA, it’s important to view the situation from the faculty’s perspective.
In the May 26 issue of the Journal, the article “Faculty raise questions over compensation” said compensation costs for more than 70 per cent of the University’s operating budget. However, compensation as a percentage is confusing, because the total budget includes both operating and non-operating budgets. The operating budget is 37 per cent of the total budget and academic salaries make up approximately 15 per cent of the total budget—or 29 per cent of the operating budget. All university wages make up 70 per cent of the operating budget.
Another point to consider is that QUFA and the University istration haven’t approved a retirement package yet. QUFA negotiators rejected the Principal’s proposal that the deans would decide who would be eligible for a package and allowed to retire. QUFA maintains that any retirement package should be available to each eligible faculty member.
On top of this, the collective agreement between the istration and QUFA doesn’t protect all faculty from layoffs. Some term adjuncts were told at the end of the 2009 winter term that they would not be rehired to teach in 2009-2010. This has had a negative impact on the departments in which the istration hasn’t hired enough full-time faculty to teach necessary courses. It’s hard to understand why the Faculty of Arts and Science chose not to offer new contracts to these instructors who have a great impact on students by teaching large lower-level courses or smaller, individualized, skill-oriented courses.
The wage increase negotiated by the University istration and QUFA in June 2008 was 3.2 per cent for each of three years. That figure was never an issue for the istration’s team during the negotiations. It’s in the same range as our competing universities and less than some public service employees have received. The Board of Trustees approved the collective agreement with full knowledge of its costs. Its approval by the Board and QUFA made the 2008 to 2011 collective agreement between Queen’s and QUFA a legally-binding document. Both parties to the agreement are obliged to maintain it.
QUFA rejected the Principal’s proposal for five unpaid days because faculty salaries aren’t the primary cause of Queen’s financial problems. Queen’s doesn’t lack resources—it shares the highest credit rating of any university in Canada with the University of British Columbia. Queen’s owns property not directly related to delivering academic programs, such as the former women’s prison on Sir John A. Macdonald Blvd. Queen’s property could be used as collateral for loans or the University could borrow money as it has done in the past.
At the Dec. 2008 QUFA fall general meeting, faculty requested an independent audit of the university, but the istration turned down the proposal. Why is the Board of Trustees opposed to an independent audit of the University’s books if it has nothing to hide from the public?
Each academic faculty completes an internal academic review every seven years. Invariably, the reviews show that academic units are underfunded, but there is no remedy. The review policy clearly states that a “regular report on university-wide indicators” shall be made and the “system of evaluations must be closely integrated into the decision-making processes of the University.” This policy has not been followed by the istration. The faculty of Arts and Science will be forced to cut 15 per cent of its operating budget and will lose 47 faculty positions over the next three years. The Canadian Studies program’s future is uncertain due to a proposed 39 per cent cut to their department. These cuts are the result of ing directives, not of academic reviewing. The Board of Trustees didn’t put a long-term academic and recovery plan in place before making deep cuts. Why not?
s’ salaries have risen more steeply than faculty salaries, and istrative positions have increased as faculty numbers have fallen. In 2004, eight Queen’s s earned more than $200,000, the number growing to 24 in 2008. Now the number of s has tripled, each earning more than $100,000.
The costs attached to istrative offices are not easily verifiable in the operating budget, as key public data were discontinued in 2008-2009. Despite six years of steady increase in student enrolment, most departmental budgets now face cuts to the point where some academic programs can barely survive.
Before shrinking academic programs and reducing the number of faculty who teach students and conduct research, Queen’s needs to disclose accurate information to the public. A university isn’t a corporation that can make severe cuts in tough times and re-tool the factory. All a university has to offer its community is the quality of education and research it provides. If Queen’s loses its reputation as one of the top four universities in Canada, it will take generations to regain.
Queen’s University’s istration and Board of Trustees need to stop blaming their employee groups, take their leadership obligations seriously and develop a fair financial plan for maintaining Queen’s high standards. We need istrative leadership that values the quality of education and research at Queen’s as its top priority and works conscientiously toward that end.
Roberta Lamb is an associate professor in the school of music with cross-appointments to women’s studies department and the Faculty of Education.
Editors’ note: Although the Journal edited this piece for clarity, length and style as per sections 1.05 and 6.02 of Journal policy, its overall integrity remains intact and Professor Lamb was consulted about the changes.
All final editorial decisions are made by the Editor(s) in Chief and/or the Managing Editor. Authors should not be ed, targeted, or harassed under any circumstances. If you have any grievances with this article, please direct your comments to [email protected].