Why Are TRU Faculty Holding a Non-Confidence Vote – Governance 1

Non-Confidence Vote Backgrounder
April 12, 2016
Response to Jim Harrison Editorial
April 13, 2016
Show all

Why Are TRU Faculty Holding a Non-Confidence Vote – Governance 1

The TRU senior administrative track record since February 15th is proof of the leadership’s unwillingness to work collegially in the area of shared governance. Here are some specific examples of the senior administrators’ failure to engage in meaningful consultation and failure to respect appropriate governance procedures:

  • Student intake for the M.Ed. (Counselling) program suspended for 2016-2017 without adequate consultation with the Educational Counselling specialist, and without a full discussion of the possible impact on future student enrolment with the M.Ed. program or with FESW Faculty Council.
  • A “take it or leave it” set of options presented by the Dean for changes to a TRU program, without any consultation with department members, and without any of the changes initiated through Faculty Council, EPC, APPC or Senate. Accompanying the options was a direct threat: choose one of these options or have the program subject to Article 3 — Program Redundancy language.
  • A decanal decision to arbitrarily make fundamental changes in the delivery of an employment skills program without respecting the need to seek approval for these changes through Faculty Council, EPC, APPC and Senate.

For more information read the Non-Confidence Vote Backgrounder here.

Join the conversation here.