Why Are TRU Faculty Holding a Non-Confidence Vote – Governance 2

Response to Jim Harrison Editorial
April 13, 2016
Tom Friedman Rebuts April 13 Jim Harrison Editorial
April 15, 2016
Show all

Why Are TRU Faculty Holding a Non-Confidence Vote – Governance 2

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:

  • Unilateral closing of language labs in the International Business building, despite thousands of dollars of investment in software and hardware, and significant time in preparing these labs for the use of international students. Even though the labs will eventually be relocated into one lab in Old Main, the disruption and waste of resources and faculty time is unacceptable.
  • Refusing to engage with faculty on seeking a solution to the problem that neither Learning Designers nor Librarians have full governance participation at TRU and no representation on the TRU Senate, which is certainly in violation of the spirit of the TRU Act.
  • Bypassing the TRU Senate when signing agreements on academic matters with private corporations.

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

Join the conversation here.