The Faculty Association is concerned that the University’s proposed amendments to Policy B10.00: lack clarity in significant areas that affect the Senate, may serve to increase the Board’s power over the Senate’s engagement in the policy creation and amendment process, and may infringe upon the Senate’s jurisdiction under the University Act.
Policy Sponsor and GRCC Gatekeeping Function
The proposed amendments include a new gatekeeping function performed by the Policy Sponsor and the Governance, Risk and Compliance Committee (GRCC), acting under delegated authority from the Board, which are empowered to make a final decision about whether a policy change is needed, prior to a proposed change making its way through the policy creation and amendment process. The Faculty Association has several concerns about the impact of this gatekeeping function on the Senate’s power, and the lack of transparency around the GRCC’s decision-making, namely:
• The Policy Sponsor is empowered to determine whether the needs expressed by a proposed policy change are reasonably justified, including whether the subject matter falls within the sole or shared jurisdiction of the Board or Senate (Proposed Procedures s.2.1.2). If the Policy Sponsor agrees the needs are reasonably justified, they will recommend the policy change to the GRCC, which will make a final determination about whether the policy change is needed. As drafted, the proposed amendments to Policy B10.00 appear to grant the Policy Sponsor and the GRCC the ability to unilaterally determine whether the subject matter of a proposed policy change falls within the sole or shared jurisdiction of the Board or Senate, without any apparent obligation to engage in the Senate in that determination. Our concern is that the Policy Sponsor and/or GRCC may unilaterally decide that a matter within the shared jurisdiction between the Board and Senate should not proceed through the policy creation and amendment process.
• There also do not appear to be any accountability requirements for the Policy Sponsor’s determination that the needs expressed by a proposed policy change are not reasonably justified, nor for the GRCC’s decision based on that recommendation. This raises the following questions, which highlight the need for clarification or greater transparency around the Policy Sponsor’s and the GRCC’s decision-making:
o If the Policy Sponsor and/or GRCC unilaterally determine that a policy change within the shared jurisdiction of the Board and the Senate is not needed, will the Senate receive any notification of that decision?
o Will either of the Policy Sponsor or the GRCC provide a written report respecting their recommendation or determination?
o Where a policy change is proposed by a University Community member (which can include a member of the Senate), are they entitled to written reasons for the determination not to proceed?
o Do University Community members receive only one opportunity to complete the policy sponsorship questionnaire in full, or will the Policy Sponsor seek further information or documentation if they determine that the information in the questionnaire is not sufficient to make a determination?
o Will the Policy Sponsor and/or GRCC final decisions be publicly available so that potentially affected University Community members (including members of the Senate) can know what policies have been proposed, and why they have been rejected?
Resolution of Disputes About the Scope of Senate Engagement
The proposed amendments to Policy B10.00 also authorize the GRCC to provide direction about the scope of Senate engagement in relation to a proposed policy change. When the Senate is engaged during the consultation phase, the draft policy submitted to Senate is accompanied by a Board statement respecting the scope of the Senate’s engagement. While the Senate is empowered to dispute the Board’s statement regarding that scope by engaging in collaborative discussions with the Policy Sponsor and President and Vice Chancellor (Proposed Procedure s.2.2.3(b)), the Faculty Association is concerned that there is a lack of clarity regarding the outcome of such a dispute where no resolution is ultimately reached through discussions between the Board and Senate, or through an agreed-upon alternative process. It is not clear whether the Board in such circumstances has the ultimate decision-making authority and ability to bypass the Senate’s disagreement about the scope of engagement. To move the proposed policy change forward in spite of the Senate’s disagreement would appear to stymie the Senate’s power over matters potentially within its jurisdiction. It is the Faculty Association’s view that in order to respect the Senate’s authority over matters within its jurisdiction and within shared jurisdiction between the Board and Senate, a proposed policy change should not proceed any further in the process where there is an impasse on the question of Senate engagement. The outcome of such an impasse ought to be clarified in the proposed amendments (i.e. will the process continue, will it be suspended or abandoned, or will some other outcome arise).
Related to the above concern, the Faculty Association notes at s.2.2.5 of the proposed procedure amendments that the Policy Sponsor is empowered to determine whether the University Community, including the Senate, has been adequately consulted about a draft policy change. This provision appears to give the Policy Sponsor considerable authority in relation to Senate engagement, and is especially concerning given that, as we will elaborate upon further, there appears to be no provision for mandatory Senate engagement prior to the Board’s final approval of a policy change.
Lack of Mandatory Senate Engagement prior to Final Policy Approval
A significant change arising from the proposed amendments as compared to the current version of Policy B10.00 is that, after University Executive approval, there is no requirement that the final version of the proposed policy change is submitted to Senate for the Senate’s determination of whether it needs to approve the policy, recommend it to the Board, or receive the policy for information. In the current policy, such a step is required before the Board’s final approval of a policy. The proposed amendments only mandate Senate engagement when the policy is still in an early draft form; the Designated Lead may decide to engage in further consultation if there are significant changes to a draft policy (Proposed Procedure s.2.2.5), but no further Senate engagement is mandated.
The Faculty Association is concerned that, in the event that Senate consultation or approval is required per the University Act, the Senate will only be consulted, or approval will only be sought, for the initial draft form of a policy. If there are significant changes to the draft post-consultation or post-approval, the proposed amendments provide for further engagement on a discretionary basis, but provide no mandatory Senate consultation or approval respecting the proposed policy change in its final form. Thus, a final policy submitted for Board approval may contain significant substantive provisions or amendments for which consultation with the Senate, or Senate approval, was not actually sought or obtained. In our view, this omission of a step to seek Senate approval or consultation for the final form of a proposed policy, where applicable, could in certain circumstances infringe upon the powers of the Senate and Board under the University Act. This concern may be rectified by providing in Policy B10.00 for mandatory further consultation or approval from the Senate, as applicable, if significant changes have been made to a draft policy after the initial phase of Senate engagement. If this type of additional engagement where significant changes are made is already contemplated by the University, then it ought to be clarified in the proposed amendments to Policy B10.00.
