SPECIAL EDITION Editor: Bob Rupert April, 1994. THE ARGUMENT FOR WITHDRAWAL FROM OCUFA EXECUTIVE SUMMARY On Nov. 24, 1993, CUASA Council moved CUASA withdraw from the Ontario Confederation of University Faculty Associations (OCUFA). OCUFA acts as an information clearing-house and lobbying instrument for academic staff unions and professional organizations across Ontario. Council adopted the motion to leave OCUFA regretfully but unanimously. Its actions stem from a frustration with OCUFA dating back to 1979. The Executive of CUASA believes that there is a need for strong representation of our concerns at the provincial level. The failings of OCUFA to serve our interests have convinced us ath the $60,000+ paid to OCUFA would be better spent by assuming lobbying efforts either alone, through CAUT, or in concert with other faculty associations who are dissatisfied with OCUFA. We are currently in discussion with those organizations. CUASA Executive is convinced that we have exhausted every avenue by which the reform of OCUFA can be affected without taking this step. However, if separation from OCUFA does take place, CUASA intends to request observer status (which was granted to U of T. when it withdrew from the organization), and will reconsider its withdrawal if meaningful reform should take place within OCUFA. While CUASA's dissatisfaction with OCUFA is long-standing, the crisis in higher education typified by the Social Contract and its aftermath have brought matters to a head. As we see it, OCUFA has two main roles. First, it is to lobby on behalf of academics. Second, it is to provide services to member organizations. How well does it fulfil its mandate? LOBBYING OCUFA has been ineffective at Queen's Park and around the province. Before and during the Social Contract period, relations with the Minister of Education and Training or his staff were note cultivated. Consequently, the Ministry works closely with COU, and takes little notice of OCUFA. Major deficiencies exist with OCUFA in the following areas: relations with the government representing academic staff to the public obtaining information about planned government actions SERVICE TO MEMBER ORGANIZATIONS OCUFA should provide research and information service to support the provincial lobbying effort. CUASA has encountered difficulty with OCUFA in the following areas: information services to member organizations research to support lobbying organizational difficulties and cost control SUMMARY The problems cited above are not exhaustive but give an indication of the mismanagement of OCUFA. OCUFA staff routinely had out major strategy documents at meetings, without prior notice. Council representatives are often not allowed time to read or questions the materials, and are not permitted to speak to the materials before a vote. Major decisions have been made in Executive, but until recently minutes of the Executive of OCUFA were kept secret. In addition to calling for much stronger lobbying efforts, we are seeking a more representative election of the Executive from the membership-at-large, instead of the current requirement that it be restricted to members of the Board of Directors. We are lobbying locals to send representatives to committees who are well-informed and in communication with their locals. While some other locals share our discontent with OCUFA, many locals are not unionized and many are preoccupied with local issues. Our single vote is not sufficient to overcome such inertia. While we intend to continue to work for OCUFA reform through observer status, CUASA's Steering Committee and Council feel that it would be better to devote those funds to independent lobbying and informational efforts, or to efforts through CAUT. We firmly believe that lobbying efforts are of paramount importance. Our membership in CAUT provides strong national lobbying efforts and fast access to accurate information on salaries and benefits, collective agreements, contract language, status of women, employment equity, academic freedom and tenure, and librarian issues, to name a few. CUASA's association with CAUT, coupled with our independent lobbying efforts and contact with like-minded unions and faculty associations should result in minimal loss of services and indeed, may offer significant gains in negotiating reforms to OCUFA. Despite years of trying, CUASA has been able to effect little real change at OCUFA. The minor changes made recently have come only as a result of our notice of intent to withdraw from the organization. It is the belief of the CUASA Steering Committee and CUASA Council that withdrawal from the organization offers the only hope of significant reform of OCUFA. The promise of reinstating our membership after reforms are accomplished allows us to dangle a $60,000 per year carrot in front of OCUFA's Executive. Now that we have given notice of withdrawal, failure to do so will remove the only bargaining chip we have that has shown any effect at all. CUASA's leadership urges members to vote for withdrawal from OCUFA. OCUFA AFFILIATION CUASA Council has adopted a motion calling for withdrawal form OCUFA. In order to effect such withdrawal, a ratification vote of CUASA members is required and will be conducted following information meetings. On OCUFA's behalf, CUASA is circulating a statement OCUFA has written which puts the case for remaining in OCUFA. At the Annual General Meeting, initial discussion of problems experienced with OCUFA dating back to 1979 ensued. On May 4, an Information Meeting addressing solely the issue of OCUFA affiliation will be held. The Executive of CUASA believes that there is a need for a strong and effective voice of academic staff at the provincial level. In better times, we could forgive weak lobbying efforts and lack of media contacts. We could also ignore the fact that some locals are sending individuals who are ill-prepared to represent the views of their organizations. Now is not the time for such problems to be ignored. In times of financial plenty we could be more forgiving of poor management of financial resources. OCUFA is a confederation of Faculty Associations. Locals should be setting policy. The role of OCUFA staff should be one of resource, support and implementation. Ongoing problems with OCUFA related to its disorganization and ineffectiveness in lobbying for our interests have concerned the CUASA steering committee. In 1979 CUASA strongly urged OCUFA to concentrate on lobbying and service to its members. OCUFA responded by hiring a professional lobbying firm, but this was dropped shortly thereafter. More recently in 1991 Steering Committee discussed the ineffectiveness of OCUFA's efforts and our OCUFA Director at that time expressed our discontent with OCUFA's past communications with us. In 1992, when OCUFA was willing to acquiesce in the face of no consultation by university managements with stakeholders during the transitional aid funding, CUASA protested vigorously. Problems with the handling of the Social Contract did not begin our discontent, they were the final straw. Until very recently, OCUFA has refused to acknowledge that any problems exist. As we see it, OCUFA has two main roles: 4. To lobby on behalf of academics - We contend OCUFA has been ineffective at Queen's Park and around the province in the following areas: a) Relations with the Government Before, during and after the Social Contract process - relations with the Minister and his representatives were not cultivated. This stands in contrast to what occurred between COU and the Minister's office. Clearly the Minister had much more concern for COU's opinion. That position was also clear on the part of Peter Warrian and Phyllis George, who were the government negotiators in our sector. The bureaucrats appear not to have been wooed well if at all. On Nov. 19, 1993, the Minister of Education and Training visited an OCUFA Board of Directors meeting.. Prior to this meeting, CUASA was instrumental in the Political Relations Committee's preparations for this meeting. The Political Relations Committee composed a list of five questions to be asked Minister David Cooke by one representative of OCUFA. The questions were then to be presented to the Minister as a brief, with a request that they be answered formally. Although a draft of this brief was prepared by the Political Relations Committee. OCUFA did not submit a brief for this meeting. While the Minister spoke to the Board of Directors, one member of the Board walked around the room asking individual directors if they would present one questions apiece. No follow up questions were prepared and a motion regarding how the questioning should be handled was ignored. Minister Cooke dismissed the disorganized presentation of questions by announcing that he was off to his constituency, and no real response was made to OCUFA's questions. At the OCUFA Salary Workshop March 4, 1994, Deputy Minister Charles Pascal came with no prepared material and showed a general lack of interest in our concerns. Again, there were no prepared questions nor was the Deputy Minister given a brief. b) Representing Academic Staff to the Public Examples of such failure abound. OCUFA is unable to make its voice heard in the press. CUASA has suggested several times that if OCUFA cannot make its voice heard it solicit the assistance of high profile or media savvy academics who can. Our suggestions have been ignored. Tuition fees - The NDP government initially came to office supporting the abolition of tuition for higher education. OCUFA's policy on tuition fees is in direct opposition to what the Minister favoured and the government has subsequently adopted. However, OCUFA waffled at a critical time - the meeting of the Board of Directors at which the Minister and OCUFA adopted diametrically opposed positions. OCUFA took no action to publicize this. When an increase in tuition was announced by the government, OCUFA was ineffective in opposing the rise, and has failed utterly to take its opposition to the publc. In fact, the major Globe amd Mail articled on the issue quoted every major stakeholder except OCUFA. During the Social Contract period, OCUFA decided to place advertising in local papers around the province. In Eastern Ontario, the Kanata Kourier Standard was the venue of choice. Appalled by thism CUASA (with the cooperation of Carleton's administration) placed the same advertisement in the Ottawa Citizen. While no follow up was done by OCUFA to their ad campaign, CUASA contacted members of the public and encouraged them to telephone their MPPs to express their reactions to the advertisement. OCUFA has been too cooperative with governmental requests, too eager to be co-opted. It has too often agreed to participate in forums where the voice of academic staff is reduced to the level of tokenism. For example, during the Broadhurst task force, OCUFA's voice was minimum yet its presence gave endorsement of all faculty associations to a flawed document;. c) Obtaining Information about Planned Government Actions At the last OCUFA meeting April 8, 1994 we asked OCUFA what it planned to do about the announcement that the government was going to withdraw OHIP benefits from sabbaticants who are out of the country for over 183 days for a period of 3 months after their return. OCUFA Executive was unaware of this and had devised no plan of action. 2) To provide information and research services to member organizations: the key is that the staff is there to serve us, not to make policy. The Social Contract only magnified existing problems with OCUFA: OCUFA was poorly equipped with technology and ill-prepared to use the technology to communicate with its constituency. OCUFA's arguments on their failure to use such things as Email centred on budget but the cost of the technology was non-existent or minimal and the cost savings were in very real dollars. OCUFA staff were, at times, unwilling to "go the extra mile" during very difficult periods. There was very much a "work-to-rule" atmosphere. Local associations were not advised in a timely fashion re issues, stances, strategies, etc. Routinely, motions re strategy presented at meetings, without prior notice to the local associations, without time being allowed to read the motions, without anyone being allowed to speak to the motion. Board motion to contact specific individuals regarding membership on the potential Social Contract working team was not acted upon and criteria other than ability was used in the selection of a different team by the Executive. a) Information Service to Member Organizations OCUFA has been lax in providing timely and up to date information to its member organizations. The most recent circulated information from OCUFA's Salary Committee is for 1991-92. Salary and benefit data supplied by OCUFA has been inaccurate. Through CAUT we have on line electronic access to current salary data across Canada, but OCUFA has been reluctant, despite our urging, to utilize current cost-effective modes of communication such as EMAIL, or electronic bulletin boards to discuss/disseminate current items quickly. Minutes of CUASA Steering Committee of November 7, 1991 detail an urgent request from OCUFA for special funding ($3-4 per member) for a proposed media ad campaign against Cutbacks but provided no proposed draft material. This is all too typical of requests from OCUFA- hurried and poorly documented. b) Research to Support Lobbying Employee Equity: Based on anecdotal evidence, OCUFA made representation to the Ontario government that there was underrepresentation of minorities among the academic staff at Ontario universities. Pat Finn requested several times that OCUFA provide the research behind this claim. No such material was ever provided to CUASA. Subsequently, Pat conducted her own survey of Ontario universities with regard to this matter. When the Executive Director heard about this, she requested and obtained the survey results from Pat. The results directly conflicted with the representation to the government made by OCUFA. CUASA has repeatedly had to bring to OCUFA's attention the importance of inclusive language in their documents. c) Organizational Difficulties and Cost-Control OCUFA routinely wastes time and money through poor organization and a failure to circulate information in a timely fashion, After the Social Contract. CUASA urged that Salary Committee meetings be suspended during the Social Contract period, as a cost saving measure. The OCUFA Board of Directors instructed the Salary Committee to research the issue of province-wide collective bargaining for universities, an issue examined by OCUFA 2 or 3 times in recent years. At the October Salary Committee, no one was willing to second the motion to form such a subcommittee. The issue returned to the next meeting (Dec) of the committee and passed. At the January meeting it was tabled and returned to the Board. Two meetings of the Salary Committee were called, at an estimated price of $8,000 in airfare and accommodations. More importantly, the desire to pursue the concept of province-wide collective bargaining only plays into the hands of the Ontario government and reinforces the CUASA belief during Social Contract discussions that OCUFA was willing to be the sole voice of all academic staff at Ontario universities. During the Social Contract period, a meeting of the entire Council was called to discuss a strategy statement. Council members were presented with a copy of the statement and then asked to approve it without reading the document. Although some representatives objected strenuously, permission for ten minute recess to read the document was denied by the chair of the meeting, and an attempt by one of the writers of the document to explain its contents was ruled out of order. Again, thousands of dollars were wasted bringing Council members to Toronto to rubber-stamp a document. When we informed OCUFA of our concerns at a November 1993 President's Roundtable meeting, there was general denial by most organizations of there being any difficulties. Instead they sent a letter requesting CUASA to pay a special levy. While CUASA was not alone in not paying a voluntary levy, we alone were singled out. (We in fact paid in excess of our levy by placing an ad advertising our position on the Social Contract in the Ottawa Citizen. OCUFA was only willing to place the ad in the Kanata Kourier Standard). When questioned at a subsequent Board of Directors meeting and in formal correspondence, it was confirmed by their Executive that they had exceeded their jurisdiction (the levy was voluntary, not mandatory) however they failed to record this in the minutes of the meeting and in fact have claimed not to know what they said. When we gave notice of intent to withdraw, pending a ratification vote of our membership, OCUFA did not respond in any form for 7 weeks (even though the OCUFA President resides in Ottawa). Finally, we informally suggested they might like to meet with us to address our concerns. However, other organizations are now examining their OCUFA affiliation and there is an admission of some difficulties with the organization. York, Western Ontario, Nipissing, Ottawa, Lakehead, and Wilfrid Laurier are all examining OCUFA operations. Problems at the Local Level: Many member organizations are not sending appropriate, qualified, informed individuals to serve on committees. The most glaring problem is with the Directors (the President and the rest of the Executive is elected from the Directors). There is a notice of motion to allow anyone in the 12,000 member OCUFA to stand for election. Local problems are overwhelming associations to the point where many are not playing an active role in OCUFA. Often locals select OCUFA directors who are not members of their Executives and who have neither the ability to speak for their locals nor the knowledge of OCUFA itself. We have been in communication with other academic staff associations to discuss our difficulties with OCUFA. A variety of concerns have been discussed among us with a view to effecting change at OCUFA. At this time, CUASA Executive does not feel that we can overcome the inertia of the majority of associations that are part of OCUFA. We must then decide whether OCUFA can speak for us. Why stay: to have a single voice at Queen's Park Why withdraw: concern for what that single vote at Queen's Park says ineffective lobbying by OCUFA inertia among other associations - concerned with their local problems OCUFA has been unresponsive to our concerns value for money - we are spending $60,000+ per year on OCUFA Other associations are now re-examining their relationship with OCUFA and calling for change. The withdrawal of U. of T. several years ago effected change in OCUFA, we can only hope that our proposed action will have a similar effect. Alternative: Membership in CAUT provides a national perspective on all issues; with the reintegration of the Co-op, we would also have access to salary and contract information. We have online access to salary information now. Use monies set aside for OCUFA to hire our own lobbyist either alone or in conjunction with other dissatisfied organizations Use observer status at OCUFA to work to effect organizational change so that we may return in as short a time period as possible