SPECIAL EDITION Editor: Bob Rupert May, 1994. RATIFICATION VOTE - WITHDRAWAL FROM OCUFA CUASA Council on November 24, 1993 unanimously passed a motion directing CUASA to give notice of withdrawal from the Ontario Confederation of University Faculty Associations (OCUFA). This motion was transmitted to OCUFA on December 9th. On January 24, 1994 OCUFA responded by asking to speak at the meeting at which the vote would be taken. At the February 5th CAUT Council meeting, CUASA representatives suggested to members of the OCUFA Executive that OCUFA should meet with us sooner. Such a meeting occurred March 8th and we awaited OCUFA's reponse. On March 22, we received a letter thanking us for discussing our concerns with them on the 8th - no further response from OCUFA was forthcoming. Representatives of the OCUFA Executive were invited to our Annual General Meeting of April 13, 1994 where disaffiliation was discussed; at the request of our members, we scheduled a special Information Meeting May 4th to address the issue of CUASA disaffiliation from OCUFA. At the April 13 and May 4 meetings, CUASA and OCUFA representatives spoke to the CUASA membership and answered questions related to this issue. In addition, CUASA has circulated a four page Special Edition CUASA Communiqui outlining the CUASA argument for withdrawal from OCUFA. We also circulated a two page letter written by Vice-President Emily Carasco outlining OCUFA's position. Following dissemination of information on the issue, CUASA members will vote on Tuesday May 17 on whether to end our membership in OCUFA. Because the OCUFA Constitution only permits one day a year for withdrawal (June 30), membership after that date would obligate CUASA to pay dues for 1994-95 in excess of $60,000. Both CUASA and OCUFA are in agreement with the need for a strong voice at Queen's Park, but we disagree that OCUFA provides that voice. In their April 27, 1994 letter to our members, OCUFA claims that "OCUFA works with faculty associations to effectively oppose government interference in your scholarship and your working conditions". While OCUFA has expressed concerns to the Ministry regarding the Ontario government's Guidelines for a Framework Policy Regarding the Prevention of Harassment and Discrimination in Ontario Universities, this issue was examined in much more depth in an excellent, well-researched, informative and forceful report prepared by CAUT's Academic Freedom and Tenure Committee and released at the annual general meeting of CAUT Council April 29-May 1, 1994. The CAUT Council of the national association has adopted a resolution calling on the Ontario government to withdraw the document. OCUFA cites the in-progress Ontario Council on University Affairs (OCUA) review of the funding mechanism and states that "When OCUA consulted with faculty, they consulted with the OCUFA Board of Directors and the Presidents of local faculty associations that are members of OCUFA... You deserve continued inclusion in such consultations to be in the strongest possible position to fight government imposed changes." This seems to imply that only OCUFA-affiliated associations can be included in consultations with OCUA. However, in a March 23, 1994 letter from Joy Cohnstaedt, Chair, OCUA to Saul Ross, President, OCUFA it is stated "there must be some misunderstanding between OCUFA and ourselves... the consultation that is now underway ...is broader than any other in the history of the Council. It includes not only the university community whether staff, student, faculty, administration or governor, but also alumni, labour and business, as well as provincial associations ....In addition if local Faculty Associations would be willing to host and organize meetings open to all interested parties on campus and invite representation from the Ad hoc Committee to attend such meetings, I will undertake to determine the Committee members' availability and thereby achieve a consultation on each campus as requested by local Faculty Associations." In fact CUASA will represent your interests in the OCUA forum organized for Carleton on May 11. Affiliation with OCUFA is not a requirement for representations to be made. The OCUFA letter claims that "they effectively represent your interests through the media" and highlights OCUFA breaking news of the government's intention to increase tuition fees by more than 20% in the next two years. How can the announcement of the government's intent a few hours before the government's own press release be equated with representation of the concerns of Ontario universities' academic staff? Bill Graham, President of the U. of Toronto Faculty Association in a letter to Shirley Mills, President, CUASA dated May 3, 1994 also states ". . . it does little good to have the (OCUFA) Forum lead article announce that tuition fees have gone up a month after the fact." A more effective strategy was suggested by your CUASA representative at the OCUFA Board of Director's meeting at which the Minister of Education and Training, David Cooke, was present. At that meeting, the Minister indicated governmental support for substantial tuition increases; OCUFA's Board, at that same meeting, passed a motion opposing tuition increases. Carleton proposed a motion that OCUFA call for the resignation of the Minister. That motion was defeated. When your Carleton representative at that meeting questioned what action the Executive proposed, the reply was that it was inappropriate to ask that question. An excellent media opportunity to communicate the OCUFA position was missed. While Prof. Carasco commented that the CUASA special newsletter did not quote articles which mentioned OCUFA, neither did the OCUFA letter to our members. Several Presidents of OCUFA, both past and present, have commented on the difficulty of getting into the media. But OCUFA appears incapable of either reassessing failed media strategies or devising new ones. Carasco's letter refers to OCUFA being "the first group to go public with the news in December 1993 of the additional $24 million dollar reduction to university budgets". Scooping the government is not the role of OCUFA. Effecting government is. OCUFA has not been able either to effect government's action or to represent the interests and concerns of the academic community. At the May 4 Information Meeting, Prof. Carasco commented that the government can get away with whatever they please. Does this represent OCUFA's thinking? Professor Carasco states that "OCUFA assists in improving your working conditions. While OCUFA is not directly involved in collective bargaining on individual campuses...". Let us be perfectly clear - OCUFA is a Confederation. It has no bargaining rights. Despite this, OCUFA has been very eager to examine the issue, encouraged by the government, of province-wide collective bargaining (2 or 3 times in recent years). CUASA opposes this action, believing it to be the worst possible strategy. It allows government the kind of direct control over our salaries that it has over salaries at community colleges. With whom would you rather negotiate salaries - our administration or the government? Should we negotiate our own salaries, or leave it to some unknown other? With regard to intervention in, and accurate reporting of, planned government actions, CUASA's Communiquioutlined a recent concern with a government announcement about the withdrawal of OHIP benefits for individuals who are out of the country more than 183 days for a period of 3 months after their return. OCUFA wrote the Minister March 29, 1994 regarding "OHIP coverage (of) foreign students and other temporary residents" (no mention of sabbaticants). On April 4, 1994, OCUFA circulated a memorandum to all faculty associations stating "As a result of this change in policy, a faculty member on sabbatical who leaves Ontario could have an interruption in his or her OHIP overage if arrangements were not made with OHIP prior to leaving the province. You may wish to bring this change in policy to the attention of your members." Your CUASA rep noted at the OCUFA Board Meeting of April 8, 1994 "(there was) conviction that faculty on sabbatical would be denied OHIP benefits while away, and for six months on return. But it became clear that the Executive did not know that. The Executive asked to get the facts, and if there were problems of the sort anticipated, empowered to write seeking change". IN FACT, CUASA HAS CLARIFIED WITH CARLETON ADMINISTRATION THAT ACADEMIC STAFF MUST MAKE PRIOR ARRANGEMENTS WITH OHIP IF THEY PLAN TO BE OUTSIDE THE PROVINCE MORE THAN 183 DAYS CONSECUTIVELY. Prof. Carasco' letter states "OCUFA is committed to improving the quality of services provided." While the intention is laudable, we must look at OCUFA's track record. The salary information provided by OCUFA is two years out of date and there have been many inaccuracies over the years. In 1979 OCUFA abandoned email and is only now, under pressure from CUASA, looking at cost-effective and efficient modes of communication with its member organizations. CUASA has repeatedly suggested cost-savings that would permit the direction of financial resources to organizational priorities - lobbying, research and information to support that effort. Prof. Carasco agreed at the May 4, 1994 meeting that CUASA has been vociferous in its OCUFA presentations, so our voice has been heard. If this is so, we must observe that our voice has been ignored. You have heard from the CUASA Council and Steering Committee as well as from OCUFA. Ultimately, CUASA members must judge the issues for themselves. OCUFA claims to be an effective lobbying voice for academic staff at Ontario universities. Are you aware of any government initiatives affecting our sector that OCUFA has affected? OCUFA claims to be waging an effective campaign to take our concerns to the public. Are you aware of any change in public attitude favourably affecting our sector that can be attributed to OCUFA's work? CUASA's Steering Committee unanimously recommends that the Membership vote to withdraw from OCUFA. RATIFICATION VOTE: MAY 17 9:30-4:30 (Unicentre near Faculty Club) ADVANCE POLL: MAY 13, MAY 16 10:00-4:00 (447 St. Pat's Bldg.)