Volume 28, No. 4             Editor:  Mark Langer              October, 1997.

                                     



                     PROGRAM  REDUNDANCY?  LAY-OFFS?



In recent addresses to Senate and the General Faculty Board, President Van

Loon has informed the University community that the financial situation is

such that if nothing is done under the current financial plan, there will

be an annual deficit of $4.3 - $5.8 million in 1998-99, the year in which

the Executive of the Board of Governors has decreed that there be none. 



The President plans to address this problem primarily by the termination

of 56 faculty members.  19 of these would be voluntary separations.  35

would be involuntary dismissals through declaration of program redundancy. 



IS THIS NECESSARY?



The President's announcement is based on the most recent financial

statement.  The impressive display of charts and graphs notwithstanding,

this announcement is not a statement of absolute fact if flows from a

financial plan.  The true debate is not about President Van Loon's

figures, but about assumptions behind them.  The numbers in any financial

plan proceed from assumptions; change the assumptions and the numbers

change as well. 



The financial "crisis" exists because the Executive of the Board of

Governors (as distinct from the Board itself) has decreed that there be no

deficit as of 1998-99.  It is important to remember that the deadline of

1998-99 is not an absolute one.  It has been manufactured by the Executive

of BOG.  We have a financial problem that can be solved.  It is being

presented as a crisis in order to make the destruction of CUASA members'

lives a palatable solution. 



CUASA views the most recent budgetary figures with some scepticism.  Past

practice has shown that management often presents the worst possible

scenario before entering bargaining. 



LAYOFFS AND THE SURVIVAL OF THE UNIVERSITY



Program redundancy has severe financial repercussions. $5-$7 million

immediately would be added to the accumulated deficit to pay for lay-off

compensation.  Furthermore, program redundancy means that students are

lost to Carleton, presenting a danger of falling below the funding

corridor.  Incalculable damage can be done to future enrolment if public

confidence in Carleton's ability to fulfil its obligations to students is

shaken by program closure. 



A cynic might observe that people are more likely to be in favour of

sacrifices if someone other than themselves is to be sacrificed. 

Management reassures the university community that program closure by

means of invoking redundancy will be a one-time exercise.  Job losses, we

are told, will be confined to small parts of the university and the

majority will be untouched.  CUASA members should take no comfort in this

view, nor should they view with equanimity the destruction of their

colleagues' lives and careers..  If management's projections are off, as

they have been known to be with alarming regularity, they will come back

to the well, again and again.  Perhaps for you. 



Ultimately, the decision about invoking program redundancy is a Senate

decision.  Management is counting on its appointments to Senate to deliver

a majority vote on these issues.  CUASA's view is that program redundancy

is the latest in a series of economically driven decisions that would make

previous similarly motivated errors, like over enrolment and CUDC, pale by

comparison.  If you share this view, we urge you to make your position

known to members of Senate.