Current Issues
Here are the most recent issues that the UBC Faculty Association has been involved with; a complete list of current issues is available in the sub-menu bar (right).
Joint Communique: UBCFA and UBC
Report of the Pay Equity (DATA) Working Group
Report of the Structural Measures and Resolution Tactics (SMART) Working Group
Report of the Gender Pay Equity Recommendation Committee: UBCV
Report of the Gender Pay Equity Recommendation Committee: UBCO
Please take the opportunity to express your voice in the formation/change of university policies!
The University is proposing amendments to Policy #85 (Scholarly Integrity). We have attached the rationale for the changes that were presented to the Board of Governors at its meeting on 4 December 2012 as well as both the existing and proposed policies. Below you will find the University’s comments on the proposed amendments.
Please review the proposed changes to see if you have any questions or concerns. You can submit your response to the Faculty Association by January 23 to be considered when we formulate the Association’s response, or you may forward your concerns directly to the University by January 31. If you do submit a response to the University directly, please copy us so that we’re aware of your response.
****************************************************************************
CALL FOR COMMENTS – PROPOSED POLICY AMENDMENT: POLICY #85 (SCHOLARLY INTEGRITY)
The UBC community is invited to comment on proposed amendments to Policy #85 (Scholarly Integrity).
In February of 2012, the Tri-Council granting agencies informed the University of two changes in the eligibility requirements for institutions, one of which was that a new Tri-Agency Framework: Responsible Conduct of Research would replace the Tri-Council Policy Statement: Integrity in Research and Scholarship and its Framework for Tri-Council Review of University Policies Dealing with Integrity in Research. The new Framework specifically requires that the University “develop and administer a policy(ies) to address allegations of policy breaches by researchers that meets the minimum requirements set out in the Framework” and that the University “applies this policy(ies) to all research conducted under its auspices or jurisdiction.” Since the University already had in place a policy that addressed the issue of the responsible conduct of research (Policy 85 – Scholarly Integrity), a new policy did not need to be developed. However, the existing policy does require some amendments to meet the new minimum requirements set out in the Framework. Furthermore, the Policy has not undergone a substantive review since its inception in January 1995, and therefore a general review and update was in order in any event.
The proposed changes to Policy #85 shift the Policy’s focus to the promotion of scholarly integrity rather than the proscription of scholarly misconduct update, simplify and clarify the Policy to reflect the University’s practical experience with the Policy over the past 15 years and create a clearer, simpler document update and clarify the minimum requirements that were already addressed in the Policy to ensure compliance with the Framework and add any new requirements from the Framework that were not already addressed in the Policy to ensure compliance with the Framework.
Key elements of the proposed amendments to the Policy are:
- the addition of a section entitled “Promoting Scholarly Integrity” to the beginning of the Policy to emphasize the positive promotion of scholarly integrity and to provide a list of examples of the types of behavior that are expected of members of the University community
- the migration of portions of the Procedures into the Policy itself, to ensure that the Procedures only contain the process under which allegations of scholarly misconduct will be addressed
- the addition of the new Framework requirement that any Investigative Committee appointed to investigate an allegation of scholarly misconduct must include a member external to the University
- the addition of the new Framework reporting requirements, which include reporting to the newly created Tri-Council Secretariat on Responsible Conduct of Research in certain circumstances.
A copy of the proposed policy is attached to this e-mail. Please submit feedback to the Office of the University Counsel at university.counsel@ubc.ca by January 31, 2013.
Please take the opportunity to express your voice in the formation/change of university policies!
The University is proposing a new Policy #104 (Acceptable Use and Security of UBC Electronic Information and Systems) to replace existing policies #104 (Responsible Use of Information Technology Facilities and Services) and Policy #106 (Access to and Security of Administrative Information).
We have attached the rationale for the changes that were presented to the Board of Governors as well as both the existing and proposed policies. Below you will find the University’s comments on the proposed new policy.
Please review the proposed changes to see if you have any questions or concerns. You can submit your response to the Faculty Association by January 11 to be considered when we formulate the Association’s response, or you may forward your concerns directly to the University by January 25. If you do submit a response to the University directly, please copy us so that we’re aware of your response.
********
CALL FOR COMMENTS – PROPOSED NEW POLICY: POLICY #104 (ACCEPTABLE USE AND SECURITY OF UBC ELECTRONIC INFORMATION AND SYSTEMS)
The UBC community is invited to comment on a proposed new policy, Policy #104, Acceptable Use and Security of UBC Electronic Information and Systems.
The proposed new policy combines and updates two existing policies, Policy #104 (Responsible Use of Information Technology Facilities and Services) and #106 (Access to and Security of Administrative Information). The current version of Policy #104 was approved in November 2000 and has never been substantively revised or amended. Policy #106 was first approved in January 2001. While the Procedures were amended in July 2010, the Policy itself has never been substantively revised or amended.
Over the years, users across the University have identified significant gaps in the policies, and have asked for various aspects to be clarified or elaborated.
The proposed new policy incorporates much of the language in the existing policies, including the following important provisions:
UBC will not attempt to limit the academic freedom of those who use UBC Information and Systems, as long as the use is consistent with relevant laws, policies, collective agreements and terms of employment.
The restrictions on the use of Electronic Information and Systems are not intended to prevent or restrict duly authorized system administrators or other technical personnel from carrying out their duties.
The proposed new policy makes the following significant changes:
1. To avoid repetition and inconsistencies, the new policy combines the existing policies into one document, which is easier to read and about 25% shorter than the combined length of the existing policies.
2. The existing policies only apply to faculty, staff, and students, but not to other individuals who may have access to University systems. The proposed policy fills this gap by covering all individuals who have access to UBC Electronic Information and Systems.
3. The existing policy only applies to administrative data, but it does not contain any guidance about the security or integrity of academic or research data. The proposed policy addresses this omission by covering all UBC Electronic Information, which is defined as “electronic information used to conduct University business (administrative, academic and research).”
4. The existing policy does not explicitly require users to comply with guidelines developed by the Chief Information Officer (CIO) on the use and access to UBC information and systems. The proposed policy explicitly requires all users to comply with the CIO’s guidelines (now called Information Security Standards).
5. The existing policy allows for incidental personal use of facilities or services, under limited circumstances. The proposed policy continues to allow such personal use, but provides more guidance about the balance between users’ reasonable expectation of privacy and the University’s right to access information stored on UBC systems under appropriate circumstances.
6. Some parts of the existing policies clearly do not apply to systems specifically designed for personal use, such as UBC’s student and alumni email system. The proposed policy specifies that the CIO may exempt systems from the policy where appropriate, and must approve separate terms of use for the exempted systems.
A copy of the proposed policy is attached to this e-mail. All members of the University community are encouraged to provide their comments. Please submit feedback to the Office of the University Counsel at university.counsel@ubc.ca by January 25, 2013.
The Faculty Association is very concerned about proposed revisions to Policy 88, Intellectual Products (formerly called Patents and Licenses). Some of the elements, if implemented, would appear to seriously erode your intellectual property rights, and negatively impact your academic freedom.
We have attached the Association’s response to the proposed changes, and you can also find it here. A copy of the proposed policy is here. I urge you to review our concerns, and send an email to Hubert Lai, University Counsel, copied to us, to express your concerns. Comments on the revised policy are due to Mr. Lai by October 7, so you must act quickly. We do not think it is in the best interest of faculty members to have the revised policy implemented and I think a strong signal should be sent about this to the University.
Respectfully,
Nancy Langton
President
In a previous email, I described the problem of having Faculty holding management positions representing the voices of rank-and-file Faculty on the Board of Governors. The Faculty Association’s interpretation of the University Act is that BoG representatives for faculty positions should represent non-management faculty voices. Under the Collective Agreement, Associate Deans are management and Heads are not. New language in the collective agreement supports this: “In addition, they (Heads) represent the views of their Departments to the Deans and the University at large.” In other words, there is a difference between non-management faculty voices and management faculty voices.
I urge you to vote in the Board of Governor’s election for a second individual to represent the voices of non-management faculty. Be sure to visit the University’s website sometime this week to cast your vote.
Best,
Nancy
Nancy Langton, Ph.D.
President, UBC Faculty Association
112, 1924 West Mall
Vancouver, BC V6T 1Z2
ph 604.822.2651
www.facultyassociation.ubc.ca
I am very pleased to present to our members the results of two Working Groups jointly sponsored by the Faculty Association and the Provost to examine pay equity in salaries of full-time tenure stream professors at UBCV.
The committees were struck at the beginning of 2010 with the following mandates:
- The DATA Working Group: to focus on a quantitative analysis of the pay gap and
- The SMART Working Group: to focus on structural measures to prevent and redress gender inequities amongst faculty, focusing on “equal pay for equal work”.
The reports of the two committees (DATA and SMART) are intended to complement one another, and should be read together. The work of these committees is an example of the kind of collaborative work that the Faculty Association engages in with the University. Members of the Faculty Association’s Status of Women Committee worked tirelessly with individuals appointed by the Provost’s office to develop recommendations to address the equity gap, as well as preventing the gap from occurring in the future. Dr. Lara Boyd (Physical Therapy) and Dr. Megan Levings (Surgery) will be doing a presentation on the work of these committees at our Spring General Meeting on March 1. They will share and discuss an analysis of the gender pay gap in professional salaries as well as recommendations to address the gender pay inequity at UBC.
There is still much work to be done on this front. The committees were not able to tackle similar issues at UBCO, or to look at the sessional and instructor streams. These are areas where volunteers from the membership are needed if this work is to get done. So please don’t hesitate to volunteer your services to move this issue along, by contacting the Faculty Association.
The Association is committed to addressing fundamental issues on campus and working with the Administration on resolving these issues wherever possible. I want to thank the leadership of the Status of Women Committee of the Faculty Association, under the direction of the Chair, Dr. Karen Bakker (Geography), as well as our Provost, Dr. David Farrar, for showing how this can happen.
Best,
Nancy Langton, Ph.D.
President, UBC Faculty Association
On February 3, 2011, the Faculty Association Status of Women Committee presented a panel discussion on male/female faculty pay equity and other gender related issues at UBC. Presentations included:
- Equity: Key Issues for Women Faculty at UBC view video
- Analysis of the Gender Pay Gap in Professional Salaries at UBC view video
- Fixing Pay Inequity at UBC: Recommendations from the Structural Measure and Resolution Tactics (SMART) Working Group view video
- The Science of Unconscious Bias view video
For copies of the handouts, click here.
An unprecedented situation has arisen recently regarding membership on the Board of Governors that has caused me, as President of the Faculty Association, to send a letter to the Chair of the Board of Governors earlier this week, alerting him to a potential problem arising from the recent elections.
The Board of Governors of UBC comprises 21 members: The President, the Chancellor, 11 appointed members, 3 elected students, and 5 elected employees of the University, of whom 3 are to be faculty members and 2 are to be employees other than faculty members. It has always been the position of the Faculty Association that the 3 elected employees representing faculty members must be persons who are employed as faculty members, not as management. For that reason our position has always been that the Vice-presidents, the Deans, and other people in management positions are ineligible to be elected to any of the three “faculty member” positions on the Board.
Previously this stance, that Vice-presidents, Deans, and other people in management positions are ineligible to be elected in any of the three faculty member positions on the Board, has not been an issue between the Association and the University. We have no reason to believe that the University takes a position contrary to this. However an unfortunate confluence of events has created a potential problem. At the time the nominations and election for the faculty member representatives on the Board took place, Associate Deans were faculty members who were entitled to run for, and be elected to, the Board. However, just shortly after the election, the Board of Governors ratified the recently negotiated Collective Agreement in which the parties agreed that Associate Deans are, like Vice-presidents and Deans, not employed as faculty members but instead are managers. As it happens, one of the persons just elected to a faculty member position on the Board is an Associate Dean, and thus no longer employed as a faculty member under the Collective Agreement. This has created the problem about which I have alerted the Board Chair.
A little context on this issue might be helpful. At the bargaining table UBC took the position that Associate Deans are managers (that is, that their principal employment responsibilities were management responsibilities), and thus that the Associate Dean position should not be subject to membership in the Faculty Association. After consulting our legal counsel, reviewing relevant statutes, and considering the situation at other universities, the Association came to the conclusion that the University was right. Associate Deans are managers as defined by BC law. Further, by law, managers are not employees and cannot be members of the bargaining unit. Therefore if Associate Deans are truly managers, as UBC asserts and as we ultimately accepted, they must be excluded from the bargaining unit by law. That is also why Deans, though they may teach and/or do research, have never been a part of the bargaining unit.
We believe that the intent of the University Act is to provide for five elected employees on the Board, three of whom are to be employed as faculty members and none of whom may be managers. The Faculty Association is responsible to make sure that the faculty representatives on the Board of Governors represent the voice of the faculty, not the voice of the administration (i.e., management). Thus the Association position has to be that the faculty representatives on BOG must be employed as faculty members, not as management. As President, it is my job to champion our members’ voices, and make sure that the university administration listens to our members.
It has been a longstanding precedent at UBC that Deans and Vice Presidents do not serve on BOG, recognizing that they hold management positions, and the letter simply reminds the Chair of the Board of Governors that this precedent must be upheld in the face of Associate Deans being removed from the bargaining unit. As president of the Faculty Association it is my responsibility to make sure that we do not allow a precedent (of permitting Associate Deans to serve on BOG as faculty representatives) that could lead to a dilution or even negation of one of the few aspects of the university governance where faculty have oversight rights and responsibilities.
I will continue to make sure that the voices of faculty members are heard at UBC in all areas of governance. Please feel free to contact me to discuss these issues further.
Wishing you a happy and healthy New Year!
Best,
Nancy
Nancy Langton, Ph.D.
President, UBC Faculty Association
112, 1924 West Mall
Vancouver, BC V6T 1Z2
ph 604𧐶-2651
www.facultyassociation.ubc.ca
The IRP, or long-term disability benefit, is a component of the overall benefits package provided to members of the UBC Faculty Association. The IRP provides an income to members who are unable to work due to a long-term illness or injury. It is an entirely member funded benefit plan with UBC currently acting as the plan sponsor and administrator.
As a response to concerns brought forward by our membership and due to broader changes to the overall governance structure of long-term disability benefits at UBC, the Faculty Association, with the assistance of an expert consultant, is currently undertaking a comprehensive review of our IRP benefits. This review will include (but is not limited to) an analysis of the following:
We anticipate that this review will take some time to complete. We will keep you informed as we move through this review process and we will be presenting a full report to our membership in the months ahead.
If you have any questions or concerns about the IRP program, or if you would like more information on this review, please contact Membership Services Officer Deena Rubuliak.
To view the Association’s reply, click here.
Other documents related to the Supreme Court of Appeal:
To view the Faculty Association’s Application, click here.
To view UBC’s Response to the Faculty Association’s application, click here.
To view the article in June 2010’s edition of Faculty Focus, click here.
To view the Court’s decision, click here.
