Main menu:

History of RPE Thought

Posts by Tag

RSS New from the CCPA

  • Help us build a better Ontario September 14, 2017
    If you live in Ontario, you may have recently been selected to receive our 2017 grassroots poll on vital issues affecting the province. Your answers to these and other essential questions will help us decide what issues to focus on as we head towards the June 2018 election in Ontario. For decades, the CCPA has […]
    Canadian Centre for Policy Alternatives
  • Does the Site C dam make economic sense for BC? August 31, 2017
    Today CCPC-BC senior economist Marc Lee submitted an analysis to the BC Utilities Commission in response to their consultation on the economics of the Site C dam. You can read it here. In short, the submission discussses how the economic case for Site C assumes that industrial demand for electricity—in particular for natural gas extraction […]
    Canadian Centre for Policy Alternatives
  • Ontario's middle and working class families are losing ground August 15, 2017
    Ontario is becoming more polarized as middle and working class families see their share of the income pie shrinking while upper middle and rich families take home even more. New research from CCPA-Ontario Senior Economist Sheila Block reveals a staggering divide between two labour markets in the province: the top half of families continue to pile […]
    Canadian Centre for Policy Alternatives
  • Join us in October for the CCPA-BC fundraising gala, featuring Senator Murray Sinclair August 14, 2017
    We are incredibly honoured to announce that Senator Murray Sinclair will address our 2017 Annual Gala as keynote speaker, on Thursday, October 19 in Vancouver. Tickets are now on sale. Will you join us? Senator Sinclair has served as chair of the Truth and Reconciliation Commission (TRC), was the first Indigenous judge appointed in Manitoba, […]
    Canadian Centre for Policy Alternatives
  • How to make NAFTA sustainable, equitable July 19, 2017
    Global Affairs Canada is consulting Canadians on their priorities for, and concerns about, the planned renegotiation of the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA). In CCPA’s submission to this process, Scott Sinclair, Stuart Trew and Hadrian Mertins-Kirkwood point out how NAFTA has failed to live up to its promise with respect to job and productivity […]
    Canadian Centre for Policy Alternatives
Progressive Bloggers

Meta

Recent Blog Posts

Posts by Author

Recent Blog Comments

The Progressive Economics Forum

University Governance

This afternoon I spoke on a panel on university governance at a conference titled Future U:  Creating the Universities We Want, organized by the Ontario Confederation of University Faculty Associations.  Also presenting on the panel were Professor Glen Jones and Professor Claire Polster.

Future U: Creating the Universities We want
Future U: Creating the Universities We want

My speaking notes can be downloaded at this link.

Points I raised in my presentation include the following:

The Basics.  Typically in Canada, a university has both a board of governors (BoG) and a senate.   The former (which was the focus of my presentation) has responsibility for both “administrative and fiscal matters,” while the latter has responsibility for “academic matters.”

Internal vs. External Members.  Approximately one-third of a university’s BoG members usually consists of “internal” members (i.e. students, faculty and staff).  The other two-thirds of a BoG’s members typically come from outside the university community, and are sometimes referred to as “external” members.  External members are not democratically elected; rather, they are either appointed by government or by the board itself.  On this basis, I would argue that Canada’s House of Commons, all provincial/legislative assemblies in Canada, public school boards and most membership-based non-profits are more directly accountable to their constituencies than are university BoGs.

External Members.  One advantage of having external members on a BoG is that they often bring expertise on various topics, including finance, auditing, capital projects and communications.  However, a drawback of external members (in my opinion) is that they sometimes are quite distant from some of the day-to-day concerns of a university.  For example, it is quite common for the external members of a university’s BoG to consist of high-income individuals.  This may make it challenging for some of them to fully appreciate concerns such as student debt and working conditions of cleaning and maintenance staff.  They may also arrive to the BoG without a nuanced understanding of what has transpired on campus in the previous 20-30 years (notwithstanding the fact that, in many cases, they may have been a student at that university at one point).

Information Flow.  As Robert F. Clift has pointed out, a university’s president (i.e. the university’s most senior staff person) is very much in control of what information makes its way to a university’s BoG.  It is therefore important for BoG members to make a presence on campus, read campus newspapers, and talk to students, staff and faculty.

Access to Board Members.  Many BoGs in Canada feature very basic information about their members online.  However, in many cases, contact information is not available for BoG members at a university’s web site.  If contact information were available online for university BoG members, I think that would encourage members of the university community to contact BoG members from time to time; and I think this could lead to at least four possible outcomes.  First, this would make it harder for the university’s president to contain the flow of information to each BoG member.  Second, if contact information of BoG members were publicly available, BoG members would have to be ‘on their toes’ more often (answering e-mails, for example).  Third, if contact information for BoG members were publicly available, some campus groups might ‘spam’ BoG members with unsolicited e-mails from time to time (for example, when protesting a decision by the University’s president or the BoG itself).  Fourth, if members of the campus community had easy access to individual BoG members, cracks in the BoG’s official messaging (i.e. the ‘party line’) might be exposed from time to time.

Inner Boards.  If a BoG is not careful, an  ‘inner board’ (consisting of, say, four or five BoG members) can emerge, effectively relegating the rest of the BoG to the status of an advisory committee.  This appears to be what happened at Concordia a few years ago.

Meeting Minutes.  I think BoGs need to be careful about the kinds of minutes they keep.  In particular, I would argue that there is a drawback to keeping minimalist versions of meeting minutes.  For example, if a meeting lasts two hours and includes several important debates, it is possible for the recording secretary to produce just one or two pages of minutes from the meeting; such a minimalist version of the minutes might capture attendance, motions made and decisions taken.  But it is also possible for the recording secretary to produce much more detailed minutes that include an overview of what key points were raised during debate and by whom.  I think the latter approach lends to increased board transparency.   Any university BoG that is serious about board transparency has a rather clear path it could take:  it could simply direct its recording secretary to produce a detailed version of minutes of each meeting.

Enjoy and share:

Comments

Comment from Ridha Ben Rejeb
Time: February 28, 2014, 5:36 pm

Well elaborated Nick, if I may comment on some of your points “some campus groups might ‘spam’ BoG members ” We should not stop eating for fear of choking, every member should have been aware of the pros and cons of BoG positions. It seems that some members only seek the pros and prestige while they disregard or keep the responsibility and duty parts at minimal levels.

Thus, the member passiveness and lack of engagement in campus life may lead to what you stated “an ‘inner board’ […]can emerge, effectively relegating the rest of the BoG to the status of an advisory committee.” My guesstimate that the ‘inner board’ has usually a direct involvement in the university management and they care or fear as stakeholders for their own interest. Once they sense that the rest of the members are not actively involved or ‘ followers’ the ‘inner board’ would opt for one step further to protect their interest as expressed in your article “minimalist versions of meeting minutes”. However, this time it is geared towards the larger public or stakeholders of the university. All this can be changed only if we show genuine interest, true activism and bold accountability. Till then many discussions of important matters and decision making may or may not be implemented.

Write a comment





Related articles