Council rejects Faculty Assn. challenge of Integrated Planning & vows its support

Bob Lucas

By Lawrence McMahen

The Jan. 6 Faculty Association Bulletin that challenged the legality of the U of S's new Integrated Planning process and called for its suspension caused a major flap at the Jan. 23 University Council meeting.

In the end, the debate that took up about half of the two-hour meeting resulted in confirmation that most Council members favor the new IP process, and they approved a detailed response to go from Council Chair Bob Lucas to the U of S Faculty Association.

The USFA argued that the new planning process - with a new administrative committee requiring that programs and changes conform to U of S academic priorities - doesn't let Council carry out its role of overseeing the University's academic priorities.

But the majority of Council members appeared to agree with speakers who said that, in fact, the new Integrated Planning process is a great improvement over past practice - giving Council more say than ever in a fairer, more transparent academic planning process.

"I don't see the problem," Planning Committee Chair Lou Qualtiere told Council.

"The Provost has been here for the past five or six Council meetings and has explained Integrated Planning. For years, budgets were done ad hoc, or behind closed doors - and faculty said why isn't there more planning. Now they have done this ... It's a legitimate attempt by the Administration to tie spending to academic priorities, and I applaud them for that."

Most other Council committee chairs agreed with Qualtiere, and said they believe that with Council heavily involved in developing and approving new Foundational Documents for the U of S, Council is actually in control of the University's academic agenda.

Acting Provost and Vice-President Academic Ken Coates told Council "the administration is in support of Council's pre-eminence in academic decisions."

Budget Committee Chair Bernard Laarveld said his committee "has taken a real liking to Integrated Planning ... because it puts the power of planning back to the academic units."

Council members Jene Porter and Glen Beck disagreed. Porter said the administration's first draft of the Integrated Planning process looked like an executive-style "PMO (Prime Minister's Office) model", and it was only when "Council raised hell" that it was changed. Beck said there is still too much uncertainty about how IP will work, for Council to say it supports it now.

Laarveld and others said much of the uncertainty is because Council hasn't done a good enough job of explaining the new process to faculty.

In the end, Council voted to support Lucas sending a letter to the Faculty Association in response to the USFA's Jan. 6 challenge to IP.

Lucas' letter states, among other things:

• "We do not believe (the goal of creating a transparent and accountable planning process) is served by a suspension of Integrated Planning."
• "We believe that Integrated Planning is a process that fosters productive co-operation."
• Integrated Planning is designed to restore the initiative over academic planning to the department and college levels ... We believe it is far superior to past attempts on this campus to bring coherent collegial input to the planning process."
• "Council continues to exercise the ultimate authority over the creation of and dissolution of programs and units."
• "Integrated Planning ... will enhance the ability of the academic community to contribute positively to the rejuvenation of the University (and) it will circumscribe the ability of the Administration to effect resource allocation in the absence of the support of Council."

In addition to supporting the letter, Council also voted to "endorse in principle implementing the Integrated Planning process, and Council expects that all matters in the Integrated Planning Process under Council's jurisdiction will be brought to Council for approval..."

News Index

Next Article

Home · About Us · Issue dates · Submissions · AD Information · Back Issues · Headline Index · OCN Policies