CUPE, OSSTF and BUFA have all agreed to Boycott the Town Hall meeting being held February 17, 2010. This is because we believe that it is important to send a message to the administration that we do not have confidence that the town hall forums are either transparent or an actual dialogue. There can be neither true transparency nor dialogue when the decisions are made ahead without consultation and the conversation is centered around what faculty, staff or students could or should do to implement decisions that have a negative impact on their terms and conditions of work.
In response we are calling for an open forum to discuss Brock’s finances, February 18, 2010 from 12 noon- 2:00PM at Alphies Trough (light lunch will be served).
In part, our discussion will concern the fact that the cuts have influenced the following:
-Abolition of seminars in some courses offered by the Department of Nursing and in some courses offered by the Department of Tourism and Environment
-A proposal going to Senate eliminating the second language requirement for Humanities majors.Apart from damage to Brock’s academic mission this move would have serious negative effects on the Department of Modern Languages, Literatures and Cultures.
-An increase in seminar size from 18 to 20 in the Faculty of Social Sciences
- Reduction in faculty complement in several faculties through a decrease in Limited Term Appointments and not replacing on a 1 to 1 basis full time Tenure stream faculty who leave the university.According to one Dean, the decline in full-time positions is a "threat to grad growth, research culture and program quality”.Please note that according to BUFA dues information, we lost 15 faculty members this past year.
-the termination of non-unionized Brock staff
-The use of unspent operating funds for capital expenditures.
BUFA members may be aware of other decisions related to finances that have had a deleterious effect on their students and/or programs
The request by Senior Administration for cuts is based on decisions, such as the decision to build an International Centre, hiring marketing and fundraising teams, and spending operating money for the capital campaign. These decisions have a major impact on the operating money we have available for our primary purpose. Our members have not been involved in this early stage of decision making but rather have been informed of the financial implications after the fact. In addition, our own financial analysis of the budget (still in process) points to unsettling inconsistencies between what we have been told by the administration regarding the necessity for cuts and our analysts’ interpretation of the data.
The three unions are most willing to be involved earlier in budget decision making so that we are given an opportunity to share with the administration the effect that their financial decisions may have on our faculty, staff and students before the decision is made.We believe we can be more supportive if we are involved at an earlier stage and are most willing to work with the administration to try and achieve balance between their goals and ours.
