• threats to academic freedom, collegial governance

• associate deans/directors removed from union

• disparity in pay (sr admin 6.6% increase, faculty and libs 3.4%, inflation is 4.4%), 

• pay equity and transparency

• sr administrative bloat,  

• faculty administrative role clarity (ph, dir, assoc dean, dean)  

• 93% ltd’s are women citing challenges to mental health (UBC study), 

• Reorg issues – time lags, issues solved and unsolved, process, consultation, collaborative implementation, 

• Staff / faculty division  

• wlu allocation - admin, online/f2f

• PCS redundancy and wild west course devt

• wlu framework - rework, equity, distribution, backfill

• sharing of electives

• impact of term based model

• oversight of westshore

• recruitment gaps - eg. indigenous faculty, students

• alumni gaps

• consultants to RRU org dev't - leverage our expertise

• possible consolidation of BC unis

• UAE and other overseas collaborations

• renew prog dev't processes - Tamara has started...

• Unionize staff so we can bargain together

• Health care improvements

• Pay to match cost of living in Victoria

Be advocates for EDI - be able to speak to the benefits

Timing of course selection/approvals

Health care improvements

Pay to match cost of living in Victoria

With the confidence that her reading of our position allows, I think we go into a conversation with the Provost with a view to understanding their rationale for the change. So much of the reorg has come absent clearly-stated reasons for such seismic changes, as in the consolidation of the schools. We can and have inferred a lot of things, such as reducing staff-side positions, but it would help to know where the RRU admin is coming from.

With an earnest, open-minded conversation about the director versus associate dean matter as a start, we can then outline our concerns as to the loss of the director role and the shift of its functions and authority outside the bargaining unit. It's fair to say that, even before the AD role was proposed, not all was well with the director role. Crucially, directors were often caught between their limited power and significant responsibility, especially where it came to occasions where they strove to make peace in a school or manage a difficult colleague, and yet lacked any supervisory authority. There is also the problem of fewer faculty wanting to be directors once those who enjoyed that work had taken a turn. As the new and much larger schools will ask a lot of the director, should that role continue, it's time both RRUFA and the admin rethought the role.

By way of ideas, what if directors continued, largely doing what they do now, but the admin used associate deans to assist the FIS dean (whose remit will be twice as large after the reorg than it is now, with two deans). Most universities in Canada, including neighbouring UVic, have department chairs (i.e., directors) and associate deans. Chairs are in the bargaining units, associate deans out. I'd go into this conversation with the Provost with some ideas as to maintaining a dual structure in this fashion, as I think associate deans could do a lot of good, as well as providing senior admin experience for those seeing a future for themselves in higher-ed admin.

"The Royal Roads Faculty Association (RRUFA) calls upon the Provost/ VP-Academic to continue the role of School Directors, and re-think and retract the stated imposition of Associate Dean positions that would be exempted from RRUFA and the Collective Agreement (CA), since the Director role is currently defined in the CA as 'faculty' under the 'interpretations and definitions' section, and is assigned duties defined as faculty work. Removal of the Director role would therefore need to be bargained in the RRUFA CA and cannot be done unilaterally by RRU Administration. Removing this position may result in a change in the union's certified membership with the BC Labour Relations Board. RRUFA therefore calls upon the Provost to withdraw the Associate Dean (exempt) positions proposed by RRU senior administration and to retain the Director (unionized) role."

I would be happy to move this, but this may seem more than a little self-interested! So we need both a mover and a seconder at the next RRUFA meeting - or as an online vote.

Best wishes,

Niels

o   the Indigenous population was 1.8 million, or 5% of the population of Canada (given the global pandemic, 63 First Nations were unable to participate in the data collection at that time). 

Indigenous populations are younger than other demographic groups in Canada:

o   there was a 9.4% increase in the Indigenous population between 2016 and 2021.

Indigenous populations are growing

o The population of Indigenous peoples grew 4X the amount of the rest of the Canadian population between 2016 and 2021.

98,000 Métis people lived in British Columbia in 2021.

The First Nation population in BC was 180,085 in 2021. 39% live on reserve.

61% of the Vancouver Island First Nations population is eligible for post-secondary education, this translates to approximately 7424 individuals.

Why are we not aiming partnership development and program development locally?

At the same time, there is likely a need for an Associate Dean to liaise with School Directors/Chairs to implement University goals/objectives. This person might also work with HR on employee performance issues.

In the past, I have caused a minor hullabaloo by suggesting that RRU is the one post secondary that is most vulnerable to a shut down or a merger. I’m not saying the sky is falling just to frustrate people. Any economic sector goes through boom and bust cycles. During the downtimes there is consolidation. Market forces cull the weakest players. The stronger ones merge. Seen any Packards lately? Mercurys? Oldsmobiles? Pontiacs? Saturns? Scions? When the going gets tough, consumer choice is reduced in favour of operational efficiencies. We thought this was going to happen 20 years ago with MOOCs and certificates and badges. We thought this would happen during the pandemic. It finally is happening now with the international students unable to visit and sustain our top line (revenue) growth. There are universities in Ontario and the USA that have closed and are now selling off their campuses. In other words this is real now. 

We are in a union. Our CA has provisions for important big picture events like this. We are going to be OK in the event of a merger. Our lives might only experience a minor disruption or inconvenience with some new pros and cons; new business cards without a castle logo, slightly better pay scale, no parking on site, etc. Our friends on staff would be let go. As RRUFA members we can just sit back and wait for the executive to…probably do something major to stop the financial bleeding. OR, we could do an analysis and make a suggestion that would work out in a way that we prefer. Again, WE are the braintrust. If this uni is closed, Phillip will just be redeployed as the Ambassador to Botswana (or similar) and everyone will understand, because of covid or ‘the headwinds’ or the international students…etc. There are 100 of us. Do we think he’s as bought-in to solving this problem as we are? Again, I am making the case on this RRUFA padlet so that the membership might consider prioritizing a consulting project that determines what operational efficiencies would work out best for the employees, and deliver a (public?) letter to the executive that makes it plain. 

I have many things I would like to see happen--including advancement of equity issues, further overhaul of teaching evaluation, adaptation of the WLU system etc. But I see all other issues, beyond the 3 mentioned above, as only achievable if we have a functioning institution and thus secondary priorities. This is not to say there are not ways to, for example, bring in students, while advancing equity--only that we in RRUFA need to be strategic about where to leverage our political capital.

A more sustainable and academically grounded approach would be to strengthen department‑level leadership. With a large faculty base (in the new FIS), department chairs are far better positioned to support curriculum, manage teaching loads, mentor faculty, and respond to student needs. Chairs provide direct, discipline‑specific oversight — something additional AD or directors cannot replicate without duplicating responsibilities and inflating costs (i.e., salaries).

Expanding upper administration will not solve operational challenges; it will dilute accountability, increase salary expenditures, and create confusion about decision‑making authority. Investing in department chairs, on the other hand, reinforces academic quality, maintains a lean governance model, and aligns with the financial realities facing both the province and the post‑secondary sector.