About this file. There are three main sections: a table of contents, Notices, and Articles. Each of these sections is separated by two asterisks. Articles are numbered in the table of contents. In the body of the document, article titles are preceded by a pound sign and their corresponding number. FAUW Forum Issue 148. May 2012. David Porreca, Copy Editor. Table of Contents Notices Articles 1. President’s Message. 2. The Health of the Pension Plan. 3. New FAUW Board of Directors. 4. SWEC Hosts Panel on Women in Administration at UW. 5. SWEC Explores Work-Life Balance with Dr. Linda Duxbury. 6. Report on the OCUFA Conference: Ensuring Student Success. 7. Changes in the FAUW Office. 8. New FAUW Website Launched. ** Notices The FAUW Forum: The FAUW Forum is a service for UW faculty sponsored by the Association. It seeks to inform members about current Association matters, to promote the exchange of ideas and to foster open debate on issues with a wide and balanced spectrum of views. Opinions expressed in the Forum are those of the authors, and ought not to be perceived as representing the views of the Association or its Board of Directors unless so specified. Members are invited to submit letters, news items and brief articles. If you do not wish to receive the Forum, please contact the Faculty Association at fauw@uwaterloo.ca and your name will be removed from the mailing list. PDF versions of this and previous issues are available on our website. A text-only version of this issue is also provided. How to contact FAUW: Pat Moore, Administrative Officer Office: MC 4002. Phone extension: 33787. Email: pmmoore@uwaterloo.ca. Miriam Kominar, Administrative Assistant/Communications Coordinator Office: MC 4001. Phone extension: 35158. Email: mkominar@uwaterloo.ca. Website: http://fauw.uwaterloo.ca/ Looking for more contact information? Check out the contact page and the “our people” directory on the new website for the FAUW president, committee chairs, and new staff contacts: http://uwaterloo.ca/fauw/contact   ** Articles #1. President’s Message. by George Freeman, Electrical & Computer Engineering. At its February meeting, Senate passed—with the cautious support of FAUW—a governance document for the Balsillie School of International Affairs (BSIA). Two weeks later, the Academic Freedom and Tenure Committee of the Canadian Association of University Teachers (CAUT) decided to begin its censure process against Laurier and Waterloo over the governance model proposed in the document. The Wilfrid Laurier University Faculty Association (WLUFA) seems to support a CAUT censure. A similar problem at York has kept the whole issue active in the press for a few weeks now. I’ll try to explain how we got here and why FAUW is not supportive of a CAUT censure at this time. Timeline. The following diagram shows a timeline of some key events related to BSIA governance: The BSIA became a FAUW issue in January 2010 when Ramesh Thakur, its inaugural director, approached us because it appeared he was being forced out. Shortly before, John English had been removed as the executive director of the Centre for International Governance Innovation (CIGI), one of the partners in the BSIA, reportedly a result of not bringing CIGI to sufficient profile and influence. FAUW, WLUFA, and CAUT working together were unable to prevent Ramesh’s dismissal without cause from his BSIA role in May 2010. A subsequent CAUT investigation led by Len Findlay released its report in October 2010, postulating a purge as the likely explanation for the departures of English and Thakur. By this point it seemed clear to FAUW that the donor agreement forming the BSIA in late 2007 had serious problems in its governance provisions. In the meantime, FAUW started to notice flaws around governance in other (research) centres coming before Senate. A couple of centre proposals were referred back by Senate to its Graduate and Research Council (SGRC) for revisions. All of this reached a head in November 2010 when Senate passed motions charging the Faculty Relations Committee (FRC) to propose improved policies on donor agreements and on the governance of centres and institutes (of the non-academic variety). Following this peak of tension, several things started happening in parallel. George Dixon, Vice President of University Research, appointed a committee to recommend elements of policy around governance of research centres. Its report was released in July 2011 but has not yet been discussed in detail at FRC. New and reviewed centres coming from SGRC have a proviso that their governance model is subject to change once new policy is in place. FAUW put together a proposal on elements of donor policy which is now in discussion at FRC. It turns out that Waterloo had a decent provostial guideline which people had forgotten existed and Toronto had some good language resulting from problems in setting up centres there. On the BSIA itself, Waterloo agreed that its governance document would go through normal approval channels and that FAUW would be involved. Meanwhile, the BSIA had already started generating proposed models for their governance. Evolution. The evolution of the BSIA can be seen across three representative documents: (1) Schedule A, Governance Structure, in the November 2007 Deed of Gift and Collaboration Agreement which formed the BSIA; (2) Draft 18.0 of Balsillie School Governance and Administration, dated April 2011; and (3) The Balsillie School of International Affairs document approved at Senate in February 2012. The following diagram shows how I understand the original vision of BSIA as expressed in the 2007 donation agreement. The two universities and CIGI collaborate in the school which is to have impact through its research collaborations and enhancement of academic programs. CIGI, formed in 2001, is a Canadian not-for-profit corporation and a registered charity under the Income Tax Act. It describes itself as an “independent, non-partisan think tank on international governance.” From its 2011 Annual Report, it appears to have total assets of about $200 million and about 90 personnel. It hosted some 50 events and produced more than 70 publications across a wide range of topic areas in the past year. The current research focus areas of CIGI are the global economy, global development, energy/environment, and global security. The chair of its operating board is Jim Balsillie, a major initial donor to CIGI (although most of its subsequent income has come from government sources). The BSIA was also enabled by a donation from Jim Balsillie, which has since been exceeded significantly by public monies directed to the school. There is a lot invested in the success of the BSIA from federal, provincial, and local sources. The BSIA is a school in the sense of place, that is, a location where there are students, professors, and academic programs. However, it is not designed as an academic unit in the sense of a university department or school. It is more like a research centre collocated with CIGI and with instructional space for the universities’ programs. Enhancements to the student experience include scholarships and the ability to participate in CIGI events or to interact with CIGI researchers. Under the agreement with Jim Balsillie, Waterloo was to get $12.6 million which it must invest to earn at least a five-percent return (or pay the difference each year) and which investment returns pay for a bit more than half the cost of six CIGI Research Chairs (assuming a full cost of $150 thousand per year each) and twelve Balsillie Fellows (assuming a full cost of $25 thousand per year each). The university picks up the remaining $570 thousand per year. Laurier has the same financial arrangement as Waterloo, i.e., six more chairs and twelve more fellowships. Waterloo and Laurier lease space in a building on the “CIGI campus” (Erb Street West near Caroline Street in Waterloo) and each pay for their share of the building furnishings, maintenance, taxes, and insurance. Other than the way the donation itself directs university funding which might have gone elsewhere in an unbiased academic decision-making environment, there are two areas where one might argue that Waterloo gives up some academic autonomy. The university must “consult with CIGI with respect to the structure of the CIGI Research Chairs and the Balsillie Fellows as well as with respect to the selection of the individuals granted same.” Consulting, generally defined as a sharing of information or advice, doesn’t bind the universities although there is a potential danger of kowtowing to a powerful donor organization under the guise of consultation. Also, the BSIA agreement can be terminated, in which case the donor can take away (technically, gift elsewhere) the endowment, plus investment earnings minus what was already spent or committed. Basically, this specifies what happens to the endowment principle if the whole collaboration is shut down and the cash flow from investing it is therefore no longer needed for the BSIA. The original agreement said very little about governance. There was to be an advisory board of six members (two each from the universities and CIGI). The board was to appoint or renew the director of the school by a unanimous vote, who then reported only to the two university presidents. The budget was to be prepared by the director and approved by Waterloo and Laurier. An executive committee with representation from CIGI and both universities was to help the director with day-to-day operation of the school. In my (hind-sighted) opinion, many of the problems at BSIA can be explained by this lack of specification of roles and boundaries, particularly for the role of the director and for how the research and academic sides were to interact. The following diagram shows how I understand the BSIA starting with the draft governance document of April 2011. This starts to show the BSIA as formally just the research-collaboration component of the school, collocated with CIGI and with the leased space in which Waterloo and Laurier offer their joint programs. Enhancements to the academic programs from BSIA or CIGI are to happen ‘across the gap’ in well-specified ways. The draft governance document, and its subsequent revisions, comprises a short statement of principles and a series of annexes detailing various components. FAUW’s main problem was that laudable principles seemed to be unenforceable or even undone by the details. This led us (and WLUFA, CAUT) to an impression of trickery. Since we were not direct parties to the negotiations, our role in this was to try to hold the universities accountable to doing the right thing. There were delays and abnormalities in the flow of information which fueled an atmosphere of distrust, something currently rare in the FAUW relationship with Waterloo administration. From our perspective, it made it appear as though CIGI or BSIA was the cause. At the same time, however, we were not finding huge differences of opinion at the principles level in our ongoing discussions on donor policy and governance of research centres. After reaching the understanding that Waterloo would involve FAUW and follow normal approval processes for the BSIA, FAUW had several meetings with BSIA representatives (David Welch and Tad Homer-Dixon) and Waterloo administration both separately and together. Again, none of us seemed to disagree on basic principles. Seeing hope, in the fall of 2011, FAUW started talking more about the details, both directly with the BSIA and with Waterloo administration—particularly with the Secretariat where Erin Windibank, Associate University Secretary, was also investigating this on behalf of the university. It was clear that FAUW and the administration were seeking to understand the implications of many similar things, for example, the effect of having the BSIA be a separately incorporated body. Throughout all of this, CAUT, FAUW, and WLUFA have kept in regular contact. Organizational structure The following diagram shows aspects of the organizational structure of the BSIA from the Senate-approved governance document. The board has six members, two from each partner, plus the director as ex officio, non-voting. There is a veto power in the sense that a board decision must have support from at least one member from each pair. The director reports to this board (instead of the two university presidents). The board has final budget and operational authority and must approve the strategic research directions of the BSIA. It also reviews the performance of the director. Waterloo’s Board of Governors recently approved separate incorporation of the BSIA. Once done, this will mean that its board has a legal fiduciary responsibility to the BSIA even if that is in conflict with the well-being of one of the partner institutions. Work is ongoing to map out bylaws or agreements such that the BSIA and Waterloo don’t come into a conflict of interest in some obvious domains such as fund-raising. The director is a faculty member, but not necessarily a tenured professor, at one of the universities. I believe the thinking here was that it might be easier to attract a high-profile candidate without the necessity of tenure, as was done with Ramesh Thakur. The council acts in some ways like a department with the director in a role like that of a departmental chair. It is meant to be the forum for discussion of all school affairs. The director must maintain the confidence of council lest they initiate an extraordinary review. All BSIA faculty members are members of the council, as are representatives from BSIA employees, students in BSIA programs, and CIGI. The CIGI representative plus the two associate directors comprise a management team meant to assist the director with day-to-day activities of overseeing operations and facilitating synergies among the participants in the school. The council must have “due consideration of recommendations” heard by the director, management team, or board. Although the director-council relationship bears resemblance to a chair-department relationship in a university, it has also been pointed out that the director-board relationship bears resemblance to the president-board relationship of a university. In comparison with a university, the BSIA has a very compressed organizational structure missing some roles such as dean or provost. That means some university-like procedures don’t map over very well. The report from George Dixon’s committee on research centres discusses similar issues around the role of director. While some FAUW members may find it difficult to believe at times, there are significant conflict-resolution advantages to the extra levels of administration which are usually found in universities. Censure. FAUW has tried to examine BSIA governance from many different angles of academic freedom and collegial governance. For individual professors, can one be prevented from participating? Forced to participate? Can one engage in normal academic/political criticism of the BSIA, CIGI, or the university? Can research publication be delayed or blocked by a partner? Are intellectual property rights respected? Are the protections of university policy or the Memorandum of Agreement in effect? Are the enhancements offered by BSIA given out impartially and via peer review? Can topics be blocked from the strategic plan? Are BSIA faculty forced to research only on strategic-plan topics? Can faculty remove the director for not maintaining their confidence? Do faculty have a strong voice in BSIA affairs? For the director, can another Thakur incident occur? On the academic side, does BSIA or CIGI interfere in hiring? In curriculum evolution? We don’t find hugely problematic answers to any of these questions in the current governance model, which is why we don’t support a censure. The argument for censure which you may have seen in the press centers on three facts: (1) The BSIA is to be incorporated separately; (2) Partners have a veto in board voting; and (3) Council has insufficient authority in the school. There is particular concern over the fact that the board must approve the strategic research plan, the school budget, and the designation of an academic program as a “BSIA academic program.” Any of these would be disastrous if the BSIA were a true academic unit like a department, controlling academic programs and hiring, or if its strategic research agenda was somehow coercive on faculty members. However, as I hope I have explained here, the BSIA entity really only encapsulates the collaborative research relationship in the form of a research centre, completely separate from academic matters which are left with the universities. The veto power is a simple protection of each partner from bullying by the other two. If something comes down to a veto at the BSIA board, I’m reasonably convinced that the collaboration would be long failed. FAUW has been assured that Waterloo has, or is developing, financial and academic exit strategies for that possibility. To be doubly sure on the strategic plan, FAUW proposed an amendment to the Senate motion (accepted) to clarify our interpretation that the BSIA board cannot veto a research topic arising from normal curriculum evolution or coming from the BSIA council. We also arranged with Geoff McBoyle to have a letter to Senate included which clarifies how Waterloo will view its interaction with the BSIA, particularly the default employment status of participants (they are Waterloo employees subject to all policies and the MOA) and Senate oversight. The budget which BSIA controls relates only to operation of the BSIA as a research center and to BSIA enhancements, such as scholarships and fellowships, which are the collaborative perks offered to students and faculty. CIGI chair funding appears to follow the same model used widely at Waterloo. The BSIA academic program designation labels or brands an academic program as one which will be eligible for the enhancements offered by the BSIA. Like the strategic plan, it essentially defines what is the collaboration. There are many enhancements, such as scholarships, to other Waterloo programs where the donor places restrictions, such as a particular emphasis of study, on eligibility. In that respect, the BSIA is not unique in anything but the use of a label. At Senate, we also agreed that FAUW and Waterloo administration would work quickly to improve some of the language around extraordinary review (removal) of the director. In the compressed organizational structure of the BSIA, it is not clear how an impartial panel is formed to review the director’s performance or how to proceed if the board does not agree with the panel recommendation. Decent language around the first point has already been proposed by Laurier. Some kind of arbitration clause may fix up the second point. The BSIA representatives at Senate agreed that improvements would be welcome. Although FAUW is not ready at this point to say this should be a precedent-setting model for such interactions, we are happy with what was accomplished given the starting point. Much of it is in line with recommendations of George Dixon’s committee. It has long been my personal opinion that effective collaboration doesn’t need governance entanglement so much as simple proximity of the partners and effective venues in which to interact. I don’t know all the details of what happened at York, resulting in them abandoning the CIGI relationship in international law. In my opinion, it did start from a bad initial agreement and with insufficient consultation between the university administration and its faculty. Finally, to me, the easiest way to protect academic freedom would seem to be the enforcement of a boundary between academia and the rest of the world—a moat of sorts. Waterloo has a history of being much more creative. Cooperative education impacts academic freedom. Participating in targeted research funding impacts academic freedom. What I am proud of here is that we seem able to agree on what needs to be protected and able to set about trying to invent the right mechanisms. This means putting a check on reactive stances and working very hard to maintain open communications and trust. Pension. Sustainability of our pension plan remains a concern and you will be hearing more shortly from the university Pension and Benefits Committee. FAUW is keeping close track of pension matters, with a great deal of help from OCUFA. So far, the whole university seems committed to the same broad principles but there is recognition that some adjustments to contributions and/or benefits may be needed for the plan to be viable financially. The Ontario government seems to favour a half-half sharing of ongoing costs between employer and employee. At present, the university pays at least $1.55 for every $1.00 that an employee pays. Over the long term, moving to half-half seems moot (or of political importance only) since compensation is compensation, whether it is paid directly as salary or indirectly as the employer contribution to one’s pension plan. Stay tuned. Addendum – Breaking News On Friday, April 27, the CAUT Council voted to threaten censure against Waterloo and Laurier, the exact motion being “PRESIDENT / WILFRID LAURIER: THAT unless Wilfrid Laurier University and the University of Waterloo amend the governance structure for the Balsillie School of International Affairs so that academic integrity is ensured, censure will be imposed on the administrations of those two universities at the next meeting of Council.” The debate on this spanned some four hours (including the 1.5-hour lunch break). Unfortunately, in my opinion, the facts of the matter were obfuscated by extensive framing, anchoring, and loss aversion. Without attributing bad will, I must say I found some of the arguments amounted, in the end, to just innuendo and over-interpretation of certain details, not necessarily even understood correctly. The speech which wound up debate sounded to me like an overheated display of Ciceronian rhetoric, though to my dismay it drew applause. I think FAUW was the only vote against this motion. So, apparently, we go back to the drawing board. There will have to be some very serious FAUW-CAUT discussion over this as it is not helpful for two bodies defending academic integrity to work at odds with each other. #2. The Health of the Pension Plan by Lori Curtis, Economics, and David DeVidi, Philosophy. occupational hazard of being a member of the FAUW Board of Directors or a faculty representative on the Pension and Benefits committee is knowing and caring far more than is probably healthy for someone still a ways away from retirement about the state of the pension plan. But in recent times there has been enough public discussion of the state of public pension plans in Ontario, of university plans, and of the Waterloo plan in particular to cause alarm or confusion about the state of the Waterloo plan. We would like to use this brief note to do two things: describe the current state of the plan in general terms and begin a discussion among faculty about the best steps to address the problems. While it is probably true to say that some university pension plans in Ontario are in a state of crisis, that would be a significant overstatement for the Waterloo plan. Having said that, there are several factors that mean that some serious thinking needs to be done to restore the plan to good health and keep it there. 1) We suppose everyone knows that the state of financial markets since 2008 has played havoc with all pension plans, and the Waterloo plan was not immune to that. We are in better shape than many plans, but the plan shows a significant “unfunded liability”. In the years immediately after the markets melted down there was some hope of a quick rebound, but not many experts are now projecting a recovery that will solve this problem for us in the near future. 2) Every pension plan’s projections of its own health are only as reliable as the actuarial assumptions used in the projections it makes. About a decade ago, many university plans in Ontario were showing robust surpluses … so much so that many universities, including Waterloo, enriched benefits and took contribution holidays. These “surpluses” are now often regarded as at least partially a product of overly rosy projections of likely returns on investments. The Waterloo plan has already scaled back its projections considerably since then. But the plan’s actuary has suggested that the assumptions used to calculate the current deficit should be modified to take into account the likely low inflation climate over the next several years and the longer time plan members are living. Taking these changes into account leaves us with an “unfunded liability” of about $160 million (approximately 14% of the plan). 3) The longer we wait to take action to address this deficit, the harder it gets to address it and to make other important changes to the plan. To take one example: the long term health of the plan depends crucially on inter-generational support for the plan. In particular, young employees must know that the plan will be there as an important source of income for them in their own retirement. The Pension and Benefits committee is now considering options for how to address the funding deficit. Obviously, that must involve some combination of increasing contributions and decreasing benefits. Since May 2011 the University has put $1.55 into the plan for every dollar contributed by an employee; this is slated to rise to $1.65 as of May 2012 (subject to budgetary approval). Compared to some groups with similar pension plans, the contribution rates at Waterloo are not high. This year, after two years of zero increase in base pay, and with 3% increases slated for each of the next three years, is it time for a contribution increase? On the benefit side, the P&B Committee is primarily looking at changes which are less irrevocable, should the markets come roaring back: changing the level of guaranteed indexing for inflation, for instance, or having one’s pension payout based on the average of the final five years of salary rather than the final three. On the investments side, the fund is exploring alternative investments that would provide diversification benefits to the overall portfolio. It has begun investing in infrastructure and is exploring possible investment opportunities in real estate in the near term. A member of the FAUW Board of Directors will attend the next meeting of the P&B meeting, in part to consider how to involve faculty in the discussion of how to strike the right balance between contribution increases and adjustments to benefits. We will also discuss “the cap issue” that is of concern to faculty and staff, particularly those who have many years remaining before retirement. [We will write a separate article about “the cap issue” for an upcoming FAUW Forum.] But P&B meetings are open and the deliberations are not secret, so you are always welcome to attend. While the current shortage of staff in the Secretariat means that they are a bit behind posting the minutes of our meetings, there is plenty of information about the work of the committee available here: http://www.adm.uwaterloo.ca/infosec/Committees/board/pb.htm Lori Curtis is a faculty representative on the University Pension & Benefits Committee.   #3. New FAUW Board of Directors The 2012-2013 Board of Directors for the Faculty Association was announced at the Spring General Meeting on April 3. Board members as of July 1, 2012: President - David Porreca, Classical Studies. Past President - George Freeman, Electrical and Computer Engineering. Directors: Roydon Fraser, Mechanical and Mechatronics Engineering. Steve Furino, Dean of Mathematics Office. Shelley Hulan, English Language and Literature. Greta Kroeker, History. Eva Lau, Economics. Aimée Morrison, English Language and Literature. Metin Renksizbulut, Mechanical and Mechatronics Engineering. Trefford Simpson, Optometry and Vision Science. Departing Board members. The Board will bid a fond farewell in June to Kathryn Plaisance, Michael Boehringer, Doris Jakobsh, who is completing her fifth consecutive year as a director, and David DeVidi, who has served on the Board since 2004 in the capacities of Director, Treasurer, President, and Past President. #4. SWEC Hosts Panel on Women in Administration at UW by The Status of Women & Equity Committee On March 5, 2012, the Faculty Association’s Status of Women & Equity Committee hosted a panel featuring five women with experience in administration at Waterloo discussing their respective paths to administration, challenges they’ve faced along the way, and advice for women interested in pursuing administrative positions. The aim of the event was to facilitate an interest in and understanding of administrative positions amongst female faculty. Panelists were: Susan Elliott (Dean of Applied Health Sciences), Carolyn Hansson (former VP, University Research), Sue Horton (Associate Provost, Graduate Studies), Daniela O’Neill (Associate Chair, Graduate Studies, Psychology), and Pearl Sullivan (Chair, MME and incoming Dean of Engineering). There was a lot of valuable insight exchanged at the panel and reception afterwards, so for those who couldn’t make it to the event, here are some highlights. Personal context. • Many panelists were the first, only, or one of very few women in their department as graduate students and then as faculty, let alone as administrators, and thus have had few other women around to talk about these issues with. • Most of the panelists did not set out to pursue administrative positions. Common challenges • Extra demands on women’s time due to the need to fill gender requirements on committees. • Difficulty finding time to maintain research work, often leading to doing this work during “free time”, including weekends and early morning hours. • Constantly being in the minority in many settings. • Differentiated and prejudicial treatment of women in leadership positions, such as being perceived as more “aggressive” than men when exhibiting the same behaviour, not being taken seriously, and facing assumptions about qualifications and reasons for being hired. • Difficulty finding time for parenting and other family and personal aspects of one’s life. Advice for other women Speaking in general about administrative positions, panelists stressed the importance of: • Being able to privilege others’ priorities and research over your own. • Being able to give up some control over how you spend your time. • Taking on administrative roles in order to serve “a higher purpose” – to have goals for your time in the position and use it to make positive change. • Keeping a hand in research throughout your admin career, and also teaching if possible. Advice for dealing with challenges specific to women or for coping with the demands of administrative positions included: • Having other women to talk to (i.e., having mentors and being a mentor to other women). • The importance of recognizing talent in other women, supporting them, and nominating them for positions and opportunities (i.e., being a sponsor for other women). • Asking for what you need, and recognizing that people simply may not have thought to offer it. • Not being afraid to stand up for yourself, call people out on their unfair treatment, and demand respect. • Seeking out training opportunities (such as those provided by SWAAC – Senior Women Academic Administrators of Canada) and books on related topics (“Women Don’t Ask” by Linda Babcock and Sara Laschever was recommended by one panelist). • Not taking “no” too hard and learning to say “no” yourself – and only saying “yes” to activities that benefit you. • Not waiting to have children because you think there will be a “better time” later. • Having a healthy, positive outlet, e.g., leisure pursuits. • Identifying and prioritizing the things that are really important to you. Feedback from attendees: We’ve heard a lot of positive, appreciative feedback, as well as suggestions to start a mentoring program on campus, a request for a similar event on women in academia in general, a desire for more advice on achieving work-life balance, and a proposal that we all need to think more about “changing institutional expectations rather than adapting to the existing [and unrealistically demanding] structure”. These last two points speak to the significance of work-life balance challenges for all faculty, something currently being explored by the Working Group on Work-Life Balance, a joint effort of FAUW and the Provost’s office. If you’d like to get in touch with either the Status of Women & Equity Committee or the Working Group on Work-Life Balance, you can contact Diana Parry at swec@uwaterloo.ca. #5. SWEC Explores Work-Life Balance with Dr. Linda Duxbury by The Status of Women & Equity Committee Work-life balance is a timely and socially relevant issue on campus. Its importance is reflected in the recent establishment of the Working Group on Work-Life Balance, which was struck to address concerns expressed by faculty about a lack of balance in their lives due to work demands. Indeed, the need for balance, and the health implications of not achieving work-life balance, is an issue that impacts upon everyone on campus. Recognizing this impact, the Status of Women and Equity Committee (SWEC) and the Wilfrid Laurier Faculty Women’s Colleague brought Dr. Linda Duxbury to both campuses on April 10 to speak to these issues. Dr. Duxbury, who holds a PhD in Management Sciences from Waterloo, is internationally recognized for her expertise in work-life balance and is one of Canada’s leading experts on work and health. She provided two thoroughly engaging and informative talks that have prompted a lot of ideas about approaching work-life balance issues on campus. Lecture Summary: In her lecture at the University of Waterloo, Dr. Duxbury described her extensive use of research to make a business case for changing corporate culture in order to improve work-life balance for employees – saving money and increasing productivity in the long run. Key messages from the talk included: • that work-life conflicts and the stress they cause are continuing to increase • that office technology is increasing workload and stress, not decreasing it • that work-life balance issues no longer predominantly affect women, and • eldercare is emerging as the significant issue of the next few decades, for which employers, employees, policy makers, and communities are simply not prepared. SWEC is currently exploring issues around compassionate care and bereavement as experienced by faculty at Waterloo. If you have any insight to share, please contact Diana Parry, SWEC Chair. Culture is the culprit: Another key point from Dr. Duxbury’s lecture was that the single biggest factor in work-related stress and work-life conflict (and thus life satisfaction and burnout) is one’s boss. She stressed that most managers are given little to no training on how to do their job well, and that, regardless of organizational policy or values, workplace culture usually rewards and promotes bad behaviour over the behaviours that make for good managers – and good work-life balance. Curbing the trend of increasing work-life conflict and stress among everyone, men and women alike, thus requires a major cultural shift. Given that a culture’s main function is to reproduce itself, this is no easy task – but it can be done! Work-life conflict costs and solutions: Dr. Duxbury’s Wilfrid Laurier University talk focused more on specific types of work-life conflict (“role overload” and “work interfering with family”, both of which are caused by demands at work, not home), the costs of not addressing these problems, and organizational-level solutions. The costs of unaddressed work-life conflict (specifically role overload and work interfering with family) include: increased absenteeism, greater dependence on the health care system, increased employee stress and depression, higher benefits costs, and lower levels of commitment, job satisfaction, and retention. Research shows that reduced role overload alone could reduce physician visits in Canada by 25% per year! Dr. Duxbury attributes these problems to work demands and organizational culture, including a focus on policy over practice. In her discussion of solutions and best practices, Dr. Duxbury emphasized the fact that policies themselves make very little difference. Rather, the training and supporting of good managers, leading to good use of policies and benefits, is key. Employees, on the other hand, need to stop trying to “do it all” and learn how to manage work-life balance effectively. If you have thoughts on these or related issues, the Working Group on Work-Life Balance would love to hear them. They’re currently at work on formulating proposals and gathering feedback, and hope to produce a report by Fall 2012. You can contact David DeVidi at david.devidi@uwaterloo.ca. #6. Report on the OCUFA Conference: Ensuring Student Success Doris Jakobsh, Department of Religious Studies and Director of Women’s Studies January 20-21, 2012, Toronto In January, the Ontario Confederation of University Faculty Associations (OCUFA) hosted a two day annual conference titled “Ensuring Student Success” at which I represented the Faculty Association of the University of Waterloo. About 100 registrants attended, representing virtually all Ontario universities, as well as numerous guest speakers. The conference provided participants and guest speakers with an opportunity to dialogue around identifying and building student success from a wide variety of perspectives, particularly those of faculty, students, administrators, librarians and researchers. The focus on successful student outcomes raised important questions about the complexity of defining student success including critical thinking and communication skills, subject-matter acquisition, personal development as well as competitiveness on in the job market. Keynote Address Dr. Tony Chambers, Assistant Professor and Director of the Centre for the Study of Students in Post-Secondary Education at the Ontario Institute for Studies in Education at the University of Toronto gave the keynote address and focused on several factors and activities in understanding and furthering student success (see http://ocufa.on.ca/wordpress/assets/Ensuring-Student-Success-Presentation-slides-Tony-Chambers-Compatibility-Mode.pdf ). He stressed the complex personal, social and institutional dimensions of success that includes student persistence, the application of knowledge, having access to resources and productivity. Clearly, student success is best viewed multi-dimensionally, with the groundwork for success beginning well before students are admitted into post-secondary institutions. Dr. Chambers outlined several important approaches to student success based on existing research, including the National Survey of Student Engagement Benchmarks (http://nsse.iub.edu/pdf/nsse_benchmarks.pdf). Benchmarks include: • Level of Academic Challenge • Active and Collaborative Learning • Student-Faculty Interaction • Enriching Educational Experiences • Supportive Campus Environment. Chambers reminded participants of earlier work done by Arthur W. Chickering and Zelda F. Gamson (“Seven Principles for Good Practice in Undergraduate Education”, American Association for Higher Education Bulletin, March 1987), identifying key principles of good practices: • Encourage contact between students and faculty • Develop reciprocity and cooperation among students • Use active learning techniques • Give prompt feedback • Emphasize time on task • Communicate high expectations • Respect diverse talents and ways of learning Panel Presentations: 1) Student Success: The Faculty View The panel consisted of Steve Joordens (University of Toronto–Scarborough), who advocated the use of technology in teaching large classes (he teaches a psychology class of 1,700 students), Tricia Seifert (OISE), who spoke of the importance of integrating personal experiences with course content, and Susan Hill (University of Western Ontario and Director of UWO’s First Nations Studies), who emphasized the importance of proactive student support programs in addressing the specific needs of First Nations students at Canadian campuses. 2) Ontario University Libraries and Student Success: Do we have what we need to do what we want? Three librarians participated on this panel: Elaine Fairey (Simon Fraser University), Michael Ridley (University of Guelph) and Mark Robertson (York University). Each presenter stressed the importance of libraries as learning platforms supporting student success. The benefits of libraries as ‘third spaces’ were promoted, including York University’s new “Learning Commons” and the University of Guelph’s “Science Commons,” both of which are highly accessible spaces created to provide a more holistic student teaching and learning experience as well as peer to peer support. The increasing importance of libraries and librarians in providing additional services to students was also highlighted, including Simon Fraser’s ‘Write Away’ online open access program that assists students with academic writing and critical thinking processes (http://bcwriteaway.ca/files/writeaway_proposal_TTv6-2.pdf). 3) The promise and challenges of online learning Maxim Jean-Louis (Contact North), Mark Jones (Queens University), and John Rinderle (Carnegie Mellon University Open Learning Initiative) highlighted Ontario’s leadership in online education, noting that over 20,000 courses are being offered at post-secondary institutions. While online learning is often promoted as the panacea of many of the financial and ‘space’ ills facing universities, the presenters stressed the importance of online learning in conjunction with classroom time, the utilization of online courses depending on the needs of the particular program and specific course, and the importance of peer engagement (chat rooms or discussion forums for instance) for online learners. 4) What do students actually want? Perhaps most importantly, the conference organizers realized the importance of listening to and receiving input from students themselves. Undergraduate students Jon Pryce (WLU) and Liana Salvador-Watts (Ryerson) spoke of the need for effective support systems and promotion of networking skills for undergraduates as well as the importance of volunteering in terms of becoming more socially engaged as well as developing a strong sense of empowerment. Thomas Posie, graduate student at Ryerson University, addressed the differences between graduate student needs and those of undergraduates. The importance of graduate student common spaces and regular access to advisors and professors was highlighted as central to graduate student concerns. A conference highlight was the ‘IN DISCUSSION FORUM’ entitled ‘Different perspectives on student success: Are today’s students ready for success?’ Ken Coates, former UW Dean of Arts and author of Campus Confidential, was joined by Arshad Ahmad, Society for Teaching and Learning in Higher Education in the discussion forum, which was moderated by Jennifer Lewington, journalist with The Globe and Mail and The Chronicle of Higher Education. A provocative discussion about the pitfalls facing university students and the academy itself followed. Dr. Coates believes that many students are attending universities less because they really want or should be there, but because of parental or societal expectations that a university education is the ‘ticket to success’ for all students. He identifies many students in the 21st century as the ‘entitlement’ generation, many of whom, he proposes, are simply not ready to commit to the rigors of university life, highlighting the 20% rate of absenteeism across university campuses as an example. He suggests that vocational education in the form of technical schools or colleges need to be valued far more than they are today as a very real choice for many students. Dr. Ahmed took a very different approach, insisting that it was time to stop blaming students and focus on very real student needs, particularly in their first year when they are offered less than adequate support to ensure their success. He also took issue with the increased recruitment of International students in light of insufficient support given to them despite their very specialized needs. Both Dr. Ahmad and Dr. Coates insisted that while universities are slowly beginning to value teaching excellence, publishing and research initiatives continue to be at the forefront of evaluating faculty success. True student success, according to Drs. Coates and Ahmad, will only be possible when the collective will of university administrators and faculty come together to put students at the forefront of the scholarly endeavor. #7. Changes in the FAUW Office FAUW bid farewell on April 30 to Laura McDonald who has served as Administrative Assistant/Communications Coordinator since August 2011. Laura’s many contributions have included revamping the Forum and the FAUW website, and providing support to the Status of Women and Equity Committee and the Working Group on Work-Life Balance. Thank you Laura! On May 1, we welcomed back Miriam Kominar who has been on leave from her position as Administrative Assistant/Communications Coordinator since April 2011. Miriam will be working half time during May and June, and will return to full-time status in July. On May 14, we will welcome Carrie Hunting to the FAUW staff in the newly created position of Academic Freedom and Tenure and Policy Officer. Her duties will include working with the AF&T Committee to provide support to faculty members who have questions or concerns about their terms and conditions of employment and providing assistance to committees and the FAUW Board in policy interpretation and identifying and researching gaps in existing policy. Carrie comes to us with many years of experience in the Provost’s Office at the University of Windsor. #8. New FAUW Website Launched. The Faculty Association has migrated our website to the new WCMS (Waterloo Content Management System), which is a fancy way of saying we have a new website. While the old address will still work for a while, the official new address is http://uwaterloo.ca/faculty-association. You can also get to it via the shorter URL http://uwaterloo.ca/fauw. To help you make the most of the new site, here’s a breakdown of some of the new features: 1. Purpose-based menus. The new site has two menus in the left sidebar. The main menu includes general information about FAUW, its committees, and activities. More in-depth topical information and resources are centralized in a second menu, including: • Policies & Agreements – links to key policies, guides to help you navigate policies • Pension & Benefits – links to P&B information and contact information for P&B Committee faculty representatives • Salary Settlements – current and historical salary and professional reimbursement amounts • Other key topics as they arise, such as tax receipts for FAUW dues, and the current university timetabling issue. 2. News and events feeds. The three most recent news headlines and event listings appear on the home page. Visiting the News and Events pages shows you all headlines or upcoming events at a glance, plus access to archived items. You can also subscribe to feeds for news and/or event listings, using your web browser or any RSS reader. Just click on “Subscribe to news/events feed” at the top right of any news or events page. Instead of having to check the site regularly for updates, new items will be pushed directly to your browser or RSS reader. 3. Footer links, including contact information. The footer, common across every page of the website, contains links to a detailed contact information page, the FAUW contacts directory (a feature of the new CMS), affiliated organizations such as CAUT and OCUFA – and their affinity programs, and an email link for website feedback. The footer also features the FAUW wordmark. Hagey Lectures poster gallery and online video The Hagey Lectures also have a brand new site (http://uwaterloo.ca/hagey-lectures), featuring a gallery of posters from almost every lecture since 1970, and the first video from our the new Hagey Lectures YouTube playlist. Stay tuned to that site (or subscribe to the news feed) for an announcement about the 2012 lecturer coming soon!