If you answered Yes, please indicate which item(s) you would be willing to strike over.  Please rank the importance of these items to you.

Yes, adjusting salary scales to be competitive with other institutions.

A reasonable combination.

1) Parental leave 2) Increase to make SMU more competitive

3.2 - possibly. It depends on annual increase that should be at min. offsetting the increase in the cost of living.

All forms of compensation, leave and stipends are important.

Program coordinators not getting proper compensation

The most important issue to me personally is the expense allowance, but I would be willing to strike for anything that is felt to be strongly important by my colleagues in the union.

(1) Salary increase at least to cost of living (2) Increase sabbatical leave remuneration. (3) Replace stipend for Master's thesis supervisions with course releases

The only issue is the percentage increase in salary.

Competative salaries

I think that a strike at this point in time would be a public relations nightmare.

3.2 Adjust salary scales 3.3 improve parental leave

All, in various combinations/

I have said it before, but this manner of organizing a bargaining survey is unnecessary. I have been on several bargaining teams in the past in the PSE, and never have I seen this type of question repeated throughout a bargaining survey. Asking members which item they be willing to strike over demonstrates that the bargaining team and/or executive is not well connected to the membership. It's up to the bargaining unit and executive, ultimately, to decide whether to walk away from the bargaining table, which they can only do if they believe they have significant support from members. Asking for this support on a bargaining survey is not the right time nor place. The executive didn't send an email out to the membership to ask everybody if it should grieve the Presidential hiring exercise; instead, the executive showed leadership and did it's best to read the membership on the issue.

1. sabbatical remuneration; 2, adjust salary scales; 3, salary increase,

1.Parental leave 2. Profesional development expenses allowance 3. Sabbatical leave

Parental leave provisions

N/A

All of them, with the following in decreasing order of importance: 3.1, 3.2, 3.9, 3.5, 3.8, 3.6, remaining items of equal importnace

overload teaching stipend. I often have to teach overloads (reluctantly), and it is not worth my time given the stipend. My time is much more valuable.

all or any

Making salary more competitive with other universities. Our current salaries are too low.

None - in this climate we should not consider stikes - it will cause decreased student numbers

salary; increase in summer overload teaching; increase in travel and pda; increase in sabbatical pay

Salary

3.1, 3.2, 3.5, 3.6, 3.7, 3.8, 3.9

Question 3.1 is vague: do you mean with other insitutions in the maritimes or nationally of comparative size and focus? I would strike over sabbatical pay.

Please tell us which, if any, other changes you would like to see with regard to salary and monetary issues.

I would like to see an increase the maximum market supplement because salaries are very noncompetitive for high performing researchers. I would also like to have a standard load of 4 sections for active researchers.

I would like to see strong language for parental leave, regarding a father taking leave with a new baby.

before we can address pay equity with other institutions, we need to address it at the university. The 'top up' or 'salary adjustment' for all faculty in Sobey school of business has created a two tiered system at this institution. One can make the argument that many of us not in the sobey school would make much more as outside professionals and are certified by professional associations (e.g. professional geoscientists, forensics, geomatics, among others). It is very hard to hear of cuts to departmental budgets or programs when one looks at the 'sunshine list' and the significant number of commerce faculty. A significant portion I have never seen providing service to the institution (e.g. committees, senate, etc...). This has created a climate of privilege at our institution. I would rather see some form of merit pay where high quality research, teaching, service is rewarded.

Not all of the program coordinator positions presently have course release and stipend. I believe that the Interdisplinary program, Global Business in the B Commerce Program , warrants official recognition in the collective agreement for the program coordinator.

Need more education re what is happening in other universities to be able to respond to this.

Because the economic situation seems so bleak, I'm willing to accept just the cost of living increase, at least for the next two years. I'm willing to accept this but in return, I would really like to see an improvement in working conditions, particularly those relating to work-life balance.

I would prefer us to bargain for health contributions than salary, for the reasons that Bob has laid out for years.

Honoraria for Chairs & Program Coordinators are sorely lacking in comparison to other universities. These positions will become increasingly difficult to fill if the University continues in the direction of non-collegial governance. Increasing the palty honoraria for these positions should be a priority for both the University and the Union.

When promoted a faculty member should go to the next highest salary step on the new scale similar to other universities, so that those promoted after the so-called normal time or have extenuating circumstances do not suffer a pay cut when they are promoted.

I would rather take my health care benefits into retirement than have yearly salary increases. As a single person I don't have a partner who has a health plan that we can

use when I retire....I only depend on my healthcare plan which does not go with us into retirement. I think this is ridiculous! What if I am diagnosed with a costly illness during retirement....now I have to pay for my own medications instead of having some covered by my employee prescription plan? I think this is disgraceful that we retire from a job, after 20+ years of employment, and have no health care benefits.

The low end of the salary scale is far too low. I'd like to see you cut off the bottom 3 steps from all of the salary scales rather than increasing the upper limits of any salary scale.

The overload stipend is not only too low it sends the signal that part-time faculty are worth more than full-time faculty since the full-time stipend is tied to the basic part-time pay of less qualified and inexperienced part-timers. Even if most faculty don't teach overloads or summer classes the definition of the stipend is insulting.

More contribution to Health and Wellness Benefits.

In my department, salaries are about 20k lower than a similar position at Dal, and the teaching load is greater at SMU. I am working hard to be able to leave SMU in the next 6 years.

I'd be happy for all us to take a cut in pay if it would mean more professors hired.

1. Tie the PDF and travel funding to the percentage of salary increase. That way, you wouldn't have to renegotiate it every bargaining session. MTA has this in place. If salary goes up 2% one year, the PDF and travel funding also increases at 2%. 2. I do NOT support the bargaining unit's position from the last round during which they prioritized increases to Associate Professor's over issues related to the Lecturer positions or increase the floor for Assistants. I think all ranks should receive the same % increase, but if you are to advocate for any specific % increase per rank, it be for lecturers or assistants. 3. I support an increase for PDF and travel funding that's higher than the increase % for salary. I always run out of both as a junior faculty member trying to build their research profile. I would even support a lower salary % increase if it meant an extra 5-10% for PDF or travel funding.

N/A

Higher salary (and or steps) for lecturers

I think the pay is fair.

More steps to Lecturer Stream. Salary per step ok, but more steps.

Program coordinator course releases should be guaranteed, not dependant on number of majors.

Lest you think I confused "strongly disagree" with "strongly agree" in my responses above, I happen to think we are already well paid and given a privileged lifestyle to do something we love to do, all on the taxpayer and student dime. Salary increases of any substance are the last thing we can justify.

I would like to see confirmation that the university's contribution amount will continue

to be paid to the member even after the member turns 71 and it can no longer be paid into an RRSP.

Travel for Scholarly Purposes and Professional Expenses are crucial issues.

We can't sacrifice an equity plan and better language for money.

I would like to see extra increments or bonuses introduced for colleagues who publish peer-reviewed articles, chapters, books, and journal issues. This might address the large inequity between publishing and non-publishing faculty members.

Add to the salary scales of full professors. Current limit is a disincentive for senior professors. Alternatively, there should be some incentives for full professors who are active in research. This is because those senior professors who are active in research have become well known in their fields.

The Professional Development Allowance and Travel Funds could be rolled together and substantially increased. This would reward scholars at the institution by giving them more tax free money to pursue their work. And it would simplify accounting to some extent.

Introduce merit pay

I would be more in favour of there being more cafeteria style benefits, so those members who are not interested in starting a family (now or ever) will also be considered.

We need to open the issue of equity around over scales. We are presiding over a two tier system which is inherently unjust.

apply the percentage increase to gross salary not just the basic. i.e., market supplement should be adjusted annually as well consider the course level and years of experience when decide on overload payment. i.e., upper level courses deserve more monetary compensation compare to intro courses

Lecturer Stream salaries need to be looked at - not mentioned here.

With respect to sabbatical pay, I would be in favour of 100% salary for those ejoying a first sabbatical. Increase of employer contributions to retirement is important to me, as would be an increase in employer contributions to medical benefit plan.

Please comment on any Health and Wellness Trust Fund issues.  Are there additional issues that should be considered?I think that the issues is not the cost of benefits bu the nature of our plan Our plan for supplemental health, vision, and dental, is not particularly good. It is better than nothing, but for people with chronic issues (e.g., back pain) it is not adequate.

retiree health benefits

Some of the limits (e.g. eyes) are extremely low.

Broader coverage / more benefits contributed by the employer, especially for mental health issues that are on the increase among faculty and students

I'm not sure if the fund covers common law partners, but if it doesn't, I would like to see that added.

Employees over the age of 65 should have drug coverage

There should be some improvement in the drug plan applicability to those over 65 in addition to the present $400 miscellaneous spending allowance. Perhaps for drugs which are covered by the present Drug Plan but not by Pharmacare.

I don't have strong feelings about this issue myself, but again, I'd stand with my union brothers and sisters in a strike if it came to it.

On a side note - the health care spending account is not flexible enough. Any health related item should be chargeable to this account. For example, my son was a pre-term infant, and as a result I required the use of a breast pump while he was hospitalized in the NICU. Our plan would not cover this, even though I wanted to use the HCSA. It was not deemed an allowable expense for either myself or my dependent son, and as a result I paid several hundred dollars out of pocket for this pump.

I would like the Trust to further improve mental health coverage. I would particularly like the Trust coverage to allow analysis by practitioners with non-medicalized, but long recognized, psycho-analytical training. For example, my current Jungian analyst is not covered despite her training through the rigorous 5 year program at the Jungian Institute in Zürich. In other words, she has significantly more psychoanalytical training than the vast majority of social workers, counsellors, etc., Freud & Jung are the founding fathers of modern psycho-analysis: it's extremely problematic that the formal training in the latter school is not recognized.

I am not in favour of increasing the percentage of the salary mass the university contributes to the Trust.

Most universities give tuition waiver to faculties and the immediate family of faculties. It is too high for faculties to pay 50% of the tuition.

Employee contributions to the health plan are especially high for new faculty members. To see this, figure out the percentage of after-tax income spent on the health plan for

the newest and longest-serving members of the faculty. New members pay significantly more as a % of net income. I would like a plan where faculty don't pay premiums. If this isn't possible, a plan where the highest paid faculty pay MORE relative to the lowest payed faculty - the effect is to even out the % paid.

We should consider extending heath coverage to retiring faculty.

Great West Life is a terrible carrier. I suggest employing another health ins. company.

The University should provide better incentives for maintaining a physically active lifestyle. Compared to private industry, we are lagging far behind in our employers recognition of the importance of physical activity. At the very least, full time SMU faculty should receive free membership to the Homburg Centre.

Having orthodontics is an improvement. Thank you.

It would be nice to have more coverage of orthodontics.

We desperately need coverage for children of faculty to be assessed for learning differences. An assessment runs between 2500 and 3000. dollars. In the face of this, our psych coverage is a joke.

I think it's fairly generous.

I would like to see the range of services covered to be expanded, but I appreciate that this is not a contract negotiation issue.

N/A

We should negotiate provisions for compensating members who have exhausted their 90 days sick leave and are receiving no remuneration while waiting for a decision on LTD.

Eye health continues to be woefully under-represneted in our plan. $300 per two years pays for an exam plus 1/2 of one progressive lens. I need two lens per pair of glasses, a second pair of glasses, and frames, so the benefit covers 1/3 of my total cost or less each time I go to the eye doctor.

I am happy with the current Health and Wellness Trust Fund. It has served me well.

Explore the option of increasing the Health Care Spending Account.

This may not be an issue of the collective agreement, but I would like to see some of the coverage percentages increase (ie. 70% for major dental work is quite low).

As the professoriate ages, there are more health services that are needed. Our plan allows for about $400 a year for these services but that is not enough. I think an eye examination yearly is a good idea. The dental plan also lags behind other plans, I think

I would like to thank the Trust for the excellent work they have done and especially for the improved vision/eye-care coverage.

At present, it seems to me that we are already required to pay more than I want to for

more healthcare than I can possibly use. That high-cost/high-quality equilibrium privileges older (and so, on average, less healthy) faculty at the expense of younger (and so, on average, healthier) faculty. But older faculty are already wealthier than younger faculty, and so have more resources to cover their own health expenses. Consequently, I would strongly oppose any effort to increase health benefits, if it costs anything at all to do so.

An improvement in the dental plan should be considered

Increasing the funding for this is quite pressing.

100% dental; increase in massage and physiotherapy allowance

I find some things provided by the Trust to be really unnecessary, like the massage fund. I think that the Trust should impose some level of cost control to ensure long term financial sustainability. Otherwise, it might go bancrupt before I have the opportunity to seriously use it.

Additional weighting to cafeteria-style benefits, increased vision coverage would be helpful

Excellent work by our trust, whom I trust.

Need to be realistic on what can be covered. It seems well in line with market now.

Mental health/counselling benefit should be improved.

List the workload issues that are MOST important to you?

2-2 load and course reduction for research purposes.

The workload associated with class sizes needs to be taken into account. Teaching 5 sections of 45 students each is not the same as teaching mostly grad courses with 4-6 students that is more of a mentor arrangement with the potential for joint research and publications. When a faculty is new and there is a reduced teaching load there needs to be a distinction between a person coming out of a PhD program (where 2-3 yrs of reduced teaching makes sense) and someone hired at the Assistant 4 level who has been teaching at another university (where no more than one year makes senses).

more regulation of part time vs full time faculty (reduce part time) Department has final say on hiring ads and work assignments to faculty

The current collective agreement removes course release for interdisciplinary programs with less than ten majors. Given that the number of majors enrolled in a program has no bearing on the actual work load (consisting of not only supervising and advising students but also administrative work, recruitment, etc), I recommend going back to the previous collective agreement immediately given that the uncertainty surrounding this makes no one wish to serve in smaller programs. Time is more important than financial honoraria in my opinion.

5.1 and 5.5

Having labs count as 0.5 when they are just as much work (if not more) than a lecture could be changed. If labs count as 1.0, that would equalize the workload.

Course releases for those holding external grants Reduce the overall teaching load for everyone (2/2) Recognize PhD supervision better (i.e. extend the course release time from 2 years to 3-4 years)

1. Despite good language in the agreement about complement, it just slows the process down; in the end the decision remains with the VPAR. The language should be strengthened to make it harder. 2. Re. assignment of courses, as above, the decision ultimately lies with the department chair and dean. There should be some kind of appeal. 3. The proportion of part-timers to full-timers should be reduced.

5.1: Make the standard workload 2-2. 5.17 I would suggest the ratio of part-time faculty members to full-time faculty members should be calculated for each Discipline, as well as department; for example in the mathematics and computing science department, there are many mathematics part-timers, and fewer CS part-timers.

(This relates more to librarians, perhaps, than other members.) Clearly stated flexibility in work hours, ability to work virtually, having defined minimum research time available. Options to work less and get paid less (Examples: 30-hour, 28-hour work week, etc.) More vacation time, permitted to use more flexibly throughout the year. All within reasonable operational requirements, of course.

maintenance of small class sizes equity in workloads across departments in a Faculty

2-2 load; improving working conditions for part-time instructors

Course release

Maintaining complement

time for research (course reduction for active scholars) more financial resources for attending conferences

Please tell us which, if any, other changes you would like to see to workload issues.

I would like to support 2-2 standard load but nobody on regular faculty should ever go below 3 courses per year. We have people teaching 5 with high research productivity, and we have people teaching 1 or 2 or 3 or nothing due to various buyouts. This is wrong.

Workload of lecturer should be reduced to 3.5 or 4.0. This would be more in line (but still not equivalent) with a research stream faculty who no longer does scholarly activity as part of their workload.

There's an opportunity gap developing among groups of faculty. Some are carrying five sections with 200+ students, limited marking assistance, multiple preps, etc whereas other faculty are working with small classes of students in areas of their interests making research proposals course assignments, receiving course release for supervision, getting extra compensation, etc. However, when it is time for tenure or promotion review the performance levels of the latter are used in assessments. Differences need to be minimized or explicitly taken into consideration in evaluations.

Availability of sufficient resources for adequate marking . Research shows that engagement is improved with more effective feedback which can be better designed into courses if adequate funds for marking assistantships were to be provided

Course release not for any graduate supervision but perhaps for groups of three students. This is to say, after every third student one half course remission be awarded. Or every fourth or even fifth. if a number is decided upon than a slightly larger number should be assigned for honours supervision. In other words, if every three grad students merits 0.5 release, then perhaps every five honours students merits 0.5 release.

Program Co-ordinator should be properly defined in the collective agreement.

equity in workload between Arts and Science particularly when it comes to lab courses. Labs definitely do take time to prep, administer and mark they do not equate to the additional prep and marking associated with an additional course. As a faculty member teaching lab courses in Arts, I have 2 hr lecture, 2 hr lab. The difference between a 2 hr and a 3hr lab is miminal in terms of preparation. There still is marking and physically being present. There is much more work prepping and delivering the additional 2- 3 credit hour courses that we teach compared to science. Additional updating lecture material, marking essays, exams, etc...We need some mechanism of dealing with labs within Arts. Perhaps set up some form of formal 'banking' system to carry over credits between years.

Failure to commit to new hires to replace retirements, or in relation to the part-time/full-time faculty ratio.

More discretion for chairs to recognize the point raised in 5.22 above, restated here: When teaching senior specialized courses, I have often been unable to engage graders - as I consequence, my workload is heavier than a colleague teaching junior courses only.

I think this should be considered when computing the "real" teaching load of a faculty member.

Better definition / clarification of process of how course releases for research purposes are obtained. Encouragement to offer more course releases (as this is an encouragement to do more research) Course releases for administrative purposes should be reduced. We are getting more and more assistant and associate deans - not sure they are needed, given the size of our institution. We lose teaching resources this way.

Giving Departments final say on courses taught and by whom

see above

5.1 I agree with, but I don't think it likely to achieve, because it was only about 10 years ago that we went from a 3-3 to a 3-2. 5.5 and 5.6 (I especially like 5.6). This is already automatic I think for SSHRC grants and should be extended to NSERC or other grants

If you go in the direction of course release for supervision it must be meaningful (i.e. easy to acculmulate)

The research profile of the university is increasing, but support for research is stagnant. Course release time for extramural grants should be automatic (perhaps for any grant above, say, $10K).

5.1 Decreasing the teaching load for all faculty is ridiculous. Some faculty have large, externally funded research programs. They should have access to teaching reductions. Other faculty don't do high quality research, don't supervise students, and don't have external funding. The latter group should be teaching more, not less, especially since they can access "full professor" wages based on outstanding teaching and "good enough" scholarship. 5.2 To protect faculty complement, it would be in our interest to protect the part-time faculty first. We take advantage of this adjunct pool for a large % of our courses. We support the system of part-time labor in our faculty while enjoying tenure and high wages. Start offering longer term contracts to the part-time teachers. 5.5 Teaching leave for research should be competitive and difficult to achieve. The university has a lot of dead-weight faculty who should never get releases. Those with STRONG research programs should have releases. Having a grant is not sufficient evidence of a STRONG research program! 5.7 I see class sizes ranging from over 200 to fewer than 10. Of course this should be taken into account when assigning teaching. Some faculty teach a TOTAL of 30 students in a year. Others teach OVER 500. 5.8 ALL new faculty should automatically be given a course release during their first year. I know 2 assistant professors who were not offered course releases. Lecturers are not given course releases, either. 5.11 Some faculty never seem to be on campus. Do they still work here? Should we make it easier for them to stay on the island 5 days a week while they "do scholarship"?

Clarify the chairperson's responsibilities with regards to implementing the CUPE agreement.

Faculty who are actively involved in scholarship should have a 2-2 teaching load, but faculty members who are not sufficiently engaged in scholarship should go back to a 3-3

load and this should be monitored and enforced. It is not satisfactory that faculty members who do only minimal scholarship are getting the same reduction. I strongly support a 2-2 load, but not for ALL faculty (as in question 5.1

I note that none of these workload issues involve our librarian complement in SMUFU. Is this an oversight?

Lowering the work load for the Lecturer stream to max 3.5 per full year.

2-2 load, course releases for research purposes, course reduction to 3 years for new faculty

Virtual office hours: I believe that at least some hours should/could be virtual (say up to 50%), but not that all office hours could be.

I see the logic of setting a ratio of part-time to full-time faculty, but I'm afraid that the administration would just reduce full-time positions and increase class sizes to get around this. The trick is to encourage the creation of full-time positions rather than filling excess capacity with more part-timers.

Ability to refuse teaching of online courses.

I think we should have better language and the will to move people from the part time to the full time unit. Right now about 50% of classes are taught by part timers. Many are qualified to be full time.

I do not believe teaching load should be reduced to 2-2 for all. That would endanger many programs at SMU, and so ultimately any number of faculty positions (especially in smaller programs). I do support 2-2 teaching loads for those who show sustained research agendas.

Ideally, I'd like to see a pre-tenure sabbatical semester. That would be consistent with many other Canadian universities where research is a major part of faculty's responsibilities. But I'm willing to accept that this is probably a pipe dream.

It would be good to have the option of fulfilling part of one's teaching obligations during the summer sessions. Some of my research is best done during the regular semesters and if I could do teaching during the summer and have a term free (either fall or winter) that would help quite a lot.

Increase avaialbility of TAs. As I need more TA support (for grading and labs) I am currently paying for additional TAs from my own pocket. I do not want that opportunity taken away from me -- better than to have to grade everything myself -- but I could really use more TA hours.

Concerns re: Lecturer positions - need to be more equitable in assignment of large intro classes to LS faculty and Sessional Lecturers as compared to other faculty. University Service needs to be compensated for those on a 9 month Sessional Contract (ie coordinating an Intro class).

Associate deans should not be part of the faculty. They all too often are double dipping counting work as assoc. dean as work for the department. Assoc. deans also know the

inner workings of their own department and this may be used for or against the department causing inequalities. When a faculty member is an assoc. dean I see it as a net negative for their home department. Workloads become transferred to others in the department again causing inequalities.

See above: more and better teaching releases. Also, teaching releases should be awarded prior to the scedule 2 process for departments in the fall. The current policy is for teaching releases to be approved in August, ~8 months after teaching schedules for the fall are set up. This makes it hard on departments and makes it much more likely that courses are going to be taught by part-time faculty than full time faculty. The teaching release (for research) process needs substantial additional funding and a complete overhaul, as it's basically a joke as it currently stands.

the department should have control over the class size The level of the course should be taken into consideration when determine the class size (advance vs intro)

Teaching of large courses. The CA needs to have language protecting faculty from exploitation by the administration in order to pay the rent.

Please indicate your views on the roles of Departmental Colleagues, Chairpersons, Deans/University Librarian and other Academic Administrator with respect to evaluating Annual Reports and the role they play in the renewal, promotion and tenure and permanence processes. Please tell us how you would change each of these roles.

I think that our promotion (to Associate) and tenure processes are fairly reasonable.

I am still very unclear on precisely what roles each plays in my evaluations -- we all support each other and so far it has been positive. So I cannot really comment on how to change those roles except it has been a good experience so far. I'd prefer more clarity on those roles, however.

I think it is fine the way it is.

Related to my previous point comparing ARAs is comparing apples and oranges. There are dept members you teach 2 courses with a total of maybe 10 students and they are on campus for one term. Others are doing their 5 courses, etc. In reviewing ARAs the final word is always "for the role the fulfill and the circumstances of their work requirements" X has fulfilled the requirements of his/her responsibilities as specified by the collective agreement. Overall I think ARAs should be done every other year and depts should alternate the years that their members submit ARAs. Also, the CA should be reviewed to remove duplication in reporting. For example, a sabbatical report and an ARA should not be required. Both an ARA and an application for promotion should not be required. Faculty have commented that they spend too much time reporting vs doing.

Annual reports should be records only -- not subject to judgment by chairs or deans and not related to teaching load.

Chairs should not be involved in responding to annual reports. Period. A Dean may request advice on any given faculty member, but it should not be up to a Chair to chastise a colleague.

I think the existing rules are fine.

Evaluation of annual reports:, more objective criteria should be used within each Department (with minimum set expectations for research, teaching and service). There should be some compensation / recognition for those who by far exceed the set expectations, in the form of course releases or merit pay. The promotion and tenure processes should become more rigorous, making it obligatory for union observers to be present, and various units within the university to express their opinion, besides the Department. The evaluation standards should be raised as well. Service in Departments

is a thorny issue and is unevenly distributed. Some objective measurement and min. requirements should be explicitly articulated.

The departmental colleagues should play the primary role in determining if someone should be promoted, etc. They are the ones that have to work with this individual, have greater knowledge of their teaching abilities, level of respect received by students, research ability, and ability to function appropriately in the department. The chairperson should essentially relay the departments views. Administrators should essentially accept the departments decisions, unless some sort of major issues of misconduct arise.

Dept. chairs are 'first among equals' and should not be doing evaluations of their colleagues, especially if they are of an lower ranking. That is, an associate professor evaluating a full professor. This should be done by the dean.

This is a pointless task that wastes everybody's time Departments should NOT be allowed to assess their colleagues for tenure or promotion

Annual report comments have little role in renewal, promotion and tenure processes, other than identifying problems early on and suggesting corrections (especially to probationary faculty). Because any faculty can say anything they want without fear, there is no accountability and it can quickly turn into an airing of grievances.

I would like Equity principle oversight (for e.g. through participation of an Equity Office, Equity training for decision making, etc.,) of tenure & promotion as well as hiring. In my experience T & P decisions can be made based on who colleagues like/are comfortable with as much as based on academic criteria. I am not sure how else to improve this, and would have preferred to have options provided. As in a number of questions above in the survey (for e.g. re: department control of timetable & course assignment — versus adminstrative control? aren't departments & individual faculty now largely in control of this?) it is difficult to respond to a question in a vacuum.

Annual reports for non-probationary faculty should be biennial. Too much of the burden for this task falls to the Department Chairperson. I suggest that review of non-probationary faculty reports become the exclusive purview of the Dean, with Department members still being allowed access to the reports and ability to comment. There is too much variance in how Departments handle renewal and promotion decisions. There could be more detail in the CA as to the exact procedures to be followed, and Department Chairpersons should be trained on the process. CA language could be coupled with checklists or forms to help Chairs follow good, uniform process.

I think it seems the departmental colleagues play the most important role. Usually, Chair and the dean agree with the department decision.

The CA does not provide a date for the Dean's comments on annual reports, only due dates for the member and the department. I think it is important for all department colleagues to have access to annual reports and have the opportunity to comment so that the department chair's letter can reflect input from other members of the department. It is very important for probationary faculty to be provided feedback well before the tenure or permanency decision.

All assessors should be chosen by the department. The Dean should be allowed to comment on the department list (as in the case of hiring) prior to approving the list of potential assessors, but not to select assessors.

Fine as is.

I'm a chair. And I find this process to be a bit of a joke for full professors. For those who are pre-tenure, I can see the merit. So I'd eliminate annual reviews for those who are no longer in a position to be promoted or tenured. At another level, it is a staggering amount of work to write annual reports--so perhaps they should be written only in the cases where this is a problem. Most faculty do their jobs and do them quite well. Why do I need to be reporting on that?

Annual report from tenaured faculty is useless, and waste of lot time for both faculty and administrator

No issues.

No change.

I question the value of stand alone annual reports. It would make more sense to annually update a report that covers the last three years. Much better sense of productivity. Also, not sure of value of input by colleagues - pretty much rubber stamping or at the discretion of the Chair to include.

The first vetting of such documents should be at the dean level. Department colleagues and chairs, in my view, have no role in this.

I am happy with the current reporting, promotion etc. procedures

The current roles and process of evaluation is adequate.

Most of the work that goes into Annual Reports is a waste of time. The whole process could be accomplished at the departmental level without involving the administration.

No changes

I see little value in departmental colleagues commenting on annual reports. Many departmental chairs basically refuse to do so, which leaves only the Dean to evaluate them (which most faculty find unacceptable). The current system is a big waste of time.

Annual reports need to be standardized with a common fillable form for all, as is the case at many universities across Canada. These forms can then also include criteria for Chairs to respond to. The forms can be used to inform and prepare colleagues for promotion, etc. Currently, these reports are messy and largely ignored (certainly in my department), but they could be used constructively and for the benefit of faculty members.

Responses to individual full-time faculty's annual report by Chairperson should be written for each individual, not about the department collectively. Dean(s) should report individually as well, and should adhere to the Collective Agreement's clause that allows for a teaching load to increase in light of research underperformance.

the current collective agreement seems good to me. However, the faculty member should know the comments of his colleagues and the Chairperson as well. , I have not seen such practice in the past.

The evaluation of annual reports for *tenured* faculty is problematinc: It carries the administartive overhead and risk of conflict associated with peer review, but it's unclear what the outcomes are for the *Department*. It's not clear what sorts of comments are useful in the case tenured faculty review because thre are no stakes for the Department.

My own personal experience tells me that these annual reports are pro forma: in 8 years I have three times received feedback from the Dean, and only one of these reports appears in my personal file. They could be used to help guide junior faculty towards tenure and promotion, but there such mixed-views on their use by both faculty and administrators that no one really seems to know what they are for. I understand that in a merit pay system they have meaning. In our system they do not seem to serve a purpose. The role of the chair in tenure and promotion seems clearly defined in the CA, but, when put into practice under different chairs, is sometimes barely recognizable from one chair to another, at least in my department. Some chairs give guidance, others do not. Some follow all of the rules with respect to timing, others seem to find this difficult to do. No idea how this could be addressed.

I find asking colleagues to evaluate annual reports extremely problematic. It's not clear (transparent) how Chair use this information or if everyone's information is used. Some people are more collegial than others. Not everyone puts the same effort into the exercise.

The system works well if done properly. For example, detailed comments by the chair and dean can provide support during tenure/promotion applications and indicate issues that need to be addressed before these points. However, all too often, the comments are vague, general and simply a matter of form. It is a very useful mechanism however within a department to celebrate your colleagues successes but also for people to see 'where they sit', particularly for those in the early stage of their career. The departmental voice is particularly important for tenure since they will have to live/work with that colleague for the rest of their careers and a bad match can have significant long term negative consequences within a department.

I think it's good to have multiple parties responsible for reviewing files in order to ensure balance and transparency.

I am happy with the manner and roles at present.

Chairs will be required to have Union training on CA matters

Although I trust my departmental colleagues, I think that in principle the way tenure and promotion are handled has the potential for abuse in situations where there are personal or political enmities within departments. I would like to see more protections in place to ensure that that does not happen.

No significant change.

I would like to see more weight placed on the the views of the Department.

I do not think Dept colleagues including the Chair should have any role in evaluating annual reports. Some Chairs are real duds and can be biased. The Dean should do it.

The existing procedures work well in our department.

In my opinion, faculty have little role to play in these processes. Administration now plays a much greater role here due to the lack of collegiality in this institution. I no longer trust the admin.

Fine as is.

I would like to see Annual Reports for the Administrators. AVP and all those Vice Presidents of Something. The Registrar. They should practice what they preach. The phenomenal number of mistakes, errors and routine incompetence might then come to light. I know we have no power to demand it, but it would be interesting reading to see how they present themselves. In our department we rely on the vague wording of 8.4.13a because no one in our department comments on colleagues files and the Chair forwards a letter stating that no comments were received. We might look at each others files but as we work collegially there is no need to critique. So please keep the wording vague. A succession of Chairs ( at least 4) has visited Dean armed with this wording to ensure that we do not produce a report for each Department member. We do provide feedback to our Faculty on probation and before tenure as that is helpful as they prepare for tenure and promotion but there is no need to 'police' or colleagues and we would like to keep it that way. "The Chairperson shall make a copy immediately available to all Department members and invite them to review and comment on the reports by November 15. The Chairperson shall summarize any comments that may be received and submit them to the Dean together with his or her own comments and two copies of the reports by November 30."

I see no need for every member of every department to have to read the annual reports. A small committee should be sufficient.

I'm okay with the current process.

I feel everything is simply rubber stamped. Some professors who do not perform research duties should get the 3-3 teaching load as stipulated in the collective agreement.

Get rid of annual reports. Professors could submit an updated CV each year. The rigmarole around annual reports harms collegiality.

This is just time consuming exercise as far as Departmental colleague evaluation is concerned. The essential role should be played by the Chair. In the case there are problems with Chair's evaluation, opinion of colleagues may be requested by the Chair or a faculty member. Dean and VPAR should write/ask for additional clarifications only in doubtful cases.

Departments should not have input into promotion or tenure. My experience is that department faculty are often biased, using these opportunities to get even with those they dislike or to blindly promote their friends, The Chair, Deans & URC are farther

from the process and are more likely to be fair. Why are we evaluating each other via Annual Reports? Faculty tend not to contribute comments and it is a headache for the chair. Maybe this could be a requirement for assistant and associate professors only. There is no point in evaluating full profs.

Seems like a useful process

The whole process seems to be a bit of a farce. Some people have terrible annual reports and nothing whatsoever happens - especially when it's senior faculty. Most colleagues don't read or comments on each others' reports, the chair's feeback is meaningless. It's just more time, effort and paperwork for everyone.

Annual Report to go directly to the Dean.

Annual reports should not be made available to departmental colleagues for review. Only the Chair/Coordinator/Director and the Dean should make comments.

I have no strong opinion about this.

The process is a waste of time, but I cannot see anyway to improve it!

The whole process smells of a make-work project.

Against all forms of internal review.

The Admin is downloading far too much on the ill paid and overworked dept. chairs. No one will do these jobs willingly in future. There has to be a division of labour -- but mainly the admin. has to do their share which they do not.

I would like the chair's and dean's response to Annual Report made available to other faculty in the Department.

It seems inappropriate for department chairs, who were department members before they became chair, have influence over a colleague's process. It should be at a dean or AVP level

OK with current procedures

Frankly, I have no concerns at this point. The process seems reasonable and union helps to clarify any issues.

All good.

Evaluation in this context undermines the first among equals role of chairs and co-ordinators. Annual Reports should be copied to chairs but submitted without comment to Deans. Only probationary faculty should receive comments in keeping with the renewal & tenure processes.

It seems like an unnecessary burden that all faculty members currently review all annual reports each year within a department. I have not seen annual report assessments used in evaluation of applications for promotion and tenure, so it's not clear to me what the annual reports actually accomplish.

Please tell us which, if any, changes you would like to see to the annual review, renewal, tenure and promotion processes.

I think that we should tenure/promote fewer people. Right now, everyone gets it, pretty much. I also think that people who do not do their job well should be demoted a step. People who do supremely well should be promoted a step faster. There should be some incentive for doing good work and disincentive for not fulfilling your responsibilities. It is time to have some performance management that is actually consequential to one's job in place, like nay other organization in the real world, including not-for-profits.

Only that those be more transparent, and the timelines respected (e.g. no delays or late submissions).

There should be a requirement on the number of dept members who must participate in decisions on promotion and tenure. In a dept of 20 quorum is 11. Eleven people should not be able to decide on tenure, renewal, or promotion. There is a policy on the number of people required for a hire there should be a similar requirement for promotion, etc.

Coordinators should be allowed to see annual reports, sabbatical reports, etc.

I think it is fine as it is.

WIth the unfortunate state of external funding for small universities, having grants/research productivity weighing heavily in tenure/promotion review will negatively impact SMU if faculty choose to leave for more secure positions elsewhere. Ensuring that such aspects are linked more heavily to teaching quality (and some service) would be preferable.

As per my note above, under 6.1. I would like to see more substantive feedback provided in response to the Annual Report by the chairs and the deans and consequences (positive or negative) attached to this feedback. This is why it is important that Departments (and the University) be clear about research / teaching and admin. obligations of their faculty members. If annual reports are used in tenure and promotion, the language used should be very carefully thought out. Negative comments should be included as well, otherwise a Department sets itself up for conflicts and challenges further down the road.

1. If candidates for tenure & promotion are held to high standards for teaching performance, then departments should be held to similarly high standards for evaluating teaching performance. They should not be able to rely solely on teaching evaluations but rather be actively engaged with candidates with perceived teaching problems e.g. visiting classrooms, peer evaluations. This should be formative rather than punitive. 2. The Faculty Union and Admin should conduct an investigation into differential tenure and promotion rates by gender and other designated group status. I perceive a bias against women and visible minorities and there are studies showing this is the case elsewhere, but there should be some serious research at SMU.

There should be more weight put on research and in doing evaluations less emphasis should be put on service.

Departmental comments on annual reports should be sent not only to the Dean but also back to the faculty.

eliminate all reviews (annual and departmental), renewal, promotion and tenure should be be handled by the URC with infomration submitted by the candidate and individuals (departmental and Dean)

I would like Equity principle oversight (for e.g. through participation of an Equity Office, Equity training for decision making, etc.,) of tenure & promotion as well as hiring. Otherwise see above.

see above.

N/A

I would like more explicit feedback detailing expected improvement goals for teaching, research and service neccesary for promotion, renewal or tenure.

Course evaluations should be discarded as a factor. They are completely worthless.

no

Shift some emphasis toward quality, versus quantity, of publication.

No issues.

The reporting processes are repetitive and onerous and need to be streamlined. This is most noticeable in cases where faculty members are currently required to submit multiple, overlapping reports in the same year, for different purposes. Higher goals like promotion or tenure should subsume recurring goals like annual reporting. The CA should also provide a single, coherent list or table of contents for P&T packages. The current approach is designed to permit flexibility, which is fine, but the operationalization of the approach makes it necessary for faculty members to consult multiple, sometimes vague or inconsistent sections of the CA is order to produce a report.

Annual reports should be submitted in the summer, as October is just a very busy time in the term to be working on this kind of thing.

None.

I'd encourage a more informal annual review process that eliminates most of the administrative oversight.

Applicants have too much say in the choice of their reviewers. Clear statements about the necessity of "arm's length" reviews are needed. Consider having a T&P committee within the faculty rather than having departmental colleagues be put in the awkward spot of assessing these applications. In so many departments they all sail through because it would be awkward not to. The hope is that the Dean or the URC would turn down the recommendations in their place, which is more comfortable

for many people.

No changes

Renewal should be made subject to external review as well. More trust and weight to be put in recommendations made by external reviewers. Some departments find ways to override them in order to achieve the desired result in supporting colleagues. Promotion to Full Professor should be granted to fewer faculty and only on exceptional research or exceptional teaching achievement that correlate with similar requirements at research intensive universities.

annual reviews are a waste of time. People that are successful have to spend time with new annual reports, taking time away from their usual duties and people that are not successful can use annual reports to hide behind and jazz them up. They have little to no impact on faculty other than wasting everyones time!

Due to recent budget cuts influencing conference travel, subscribing to data sources, library sources, student assistant, and increasing class size, the administration should understand that such actions will have a negative impact on research productivity. That should be taken into consideration when evaluating annual report, tenure and promotion cases.

I would like to see tenure and promotion tied together (one vote rather than two). If this were done, then the union should seek some form of pre-tenure leave/sabbatical for juniour faculty.

separate assessment of promotion to Lecturer Stream II and permanence allow option for further credit on scale for Lecturer Stream ranks for experienced faculty (similar to process for hiring other faculty)

Lecturer stream should be able to apply for early promotion just like assistant or associate professors.

Annual reviews are fine, I don't think they need to be evaluated / scrutinized to the degree they are. I think the Chair can flag any potential problems for the Dean, and issues can be addressed at that Administrative level. I think there needs to be clearer ways to address problems that arise at first renewal.

There has to be better consequences for when the Administration fails to abide by the timelines and procedures in the collective agreement.

requirement that a detailed, constructive response be provided. Departments to be allowed final vote for granting tenure but not for promotion.

No change

The deans MUST inform eligible candidates in WRITING when they are due to apply for promotion and tenure. While this language might be used in the collective agreement, it regularly does not happen. The candidate then may be left with a last minute scramble trying to get their package together. The language should be more strongly worded.

No significant change.

It would be nice if a few of the post-tenure deadbeats could be reviewed and released.

It must be more transparent. Too many decisions are made behind closed doors.

I would like to see annual reviews done every other year.

I would like to see the possibility that Associate Professors who delayed application for promotion from Assistant to Associate should be able to apply to Full Professorship before 8 years in the rank without the application being considered an accelerated promotion.

Committees should be concerned about the quality of a professor's achievement, not the quantity of publications, etc.

N/A

Procedures are confusing. There is too much ambiguity in the protocols. These should be streamlined. A department that wants to push an agenda can easily find loopholes in the procedure. For example, the draft reports can be written following a final vote on the applicant before there is input from the applicant. Coming from a department that writes their own rules, it would beneficial for this language to be tightened up. There is a desperate need for equity language in the promotion and appointment articles of the CA.

Some sort of accountabilty mechanism for faculty who do not measure up to the efforts of their departmental colleagues.

Annual Reports should clearly indicate research and teaching performance and avoid vague language. Focus should be given to evaluation of the potential for long-run performance.

Faculty should have the right to add a letter to rebut or clarify any matters raised in the comments submitted by the Chair/Coordinator/Director and the Dean. The letter would be attached to the comments and annual report.

I think it is childish to be expected to comment on how we plan on improving a sub-standard (say, 3.6/5) course evaluation the next time we offer the same course. Just being asked this question by the dean implies that we are not professional enough to strive to be as effective in the classroom as we can be. So, unless there is a continuous record of appalling course evaluation results, the dean should not interrogate faculty about this. It is self evident that not everyone can be "above average".

No change in roles, yet better information on value of scholarship items.

Eliminate annual review for tenured faculty.

I don't agree with the annual review. There is no meaningful feedback given except "you are doing OK" and that sort of thing. It is used for disciplinary reasons and that always provokes union members. There must be a better way.

OK with current procedures

Frankly, I have no concerns at this point. The process seems reasonable and union helps

to clarify any issues.

I feel that the current process is not adequate as it pertains to Part-Time Faculty

If it is necessary to review annual reports each year, strike a faculty-level committee to accomplish this, with one member from each department. (I know this is not going to happen).

When individuals are at the top step in their rank, e.g., Assistant 8 or Associate 12, and are promoted to the next higher rank, they are placed on Step 1 of that rank. The salary may be less than they are currently receiving so they are given a one-time bonus (See Article 16.1.20). This has proved problematic for many faculty receiving promotions. Some have proposed that they be placed on the new salary scale at a step that is higher than their current salary. For example, if they are an Associate 12 making $116, 814, and are promoted to Full, might be placed at Step 5 - $120, 352.

What are your thoughts on this?  Please identify any issues tha t shoul considered.

I think it is wrong if one's salary goes down after the promotion. In the example above the promoted Associate should become Full at step 5 and and not stay there, but keep moving in steps to 6, 7, etc.

In principle, I don't think faculty should incur a cut in pay when being promoted. Whatever instrument remedies this circumstance would be acceptable to me.

Leave it as is.

sounds reasonable but I am aware of what issues might be involved.

The one time bonus should be abolished and the rank with the salary just above the current salary should be assigned.

I agree, its odd to have promoting and lose money.

Agree

I oppose being placed at a higher step than the first of the rank they earn. If faculty are ready to go for early promotion, they should be encouraged to do so, rather than wait till step 12 of the previous rank.

It doesn't make sense to "promote" someone to a position where they are taking a financial hit. Promotions aren't supposed to be financial burdens. A promotion

to a step where the salary is at least equal should be the norm and the one time bonus can be eliminated.

I agree the the suggestion.

I agree that those promoted should do better than a one-time bonus but should rather have their promotion reflected in their movement up the ladder in the new scale.

Agreed - they should be placed so that they do not loose money.

This seems reasonable to me. I'm not sure why the ranks/steps aren't already coordinated to prevent this problem from happening.

This is a reasonable proposal.

This sounds reasonable to me.

This can't be a large number of people.I can't answer the question because I would need to know why the candidate waited so long to apply for promotion. This is a non-issue

I agree that faculty should be placed on the step that is immediately higher in dollar value, not at Step 1.

This concern & remedy seem valid. I believe the logic in the current gaps is to encourage people to go up quickly/in a timely fashion, but there are all kinds of valid reasons why people take time to go up for tenure and/or promotion. For e.g., my own heavy involvement in community work (which is under-valued for promotion), and hostile working environment, have informed my own delay.

Obviously this needs to be done so as not to disadvantage those who apply on time, or early. However, it is clearly unfair to those who are promoted "late" and receive very little or no salary increases for several years while they "catch up" to the steps. The formula for the one-time bonus is ridiculously complicated and I know of multiple instances where payroll screwed it up. We need a clean system. I think that placing them on the nearest step (perhaps rounding down so as not to disadvantage the on-time and early applicants) is a very, very good idea. Obviously this needs to be done carefully, but the current system is too complicated and unfair and is in serious need of a revamp.

Many of our new hires are brought in at a step above Assistant 1 because of their teaching experience. However, this does not mean that they will be ready for promotion at the normal step since promotion is based more on research than teaching. I like the idea described above since it guarantees the member a raise and the potential for more raises at the new rank. However, this should also be accompanied with a total separation of promotion from the current step where a member finds themselves. That is, there would no longer be a minimum period of service in rank. Promotion is promotion and get rid of accelerated vs. normal promotion. A member just applies when they think they are ready.

I don't agree. The current mechanism works fine.

This seems reasonable. Promotion comes with the expectation of higher salary.

I completely agree.

No change is needed.

The current system is ridiculous. I strongly support the change described above. The fair treatment of faculty promoted in the recent past should be considered carefully.

If the delay in promotion is the result of medical or parental leave, faculty should not be penalized financially, so putting them on a higher step in the next rank seems sensible. If delays in promotion were by some other kind of choice, it seems fair that they should carry a financial penalty with them for some time, before salary begins increasing again.

As a principle, promotion should not produce a financial penalty, either in the short or long term.

They should be put at the next step which gives equal or greater salary, as in the example.

That proposal makes sense. A promotion in rank should never entail a drop in salary.

It is ridiculous for a promotion to lead to a decreased salary, at any point subsequent to the promotion. Just ridiculous. It should be a no brainer that the promotion should move to the step on the next rank that is "equal-or-greater" to the current one. If there are rules about the minimum number of years at some rank before getting promoted again, that should be a separate issue.

May be easier.

A faculty member should not be asked to take a reduction in pay because of a promotion. But if the university feels that a promotion to full 1 from assoc 12 is what the applicant merits, then the faculty member should expect to retain their assoc 12 salary level until such time as normal rising in the levels of full professor takes them to a salary above their assoc 12 level. Thus, the one-time bonus such faculty already get (news to me) is more than I would have suggested.

Moving from one rank to another, every individual should be placed at the next highest step.

I strongly agree with this proposal.

Absolutely! it is NONSENSICAL that a promotion would ever lead to LESS PAY!! Would an administrator ever take a promotion for less pay?! Why would I seek promotion if only to be paid less?!

It is insane that a promotion should lead to a pay cut. At the very least, faculty being promoted should be placed at the nearest equivalent step in terms of salary at the next rank scale. Or the bonus should be extended until their salary reaches parity on the new scale (I'd prefer the first option though).

Current system is fine

The salary formula is messed up. But it's wrong to move someone from Associate 12 to Full 5, because it destroys the meaning of "years in rank."

Faculty should not experience a cut in salary when being promoted.

I support the proposal.

I agree with the position that in these cases faculty be placed on the new salary scale at a step that is higher than their current salary

I agree with the proposed change. It is common sense.

it sounds nice, but definately not worth striking over.

The current practice might discourage some faculty members from applying for promotion. I agree with the above suggestion.

Salary should be higher of current salary or step salary, assessed every year.

This adversely affected me. The system proposed above is the one I would have preferred to have been promoted under. Please ask that the current system be changed or at least clarified.

I fully agree with this. It is a huge disappointment to be "promoted" only to realize that you are still not "valued" as better.

At a minimum there should be no decrease upon promotion but rather have a sliding overscale which decrease each year as they move up the steps.

I would prefer that they are hired at step 1 but with an annual salary "bump" more like what they have in business. My concern is that these steps seem to mean nothing other than what salary you earn, when in principle they suggest something about time spent in one's career/at the University. For example, if you are hired at Assistant 3, you should be able to come up for promotion the next year—that is, A3 suggests (to me) that even though you don't have tenure, your portfolio is such that you were almost ready for promotion to Associate when you were hired. If that's the case, you shouldn't have any problem. The problem arises when someone is hired at A3 or 4 or 5, but only in order to give them more money; they don't actually have a strong enough CV to go up for Associate for many years, and so they end up waiting 5 years to go up for promotion, and then they lag behind the rest. But if this is the case, they shouldn't be hired at A3 (or 4 or 5). There should be another way of getting them the extra money. Otherwise I think we have to redefine these steps to clarify that they are just about money.

A promotion should not result in a lower salary under any circumstance. This makes no sense. Fixing this to ensure that the first step of a promotion is higher than the last step in a rank should be a major initiative in bargaining.

No, I do not think that they should be placed at the higher rank or perhaps only up to Assistant 8 for example. It depends if they are hired at that higher rank or took a long time in getting promoted. In the former case, they should not be penalized but in the latter it speaks to productivity and in a way balances out the lack of merit pay. The case becomes clearer for associate prof moving to full prof where the higher the rank of associate, the longer they took to enough material to warrant full prof and should not be rewarded for this.

I agree. Faculty SHOULD NOT take a pay cut for a promotion. I think they should go up one step above the pay step they are at when promoted.

The move up is entirely logical in this context - to be promoted and lose salary makes no sense.

Agree with this

The prospect of a pay cut upon promotion literally makes no sense. Even if a faculty member has been in his or her current rank for more than the standard period of time (i.e, more than 5 years as Assist. or 8 years as Assoc) due to a lack of research output, there may be mitigating circumstances. Or not. Either way, the salary after promotion should never be less than the salary before it. It is irrational, and it is especially problematic for new faculty when they are first promoted to Associate rank; this is an extremely hard time in one's life (generally speaking, given the demographics of that group) to absorb a loss of pay). But it is no less palatable a prospect for Associate professors at the top of the Associate scale. This is an important issue that ought to rectified immediately.

Obviously the promoted individual should receive an increase in salary.

There should never be financial disincentives to pursuing promotion; that's just stupid and perverse. Promotion from assistant to associate or from associate to full should always go along with an increase in salary (or, at the very least, not a decrease).

Yes, I think this makes sense.

No significant change.

Yes, it is quite obvious that this is what should occur.

The current system penalizes faculty who were appointed higher on the scale - based on experience and education. This is a dumb approach and should be changed. Your proposed change is good.

It is better to adjust the steps so that there is a better match between top of one level and bottom of the next.

Faculty should be promoted to the next rank of at least their current salary with no one-time bonus.

No. If you underachieve and miss timely promotion, you should suffer the consequences of starting back at step 1 of the next rank.

I have experienced this situation as a result of delaying my application to Associate because of maternity and parental leaves of for children. It is indeed problematic and although I made the choice to delay promotion, I did not understand the longer term implications that I would not be placed at the appropriate point on the scale. I am underpaid for life now as a result. I suspect this may be a gender issue and one of the inequalities we see regularly at the university ( apart from the obvious inequities between Commerce salaries and Arts & Science salaries) As a result I am applying at the exact moment I am eligible for Full Professor, having learned the hard way.

Promotion should not mean that you take a reduction in salary. This is counter-intuitive. If one is promoted, one should be placed on the salary scale above what they are making.

Yes, I agree. Placed on a step higher than their current salary. To place someone at a rank with lower salary then currently earning is ridiculous.

I think it's a good idea.

I strongly agree with "what some have proposed" above.

If someone is worth to be promoted, it is worth to recieve just renumeration - I think that this make sense. Promotion with accompanying reduction in salary seems to be demotion in terms of managerial thinking...

I agree that that faculty should be appointed to the new salary scale at a step higher than their current salary (as per your example above).

It seems unfair to promote someone to a state of lower pay.

The current system is absolutely ridiculous! Of course faculty should be placed at the next salary step when they are promoted! How has this not already been addressed?

I agree

I disagree with this proposal, since it diminishes the incentives for untenured faculty to quickly achieve tenure and associate professors to achieve full professorship. The status quo seems appropriate.

Faculty who have delayed, for whatever reason, their promotion consideration should not be penalized financially but should not be advantaged over a faculty who was promoted at their normal step. A fair compromised should be worked out. Placement at a higher step in the new rank seems to be a good solution. The language of the CA should state that normal promotion would be after a certain number of year of service within the rank.

Ridiculous. Of course salary should be higher next rank up, regardless of step.

This is complicated. I have been in this position twice. It is particularly bad at the full professor level, I would still be being paid more if I was not promoted! The solution might be to take steps off the bottom of the scales, as we have too many steps, as this would reduce the overlap. If the proposed change is made then it would be unfair to those who were just promoted as they would be earing less than those who are promoted subsequently.

I agree that once promoted, faculty should be placed on the new salary scale at a step higher than their current salary. The potential reduction in salary means less motivation to apply for a promotion.

It looks logical that this should be done to reflect the proper standing of the promoted faculty.

Agree. Promotion should include salary increase beyond normal step increase,

regardless of how it is achieved.

Obviously it's not fair...the one time bonus is merely catch up

instead of moving them to a higher step, they should be compensated by a certain percentage of current salary so that it is higher than the current and let it increase each year by a certain percentage until it matches with the normal step.

I prefer the present system. If someone who took so long to fulfill the requirements for promotion that doing so would result in a temporary salary decrease this seems and appropriate penalty.

I would ask why they were not in a position to be promoted in the regular time frame. It seems that 8 years is long enough to get your work together to apply for the next rank. If not, then they may be penalized. However, this should be on a case by case basis because it is possible that a faculty member took an unusual route to arrive at a rank and that shouldn't be held against them.

Should be place at a salary level which is equal to (not less than) their current level.

I never heard of this issue before. If the people are receiving bonus, I am not sure what makes it problematic?

the solution is to make their salaries freeze at the apposite point, I.e. When they reach the time for promotion, and then recover when they are promoted. Timely promotion is a duty of the faculty

It is up to faculty members to apply in a timely fashion for promotion. The collective should not be made responsible for individual members performance. The current practice is reasonable.

I agree with the proposal. No reason that a promotion should result in less salary than current.

Please tell us which, if any, other changes you would like to see to Lecturer Stream issues.

I think that Lecturers should NOT be bought out of courses for service duties. Further, I am yet to see a Lecturer who ACTUALLY teaches 9 classes - they all teach less through various deals that they make. They should not be part of regular faculty because they are not academically qualified. Service duties should be in their contract, as they are for regular faculty, it is part of their job. Their job is to teach and do service; they are compensated very well given their workload and qualifications (as compared to faculty). Nobody expects them to do research, so they should not be using it as an argument for work overload. If they are doing research, that is on their own time- or they should seek a standard faculty position on tenure track.

I think the Lecturer Stream should be converted to a "Teaching" Tenure Track stream, e.g. what is done at York University, and the lecturers encouraged to develop programs on Scholarship of Teaching. There just isn't enough space for full research programs for everyone but we do need more people collaborating on high quality teaching innovations.

Class size should be taken into account when allotting FCEs. A person teaching 350 students in 2 courses should be given more recognition for this extra workload compared to teaching 2 courses with 20 students each.

The Lecture Stream position was a bad concession by the union. Remove it as it is currently worded. It could remain however in a different guise, especially for those positions that are not entirely academic. Some language instructors for example ought to be on a 4-4 schedule (with no summer requirement).

Lecture Steam instructors should teach more (5:5). Or, be mandiated to teaching in the summer.

No; there is a real benefit to having these positions.

7.1 and 7.3

There should be NO lecturer stream.

The lecture stream should be abolished. Period.

I don't know very much about lecturer stream positions. I would defer to my colleagues in the lecturer stream to decide what is most important to them, and I would support them in a strike if it comes to that.

The teaching load must be reduced for the lecturer stream. The lecture stream plays such an important role within the university, and many of these individuals are superior teachers. We cannot have them suffering from burn out and mental fatigue, as currently seems to be the case.

No significant change.

Again, where I neither Agree nor DIsagree I do not feel we have been given enough

information to make an informed decision on the particular question.

We saw a 10% workload reduction for lecturers in the last round of negotiations. My opinion is that we should focus on increasing compensation - i.e., number of steps, and percentage increases - for lecturers. Consistency is important as well. I am not sure how the language would be constructed, but we should strive for some way to ensure equal treatment for lecturers with respect to release time for major service commitments.

The lecturers should teach up to a maximum of 8 half year courses and the number of students they teach should be taken into consideration. They should teach a max of four different courses per year.

7.5 Course reductions for LS faculty should be the same AS ALL OTHER FACULTY.

Let us abolish new permanent lecturer positions. You cannot just have those hired as lecturers become research oriented faculty members. They were not vetted for that.

I would like to see the lecturer stream abolished. While it is true that some academics are more interested in teaching than in pure research, the Lecturer stream has, at SMU at least, been ill-conceived and has created a two-tiered faculty that has been detrimental to our community. From what I have observed, lecturers are over-worked, under-paid and under-valued.

I think lecturer stream should either abolished entirely or reduced to a 8 courses. Those who were already hired may or may not be appropriate for research oriented positions, so they should be allowed to continue in their lecturer position or should compete in an open competition.

Abolish the lecturer stream. Bring lecturers into regular positions.

I dunno. Do we need these at all? Why not simply have faculty positions in which the bulk of the duty is teaching and service rather than research? Let faculty choose where they want to situate themselves--in a standard sort of research/teaching/service stream or a teaching intensive stream.

not sure how to answer some of these

Lower their working load!

The entire Lecturer Stream seems to me to be a big problem, both in terms of fairness to the lecturers and the way it undercuts the position of those on the tenure track.

It's about time that this issue be properly addressed! I have discussed this matter with fellow faculty at all levels and we all agree that, as it currently stands, the LS position is ABUSIVE. Lecturers are integral members of their respective departments and should be treated on par with other faculty, plain and simple. When faculty in the “regular” tenure stream do less research, they are supposed to have a 3-3 teaching load. Why is this not acceptable for LS faculty? Teaching 3-3 would at least allow these faculty members time to do *some* research (if they wish) or focus on more teaching-related initiatives. Right now, they can barely keep their heads above water teaching their NINE courses let alone participate in a meaningful way in the life of the university. The current LS section in the Collective Agreement should be completely scrapped. It is

shameful that our union agreed to these kinds of working conditions in the first place. WE SHOULD ALL BE WILLING TO STRIKE OVER THIS!!

More steps. Salary tops out around 12 years or so. Pay per step ok, but only 2 ranks and 8? steps in Rank 2 too few in the career. Preferably 3 ranks, but at least more steps in total.

Teaching load for Lecturer Stream should be 7 courses with ability to conduct research and receive FGSR research grants as well as external grants.

I know little about this subject.

Agreeing to the lecturer stream was a mistake because it creates two classes of employment within the union. We should abolish it so that everybody in the union has the same working conditions.

Abolish the lecture stream by all means, but I don't see how Lecturers could just be integrated into regular positions -- this is unfair.

The lecturer stream has been a colossal mistake. It is unfair to new hires because it essentially ends their future career potential and traps them into a stressful, unfulfilling job. It is, in essence, just a more secure part-time position. I'd counsel any new PhD graduate who asked me never to accept a lecturer position, and I think it has been a disaster for both the university's image and the well-being of those hired.

Question 7.7 is so vague I don't know what you're asking.

Lecturer jobs are a gift from management as a way to reward a department - when it's large and there is too much teaching to do. The lecturer jobs are given and taken as though by God. I think they are meant to save the Univ money. On the other hand we see several experienced lecturers who have either taken sick leave or left entirely because the job is basically impossible. Clearly the job is much harder than my job. And that's not fair

lecturers were hired as lectured and not assessed for research. Therefore they were not assessed at hiring for ther research potential.

Abolish the Stream, create proper tenure-track jobs instead, hire people who can both do research and teaching.

* Need more steps for Lecturer Stream * Consider better linkages between promotion and permanence * Benefits for faculty should be equalized (professional development expenses, leaves, etc) * Additional consideration given to creating new Lecturer Stream positions and recognition of the value that Lecturers bring if they have real-world experience and contacts within the community.

Abolish. It was a wrong step.

lecturers are a wonderful additon to departments. However, they are not expected to have the same research output as a regular faculty member. As such, they should not be paid the same amount AND they should never, ever, ever be given titles such as assistant, associate or full professor. When they accepted the position they knew what

they were hired for.

While I agree that there are significant problems with the way the Lecturer stream was set up, I think these are related to compensation. I believe the salary steps and compensation should be exactly the same for regular vs. Lecturer faculty. I support the idea of having lecturer (teaching-only) positions as it provides greater career flexibility for PhDs. Likewise, I think SMU should make it easier for regular faculty to place more emphasis on research if they want to specialize that way. Flexibility is the key.

I suspect that some Lecturers are overwhelmed because of two related problems: 1) In addition to having a heavy teaching load, the "regular" faculty in their program will indiscrimantly dump any and all standing and ad hoc administrative and outreach duties onto the Lecturer, and 2) Assignment of administrative and outreach duties to Lecturers is decided heierarchically instead of collegially. A "zero cost" way of managing the problem of Lecturer stress might simply be to firm up rules and procedures around what sorts of administrative duties may be given to Lecturers, and how Lecturers are to be included in Departmental decision making around task assignments. Eg, should Lecturers really be Program Coordinators?

Consideration of prior experience in appointment rank and promotion timing. Allow early assessment for promotion and permanence similar to other faculty. Course reduction process consistent for all faculty. "Exceptional"? Outcome for denial of promotion/permanence consistent with other faculty. Addition of further steps. Addition of another rank -- Teaching Scholar perhaps? Can we not have better titles? A full review of the agreement is needed to ensure wording is consistent and fair across all faculty. No one seems to interpret the agreement consistently in relation to Lecturer Stream so, therefore, there is an overarching clean-up and clarification needed.

"The titles for the ranks should more appropriately reflect their duties and responsibilities." I could not comment on this as I do not know if there are commonly held duties and responsibilities among all lecturers. I know that it seems like a good idea to integrate lecturers into regular faculty positions, and would certainly be humane. However, there is a different pool of applicants for tenure-track vs. lecturer positions, so I am concerned that this would potentially reduce the quality of faculty over time. Also, onerous and thankless as the position is, those who applied to be lecturers knew what they were getting into. At the same time, the teaching load is a bit extreme, particuarly considering the summer teaching responsibilities and teaching loads for lecturers at other Canadian institutions.

Please tell us about any other retirement issues that are of concern to you.

Flexibility and options in this area would be of benefit to Members, and seeing senior Members at the top of the pay scale retire will assist the Employer in balancing the books and recruiting fresh faculty. In sum, I think there should be a range of options for faculty seeking to gradually wind down their careers.

The University should work to encourage timely retirement for members that are no longer fulfilling the triple mandate of their positions (research, teaching, service). Or, there should be mechanisms whereby those no longer fulfilling specific requirements should, in a collegial manner, fulfill other roles rather than offloading workloads on to younger faculty. This is not about unrealistic expectations, but about the fact that some faculty members no longer participate in the day to day administration of their programs, while no longer engaging in research, meaning that a much heavier workload falls onto younger faculty that are increasingly confronted with more demands - administrative, research, etc. There should be a fair way to ensure that all members contribute, without this being punitive.

if we are not going to have mandatory retirement we need to have term limits on all leadership positions (e.g., program co-ordinators, chairs, etc.)

Retirement issues are of little concern to me. What does concern me is the possibility that the Administration will use retirement incentives to reduce the faculty complement across the University, particularly in the Faculty of Arts. So I suspect this can be a double-edged sword.

Health benefits.

early retirees should have their position replaced so there is an overlap for 1 year

re 8.2 not enough info. provided

Extending health benefits to retirees would cost the general membership too much money. This is not really a collective bargaining issue anyway; we could do this ourselves through our control of the Benefit Trust.

8.1 We shouldn't pay faculty to leave. If they are productive, excellent members of the faculty, they should be encouraged to stay. If they are deadbeats - no research, bad teaching, refused service - they should be kicked out for being unproductive and not fulfilling their end of the agreement. 8.5 A major incentive to stay on "too long" is the fear of being dropped from the health plan. Yes, we should pay for their health plan - new faculty wages are low enough for justify this small expense. However, this should be coupled to a fair payment system based on % of net pay instead of a flat rate. New faculty are already paid less, and pay more (as a % of net) than older faulty.

Poor pensions have put us in this position so improve pensions.

I firmly believe that people should retire at 65 after a full career and stop blocking the

path for younger PhDs to gain a foothold in a tenure track position. Nice career, nice benefits, thank you very much. Be grateful and make way for someone who has not had that privilege. So I do not agree with any of these self-indulgent extra perks for those 'nearing' retirement or wanting to stay on. A lifetime to prepare for retirement, just go and have a life and do research with all your spare time.

Health benefits for retirees comes at a cost and that isn't made clear in this survey - of course we all want benefits for retired members.

Filling positions opened up by retirement should not be delayed if the faculty member receives early retirement incentive.

Phased retirement only makes sense of a tenure-track replacement is guaranteed to replace a tenured professor doing a phased retirement plan and the new hire should be brought in at the beginning of the phased retirement, to bridge incoming and outgoing faculty members.

Health benefits are my biggest concern.

I would like to see a phased retirement plan commencing as early as age 55.

Currently formula for retirement uses June 30 and birthdate. This leads odd situations. For example, a person with birthdate on Sept 5, will be required effectively to work almost a full year beyond turning 65 if they want to collect the at 65 bonus. Suggest rounding to the nearest month, not rounding up to the nearest year.

Will the university continue to pay to the member the amount that goes into the member's pension plan up until age 71 *after* the member reaches the age of 71 and continues to work full time, given that this amount can no longer go into a pension plan?

The language says you must be here 20 yrs (I think) before you are entitled to to the bonus. I think it should be amended to 10 years plus. Also there should be better phased retirement. It's all or nothing which doesn't suit all. The outside margin is 3 yrs, not more and there should be more than a 3 yr window. Also I'm not convinced this is available to every prof...

Retirement pension plan should be changed from the current Defined Contribution Plan to Defined Benefits Plan. Most other universities in Atlantic Canada have this plan. We need to seriously consider this because in my opinion we are at a disadvantaged position relative to our colleagues at other universities.

It would be good to know whether emeritus status will be granted prior to one having to commit to retirement. Knowing that one would have access to journals and the like is an important factor when deciding when to retire.

What is of great concern to me as mid career faculty is that with current contributions from myself and employer and current plan, i basically have only about 5 years after retirement at age 65 to live with a pension of about 50.000 a year; that is, I have to ensure that I don't live 10 years past retirement if I want to have any pension at all. something seems to be amiss...

a phased retirement would be great, however due to research space constraints this would pose a problem with new faculty replacements AND phased retirements just delays the hiring of new faculty replacements.

Health benefits for retirees is unacceptable and skewed against retention of young faculty

I would like to see health benefits paid to retirees, but I would need to see how this would affect faculty contributions to the wellness trust, hence my neutral response.

Health benefits for retirees have a HUGE cost. While not directly against it, in reality, there would need to be more contribution by the members over time to offset this cost. The employer will not pay for it all and it will just come from another pocket. We would need to understand what is realistic here for a basic plan or some sort of supplemental benefit with the provincial plan.

Please tell us what collegiality issues you would like to see improved.

I think the search was done in accordance with current practice at current universities. It is a pity that the union selected this process to create an antagonistic situation within its own membership ranks and create a rift with administration. Poor job by the union executive on this one.

In general, I think we should resist the trend toward leadership by a cadre of professional managers who are neither educators or researchers. That said, if we are to do so we should demonstrate a clear capacity to be effective.

The ability to appoint administrators seemingly at random should be governed in a way that faculty make more decisions. In this respect I am referring to more associate deans and the appointment of the previous dean of arts into a position for CAID, etc that didn't exist before she was arbitrarily placed into it. There was merely an announcement made.

All programs / depts. in the university should be treated equally by the administration.

It might be worthwhile to have faculty respond to Dean's activities on an annual basis in a manner that Dean's respond to annual reports. Chairs especially may have a bit to say that is constructive with regard to a couple of recent deans I think. Feedback going up the foodchain would be a good start!

We need to try and repair the growing rift between union, administration and the Board. It is fueled by lack of communication on both sides, suspicions and skepticism/paranoia of the intent of each player. We need to work towards building Saint Mary's as the great institution that it is and work together (which means concessions of both sides and open not inflammatory accusations). There needs to be increased trust of the union in those faculty that do sit on decision making boards at this institution have the best interests of the university, including faculty and the students that pay our bills in their minds.

The university must strive to maintain an open, democratic, and transparent approach to governance.

The level of collegiality has eroded consistently in the years I have been at SMU. Trust and handshake no longer work as in the past. We must strengthen the collective agreement. In the NSCAD contract, I believe, the Board of Governors members representing faculty are nominated by the Faculty Union. We should have similar language. I also believe that the NSCAD agreement makes it compulsory (or stronger than the SMU agreement) that the finalists candidates for administrative positions (including presidents) be presented to the university community before the final decision is made. Now Kings Board is proposing no consultation in the presidential hiring process and are citing SMU as a kind of precedent.

Just a comment: Collaboration is essential to the core success of any organization. Administrators are paid and respected highly because we appreciate the challenges and skill required to navigate complex decision-making in collaborative ways. Taking out

that collaborative component renders their role much less honorable and worthy of high pay and respect. The faculty are truly what makes a university FANTASTIC and it is of great concern to me that the administrators would fear working with faculty (fear of faculty ideas? fear of the work required to achieve collegiality?) on these very important decisions.

The role of the registrar needs to be clarified, and a clear line drawn between the responsibilities of the registrar in administering student enrollment and the responsibilities of departments in setting their own academic policies and calendar entries.

All academic administrator searches should be open, with the final three candidates presented to the academic community.

This is a non issue and should not be entertained because it will interfere with more important issues around salary, workload and benefits

Collegiality (or lack thereof) in relation to equity representation is of primary concern in my department & faculty, and arguably at the university as a whole.

We need the Board of Governors to respect the Collective Agreement. They act like corporate overlords. I see a basic problem where administrators, both non-academic and academic, dominate meetings where important decisions are to be made. Faculty need to be better represented on these committees. The problem is exacerbated by the presence of Associate Deans on these committees. While technically members of the faculty, I view these quasi-administrative positions as increasingly "them" and decreasingly "us". Perhaps it is time to consider Associate Deans as members of administration and not faculty union members. Perhaps we should even consider this for Department Chairs, who are managers in many respects (especially for large Departments). Human Resources has way, way too much power at this university. I am not sure how we can accomplish more collegial governance through collective bargaining, but we should try to do it. I am hopeful that the new President will usher in a more collegial governance style.

-department chairs and faculty members

Perhaps outside the Collective Agreement but the Academic Senate has too many non faculty members who can vote on academic issues.

A systemic assault on collegiality has occurred at SMU over the past decade. We should deal with this as severely as possible.

The University has seen a real decline in collegiality since I arrived in 1998. It is probably my biggest concern with our institution and the recent Presidential hiring is just one notable example. Or look at the "Going Forward' task force, we still do not have an answer from the President whether Faculty will be added to all the committee and not just placed in a marginalized committee for Faculty. Or look at the university website. All content is now controlled by External Affairs and the Steering Committee and it is virtually impossible for departments or programs to get any changes updated. And there seem to be no mechanisms for Departments to make a complaint. How do we complain about the poor performance of recruitment? about the website? Negotiate for

a formal review process of administrative departments, administrators or a complaint mechanism where we can log errors, neglect, lack of response. LOL, provide ratings! Rate my administrator. As the next budget comes out it will be obvious where the dollars are going. Surprise, surprise, more admin positions and more Commerce (in one of the programs riddled with cheating). Quite depressing really. I thought that at the Presidential Search announcement the treatment of our SMUFU president by Margaret Murphy was egregious. They deliberately ignored Faculty ( some never got to ask questions and were still waiting) while there seemed to be planted questions as well. It was appalling, not to mention embarrassing, but perhaps the new President got to see his administrators in action, let's just hope he was underwhelmed. Thank goodness for Joyce Thomson. She asked a stellar question and brought this issue to the fore.

I was appalled by the Presidential search process, regardless of what seems to be a positive result this time. This should not be allowed. The search for a Dean of Arts was similarly flawed, with faculty having too little power to decide their Dean.

Saint Mary's is not "moving away" from collegial decision-making processes. We've never had collegial decision-making processes. Professors should make up the entirety of all search committees for academic administrators. Ex officio members of senate should not have a vote.

Well I'd love it if my colleagues were able to understand that collegiality does not mean "being nice"...but that's a different ball of wax.

communication between administration and the rest of the academy, for one thing

Administrators should report to the faculty about their performance and evaluated by faculty members annually.

While the new President seems like a good choice for Saint Mary's, that does not diminish my sense of alienation from this institution regarding the fiasco of a search process that just took place on our campus.

It's a difficult issues since it involves important requirements for confidentiality. We don't want to have processes that turn-off prospective candidates.

The above will go a LONG WAY in addressing collegiality issues.

All University documents, including those of the Board of Governors, should accessible to the academic community.

Collegiality is a thing of the past here at SMU. Platitudes are not the same thing. Actions speak louder than words.

I would like the union to face facts about the contemporary work environment and show some measure of understanding regarding the need for confidentiality when it comes to hiring, especially, senior level administrators. I am all in favour of, indeed, see the crucial necessity of, strong faculty involvement in the searches themselves, but the need for confidentiality is understandable.

I think the union should push for greater representation and more veto power over a range of administrative issues, not just searches. This includes things like budget

decisions, Go Forward plans, senate, board of governors, etc.

Much of the problem of collegiality stems from hiring decisions. There has to be a plan for equity overseen by an administrator who knows about employment equity. That person (like the one at Dal or at St FX) has to see the list of applicants and the short listed people and look at the data (we should be getting) about equity considerations. There has to be oversight. Right now ea. dept does what it likes when it likes with new hires. We have an anthropology dept with one woman. We have a psychology dept that I don't think has one visible minority (in the full time complement) We have a sociology/crim dept with the same issue as psychology. We have a management dept that has gone from 21% vis. minorities a decade ago the other way to 11% today. There is also no clarity given the language in the coll. agreement about who votes and how votes are conducted. In management, E-votes have got us in a lot of trouble. Other depts vote only if fac. members are in the room. There is no clarity so it makes for bad feelings. The Deans have little REAL power, so they nitpick and try to hold court in their faculties; they court their favourites.

I would like to see the Union to investigate and address the nature of the Education department, whose governance seems to be beyond the Collective Agreement. For example, why do we have a fifth academic dean when there is no functioning Faculty of Education? The development of this position and office diverts funds and resources away from other academic areas. This should all fall more under the CA.

More transparency in administrative procedures.

Steps need to be taken to rein in the Administration. Its budget should be substantially reduced and positions removed through attrition. The University would be better off with a leaner Administration.

Department chairs should be taken out of the bargaining unit

I am concerned with the Program Prioritization exercise that was attempted earlier. I would like to see discussion on the issues of budgeting -- why do we seem to have so many administrators, are we getting a good value for the money there, why not spend more money on tenure-track jobs instead? Overall, I would prefer that we spend less on highly paid administrators and lowly paid sessionals, and instead have more tenure-track jobs.

The overall and continuing disconnect in operations. Faculty are treated as a problem as opposed a resource. Too many administrators and an arrogant disposition towards faculty engagement.

why can we not select if this is worth striking over???

I wonder about a balance to ensure the best candidates will apply while he/she is still working for another organization. What about a larger faculty representation for the final selection or some other option?

While I would certainly like to recall academic administrators, faculty recall denies the other consituencies involved in their selection a voice (students, staff, board of governors). At the same time, perhaps it would be a good way of keeping them honest,

so to speak.

Equity Issues

In the last round of bargaining we extended the provisions of Article 10.4 to women, aboriginals, disabled and visible minorities. We would like your thoughts on how the Collective Agreement can be improved to implement equity for members of these four groups, particularly with respect to hiring. Please enter your thoughts/concerns in the following text box.

I think that these groups should be hired, ALL ELSE EQUAL in terms of qualifications. They should NOT be hired if their qualification are not as good as a male candidate's, bu just because they are part of the group. The process should be fair to all social groups, not just these.

I would encourage SMUFU and the University to collaborate on developing a series of workshops which are mandatory for all faculty, administration and students sitting on hiring, planning, union and university committees. The workshops can focus on equity, accessibility, the laws & regulations and what each of us can do to improve our working environments. Furthermore, there is not much in the CA about the inclusion and accessibility for all groups, including the right to safe working environments for all, access to all facilities, and access to all resources and the use of appropriate language. For example, all Ontario Universities are now required to offer equity and accessibility workshops. Furthermore, as Nova Scotia will soon pass legislation (following Ontario and Manitoba), I encourage SMUFU become proactive about the language used in the CA and working / manadating the university to improve equity and accessibility in an inclusive way. http://novascotia.ca/coms/accessibility/

Some seem to want to have a quota system where at the dept level if a designated group member leaves he/she must be replaced by another designated group member. withe numbers involved in a dept and the workforce availability of designated group members this isn't sensible. There's a need for more education for faculty on how our system works and can't work. As it is difficult to recruit and hire in some areas it might be worthwhile considering developing faculty from designated groups. Identify an aboriginal with the interests and ability to acquire a PhD in Math sponsor/fund him/her in grad school and then hire them when they are finished. Of course there would need to be a written commitment to stay for a number of years; even then they may well leave at the end to pursue better compensation, less taxes, etc. We have lost multiple designated group members over the last decade because there were family, community, and better opportunities elsewhere; not sure how that can be fixed.

Union should be more proactive in ensuring equity such as keeping records of recent hirings -- candidates interviewed and hired. There should be wording in the agreement that allows for the Union to be proactive in this regard.

Equity is a huge concern. We need a more diverse faculty that better represents the students we teach and the worlds we and they live in.

This is a very difficult issue, including not only our hiring and promotion but also how society prepares individuals for work in universities. I wish very much to see more people who fall into these categories hired but at the same time they must be capable of doing the work required. Given that this is a societal issue the only suggestion I have is to promote educational opportunities for those groups who have been disadvantaged so as to help address this issue in future.

I gather Dalhousie has a special hiring process aimed specifically at departments competing to get a diversity hire. this would be great for SMU.

We should require an annual report from the administration outlining what the state of affairs, steps taken to address the problems, and future plans.

Follow Article 10.4. Enforce it, don't just pay lip service to the issue.

-Similar language as in the law - we should be more open in hiring (and less essentializing) to other disadvantaged and under-represented groups, such as immigrants, newcomers (esp. with degrees from non-Anglo institutions). - a broader notion of diversity and equity than the "four" official groups - package of benefits, including spousal hires or other support, to make attraction and retention easier

"Equity Issues" are often veiled means of striving towards affirmative action plans (the "positive action" as the CBA currently reads suggests a sway in that direction). Equity is not achieved by favouring one group over another, that is actually the opposite of equal opportunity. In hiring decisions, efforts should be made to hire only the most qualified person for the job, regardless of any minority or majority status, as article 10.4.5 says currently. However, article 10.4.5 also says that ties will be broken by considering minority grouping issues. I fail to see how that is considered equal treatment of candidates and believe that these passages should be removed.

We need a designated equity officer.

I have no thoughts on the list of those included. I am more concerned with the exclusion of the LGBT community, who are never mentioned in this context.

1. Must have an specialized equity officer who is involved in all hirings, tenure and promotions to ensure equity concerns are addressed systematically and diminish rancour within academic units over these issues. 2. See my comments earlier about a study at SMU about bias against women and other designated groups in tenure and promotion. 3. While well-meaning, the language in 10.4 is difficult to put into practice. For example, how do we define and operationalize the word "equal?" There must be a precise set of guidelines for implementing employment equity either in the agreement or in a MOU.

- Childcare spaces must be guaranteed! This is such a major stress for female faculty members, especially at the junior rank. - Provide longer paid parental / maternity leave periods - Allow some flexibility in the "time to tenure" clock.

No significant change.

Equity issues will not be resovled by words in the collective agreement. This sia a cultural bias that will be resolved if faculty want to do it as individuals

For me the under-representation of racial minority & Aboriginal faculty at SMU, and especially in the Faculty of Arts, and weak CA language & lack of institutional infrastructure for meaningful application of equity principles are primary concerns. The university as a whole should also undertake an accessibility audit, and vastly improve conditions for trans individuals, surrounding institutional protocol & supports around sexual & other forms of harassment, and for racialized, Aboriginal & international students, and those with mental health concerns. Re: faculty issues, Wilfred Laurier University, U. Western Ontario, and Queens all have CA language & institutional infrastructure for meaningful application of equity principles that provide models to draw from. I am also not sure of the wisdom of bargaining for equity principles, which may get dropped as priorities. I would like to see all SMU's unions, and the administration, make a serious commitment to implementing CA language & institutional infrastructure for meaningful application of equity principles that is not tied to bargaining on other issues. I also think the union should stop pussy footing around this set of issues under the cover of membership priorities — it not surprising & (in my opinion) does not matter if the predominantly white membership of this faculty union does not make equity principles a priority. This is a matter of social justice that the union should take a leadership stance on, period. Under the same logic, the Union should also be much more proactive in improving labour conditions on campus, working on improving conditions & salary dramatically for the teaching/Lecturer stream, and with the staff & part time union more closely to improve conditions for their members. While I appreciate very much (and have benefited from) the hard work of the union over the years I've worked at SMU, I would like to see less emphasis on bread & butter issues for its members, and more emphasis on social justice in the union's stances & priorities. Finally, I also feel that the Union needs to do a better job of practicing equity principles internally by more proactively training union & bargaining leadership. We need new and more diverse blood in the union & bargaining teams.

I am strongly opposed to implementing affirmative action. I know we have equity challenges, but I think our current Collective Agreement language is sufficient in this regard. Perhaps we can strive for the creation of a new Equity Officer within the administration, as they have at other universities.

Hiring is one thing. Retaining hired faculty is a completely different issue that tends to be overlooked. Strategies on retention are important.

Every hiring committee should include an equity officer (trained faculty member). All candidates should be asked to self-identify as to article 10.4. If the hiring committee finds a TIE in qualifications between two candidates, they should refer to the self-identification forms (via the equity officer) and hire using the equity rules.

We need a comprehensive set of guidelines on the actual hiring process with respect to Equity that both the Union and Administration agree upon. Currently, Equity is a slogan with no direction.

The best qualified candidate should get the job.

No ideas.

Remover all of Section 10.4. Hiring should be entirely a matter of department members using their professional judgement. It's an embarrassment that our union is asking the administration in 10.4 to tie the hands of professors. Our union should be protecting our exercise of our professional judgement, not seeking to constrain it. Again, remove 10.4 from the Collective Agreement.

This clause has been a nightmare. If any more adjustments are to be made to this article, then all of the processes and procedures behind it need to be nailed down ahead of time. The phased approach that we've had to face with figuring out what all the nuance associated with this new article has not been helpful.

1. The Union must cite 10.4 appropriately. It does not say "aboriginals" nor does it say "disabled". It's aboriginal people and people with disabilities. Language matters. 2. The Union and Administration must absolutely develop its commitment to equity in hiring --> recruitment, retention, reporting practices, conflict resolution, etc. 3. 10.4 is unworkable in its present state -- it's simply too broad, like a statement of principles. It needs to list specific practices, such as: setting up a joint university-union equity committee; provisions for an equity officer or designate who will sit in on all hiring processes; specific reporting practices should a member believe discrimination in hiring has occurred. 4. Many examples of equity language exist in other CAUT-affiliated faculty unions. Ours is particularly weak, even for the Atlantic. It's time for the SMUFU to step up on these issues.

N/A

Equity language is needed in the CA to outline protocols re: Article 10.4.

For me, this is a very important issue, and should be among out top priorities. The language of this article, though, could be changed to get away from the language of "aboriginals" and "visible minorities" that seems to me bureaucratic and dated.

Hiring is definitely a problem area - but RETENTION of these faculty must also be taken into consideration. The number of faculty members in the above groups who have left SMU is completely unacceptable. Support systems or mechanisms must be put into place.

I know little about this issue.

I feel this is a pressing issue, but I do not think there are any immediate or easy solutions.

I find the work environment at SMU to be largely hostile to women, and this hostility often comes from administrators and faculty alike.

I'm satisfied with the current language in the collective agreement on this issue.

The demand has to be the Univ must hire an Equity officer. Someone skilled in equity

issues, someone who knows universities. I know Dal isn't perfect but they have a person as does St FX. Acadia also has some oversight in this regard, as does MSVU. If the univ refuses WE as the union should consider engaging an equity advisor who works for us. That person could push a viable plan and that person could work for us on contract to inform and help various depts in hiring. There has to be training for every prof on equity. CAUT can help us with that. There has to be special training for anyone on a hiring committee. There has to be a real effort to advertise so equity seeking groups see the ads and people start applying. There has to be a way to gather information, volunteered by applicants, about if they are in the 4 designated groups, and this is done thru self identification. The admin person has to look at the applications and then look at the short lists and approach the departments about problem areas. The university's statistics now look at the faculty in general. So here in Commerce we have no equity issues because one department has a preponderance of visible minority professors. Yet we also have departments which are overly 'white'. And some departments don't have any active recruitment of women, and it shows. Another issue is the percentage of women who are full profs. Clearly despite having increasing numbers of women hired let's say in arts, not many make it to the full level. This is a problem. Clearly some women feel that the fight to get full status isn't worth it. There is a chilly climate, for sure. Larry Haiven and Judy Haiven have a very nice 20 min. slide presentation on employment equity and how to get it -- maybe they should present to the union.

The Management and Union should establish a joint equity task-force that works toward creating mutually agreed guidelines and a plan of action to achieve equity above national averages within the duration of no more than the next three CAs. It is time for both sides to be bold on this issue, especially where racial and sexual minorities are concerned.

in light of statistics that show gross underrepresentation for all above group evidenced from the recent report that the administration tabled. the CA should include language on both affirmative and positive action to allow allow selection of a candidate from an "under-represented" group, so long as he or she is no less than equally qualified compared to another potential candidate that is not from the under-represented group.

I think equity issues are pretty well balanced at present. I do not think we should go further on these matters.

On a par with some universities, "gay, lesbian, and transgender" should be added to the list of minorities.

There should be equal opportunity, but NOT affirmative action.

I am against hiring people on the basis of race. I strongly belive that we should hire on the basis of merit. During a hiring process in my department, a minority candidate from Palestine was voted down "because he comes from the culture that does not respect women." I would like to have a hiring system in which such discrimination was not allowed and people who say and do such things were penalized. Writing the allowed race of a candidate into a job position description is simply another form of discrimination. I am against all forms of discrimination, not only against the discrimination that targets those 4 groups.

Consideration should be given to sexual orientation as well, as Memorial does

Equity committee to look at language and a equity retention committee to be set up. We lose excellent faculty of color all he time because we have a sleepwalking approach to their challenges.

I find it interesting that if there is a visible minority on a committee it is often not viewed by many as being "good enough" and it is often as if a woman MUST be on the committee by default. If people feel this way then it should be made so that a committee MUST have a woman AND someone from the other three areas. I see that the current situation really only makes SMU and SMUFU look good on paper but in reality one of the four isnt often enough! I think having a woman on a higring committee is a great idea but the wording in the collective agreement should reflect our support of women and not just be warm and fuzzy and include all 4 groups but in reality the other three are not 'good enough'

There needs to be an automatic trigger for this clause that is determined at the departmental level for all searches. We have gone backwards on equity issues in recent years despite improvements to the language of the clause.

Last chance:  Are there any other issues you would like to draw to our attention?

OI think we need to elect a different Union President, and the Executive should be more inviting of diverse opinions and invite more different people from faculty to be involved. Right now our union is very antagonistic, political, and un-inviting. No wonder faculty are not engaged.

list Lectuerr Stream faculty in section 12 under “Faculty”

I would like the union to be MORE aggressive in challenging the university regarding the inflation of senior administrative personnel. Not only has their salary burden increased but so has our paper processing duties. We should also be able to say something about odd hangers on such as the Dean of the SMU Faculty of Education. Why do we still have that????

Thank you for serving on the union! You're doing a great job.

If I recall correctly, SMU has never had a faculty strike. I fear that the current confrontational/suspicious attitude of the union will push us to a strike position. I have had a lot of respect over the years for the negotiating skills (give and take) of the union bargaining team and sincerely hope that that same spirit of collegiality and give and take and recognition of the institution as a whole and current limited resources prevails during this process. I for one will NOT strike unless our fundamental rights are violated or our workload is increased.

Removing mandatory retirement has caused serious bottlenecks in terms of leadership renewal. If we are not going to have mandatory retirement we need term limits. Also, there should be more incentives for faculty to retire or reduce there workload (at any age).

Among the services offered by the university there should be a "conflict resolution" office (more than one person, possibly including a lawyer). It seems to me conflicts among faculty have reached a different and unprecedented level than ever before. Something needs to be done about this within the institution before the matter gets outside and involves court cases.

There might be. But as there is no way to save this survey and to continue it later, I will have to submit it as is, as I cannot spend more time on it today. Therefore I have no choice but to submit a set of partial answers. This problem could easily have been avoided had the Union office a) allowed more than a week for the completion of the survey, and b) provided a "save" feature so that busy faculty could work on it as time allowed. If you are disappointed with the survey results this year, you might want to bear these suggestions in mind for the future.

Note that I indicated "Neither agree nor disagree" when I didn't know enough about an issue to make a stronger stance. If I were to learn more about these issues and the impact on our members and our university, I would be willing to make a stronger stance and I'd absolutely be willing to strike for any of these issues that other members feel strongly about.

I want a defined-benefit pension plan!

I feel that SMUFU and the on campus childcare centre need to have a discussion regarding access and need. For example, I am expected to run a lab here at SMU until 5:30, yet the childcare centre closes at 5:30. If my partner is unable to pick up our son, which often happens since he works late shifts, then I am left to try an find a replacement to cover my lab for the last 15 minutes so that I can pick our son up. This poses both logistical and safety issues. If I am expected to work until 5:30, then there should be appropriate childcare available on site to accomodate this, or at least an attempt should be made to secure this. I would like to see SMUFU respond more to the childcare needs at this institution, and include more than one sentence on this in Article 15.7.

All academic administrator searches should be open, with the final three candidates presented to the academic community.

In your next survey try to make clearer what the full ramifications / options are for each question you ask. There were a lot here that I felt I didn't have enough info. to answer carefully. This may take more time in survey construction, but the results will be more meaningful.

I think we could use some clear language on credit for part-time teaching during the appointment process (e.g., 8 part-time courses taught = credit for one year in the step assignment). There is still too much variability and wiggle room in that process. The Union should receive a copy of all files prior to a University Appointments Committee and University Review Committee meetings. At present, observers are in the dark. The Union should be copied on all of these files (and we should keep them). The Dean's letter to external assessors for promotion and tenure should be part of the file (de-identified). We need some remuneration for supervision of non-thesis student supervision, i.e. directed study / directed research.

Again, I want to emphasize the importance of reducing the tuition fees for faculties. The incremental cost for the university is minimal, I do not understand why the university requires faculties to pay 50% of the tuition.

Chairs have too much power.

Departments can't be trusted to schedule fair teaching and "service" loads. We need a layer of independent oversight. I would strike on this issue.

I am concerned about the corporate model infecting universities. I do not like the move toward a two-tier model (teaching vs. research). I am concerned about the rise of poorly paid part-time teaching and contract positions, the explosion of high-paid administrators and their bureaucracy and rising tuition fees. The core of a university is well-trained faculty teaching students how to think ((not what to think). I don't want to be part of an institute that "sells" degrees...I am invested in a transparent public education system and think education should be free and rigorous.

A comprehensive survey. Thank you and best wishes.

I am very concerned over the direction the Administration is moving in. I would be in

favour of striking to effect change at the admin/board level.

No.

What about reducing the amount paid to the union each pay?

The union should be much better than it is on academic freedom and freedom of expression on campus. It should have protested vigorously when the senate added new rules for syllabi. It should have protested the hysterical and authoritarian way Dodds responded to the rape chant. It should not back calls for students to be punished for whatever they express on Facebook.

Good luck!

N/A

I'm worried that the needs of faculty lecturers will be ignored during this bargaining session. There are, after all, only 8 of us...

Thanks for listening.

The University should provide copies of CV of all new appointees with the appointment letter. This will allow the Union to determine if the appointee is place at the right step within rank. Union observers should have access to candidates files (either at URC or UAC) during the deliberation of a case. This would allow the Observer to identify problems with any case and report back to the Union Exec.

In the past, I had time to think here at work. Now I think at home, and that's where my creative work is done. All I do is teach and put out fires here at work. Sad, isn't it? The administration downloads more responsibilities to faculty (including recruiting) while it, the admin. becomes ever more bloated. Not just here, nation-wide. I am also concerned about the corporatization of universities - SMU, and elsewhere.

I would like to thank the Union Executive for negotiating on behalf of the faculty.

I'd like to see clarification on the issue of Academic Integrity. In particular, I think it should be explicitly stated that the university administration is responsible for investigating and adjudicating academic offences. The current system is an absolute joke: it is ad hoc, places all responsibility on individual faculty members, rarely results in any kind of disciplinary action and no record-keeping. This is an issue that should be made the responsibility of the administration.

Good luck with bargaining. It's a tough job.

- There are the drones and the stars. This means a small group end up teaching 3 and 2, while many 'stars' who lead programs or have 'important' research do barely any undergrad teaching. This is a problem and leads to breakdowns in collegiality. - The market supplement is not fair and yet makes faculty in economics, arts and science angry. And why not. It is not transparent, no one knows the numbers. It's a joke because we see someone at Associate 5 (let's say) in Commerce earns $96,595 a year, but also earns as much as $50,000 more in market supplement! Of course I understand the university's arguments on this, but somehow the union must open up the process and

discuss it with members and perhaps start a new way to get money from the pot of about $5 million to serve more than comm. professors.

GET RID OF THE OVER-SCALE IN BUSINESS since it is a fraud and creates some of the greatest inequity between different faculty members. Use the large amount of money saved to encourage, support, promote, and reward scholars. That would be fair and constructive.

Pension plans. We should move from Defined Contribution to Defined Benefits. Most universities in the region have Defined Benefits Plan and we are at a disadvantaged position relative to our colleagues at other universities.

As a union we should join the petition circulated by Cape Breton University to abolish tuition fees, and lobby the SMU administration to do the same. As a united front we can pressure the government to reorder its priorities when it comes to current funding structures. The government should be pressured to look to other developed countries in the world for funding structure models that do not undermine the public education sector, but rather strengthen it by supporting it financially with more than a mere 30% or so as is now, and thus acknowledging its vital importance for the well being of society.

The 2-2 teaching load (or, more accurately, a total of 4 half credits--with the possibility of some of those being done in the summer) is the most important issue for me. It would benefit me personally and I think it would do a lot to make us more attractive to potential faculty members. I would be quite willing to take a reduced salary so that I had more time and energy for research.

no

I am concerned about the growth of the highly paid administrative positions, as well as the growth of the extremely exploited sessional positions. In addition, the tuition fees seem to be growing much faster than the inflation, which looks like a bubble that must burst at some point. I would like the Union to start serious discussion on the ways to enusure long term financial health and fair working conditions at our university. Overall, thank you for your work as a Union. You make my life much easier and less stressful.

Over scales have to be looked at. The old argument about commerce leaving to go the private sector is dubious. Let them. Go and work a normal year, and see how they feel. This is a real concern and one that could split smufu in the coming years if not addressed.

in this survey we should not be asked demographic information. I woudl rather not answer. Or how about you give an option that states "do not want to answer"

the significant growth in number of administrator while number of students and faculty members is not growing is puzzling. It seems that administrative expenses are growing significantly at a time we are facing budget constraints. Approving new faculty positions should depends on the growth of number of students specific area rather than growth at the faculty level or university level.

Thank you for all the hard work that you do!

Spousal hires. We should have some language in the agreement and, based on what I have seen over the past decade, we have lost some good people over this issue. Research leave vs. research funds. Some people in the humanities could simply use a reduction in teaching load as opposed to research funds through our internal granting system to get more work done (they need time to work on their own, not necessarily funds to travel places). I think that the roles of associate deans in all faculties should be more clearly delineated in the agreement (just to highlight something present in the survey). Better benefits for parents sending their kids to SMU (even better tuition reduction than is currently available). To many of us, this would be worth far more than a raise in pay.