Report on meeting with Minister- 17 June 2010

Download Report on meeting with Minister- 17 June 2010 131 kB

In Attendance: Dennis Desroches, Gilles Allain, Donald Arsenault (Minister), Byron James (Deputy Minister), Liane Roy (Assistant Deputy Minister).

Report to Executive Committee.

Preamble.

I had the opportunity, apart from the discussing the items below, to forcefully stress the point that faculty have routinely been excluded from the discussions that the province has been having about PSE over the last (at least) 3 years since the PSE Action plan came out. I noted that only faculty were not briefed when the plan came out—the Minister and Deputy Minister were quick to point out that they were not in charge when that happened. I laughed, then indicated that I very much hoped that faculty, and especially the Federation, would start being on the radar for future deliberations around PSE. The DM especially acknowledged that perhaps this has been a failing in the process from the beginning.

1. Conciliation Boards

The appointment of conciliation boards is not a new policy of the provincial government when dealing with collective bargaining in Universities, according to Arsenault. It is simply a tool at their disposal. When questioned concerning the degree to which these boards represent governmental interference in the collective bargaining process, both the M and the DM indicated that the unions (at Moncton and UNB) had voluntarily agreed to make them binding. I asked them if they had considered that there might be more than one definition of “voluntary.” There was much laughter. Students, and the necessity of classes starting in September, were then invoked as top priorities. I asked why they hadn’t been used in other sectors. They indicated that conciliation boards were routinely used in other sectors, and promised to send us examples of when and where it has been used.

Action/Conclusion: Conciliation Boards are the new reality, and Member Associations should take the appointment of a Conciliation Board into account when developing bargaining strategy.

2. Multi-year funding agreements.

The M and DM support them in principle, but cite the biggest difficulty being making a case for a multi-year agreement convincing to the department of Finance. They are currently looking at multiple models of multi-year funding currently in existence across the country, and this funding can take numerous forms at different tiers of the PSE landscape. The tuition freeze was mentioned as a kind of multi-year funding arrangement, and the DM emphasized that this freeze was “at the base,” and therefore does not threaten universities when the freeze is removed.

Action/Conclusion: Consensus on this is needed among the students, faculty, and Presidents, if there is to be movement on it (indeed, the M and DM subtly indicated the same). This will be brought up at the upcoming meetings with the Presidents, and we will arrange a meeting with the student alliance.

3. PSE Advisory Forum

The M and DM indicated that the President’s Council—now known as the PSE Advisory Forum—has not replaced the Action Plan’s call for a Ministerial Advisory Committee. The DM indicated that plans are currently in the works to get the terms of reference, representation, etc., for that committee set by October 1st with a possible first meeting to happen in November (Gilles suggested that it could coincide with our 40th Anniversary Reception and Board Meeting). The DM committed to having a place for the FNBFA on that committee, but resistance still exists to the idea of having the Fed present at the Presidents’s meetings.

Action/Conclusion: FNBFA to keep on top on the ADM and DM about the constitution of the committee, and to make sure that we are there in November. We should continue to meet with the Presidents on our own when issues of importance to us arise.

4. Regional Advisory Groups

The questions of “what are they doing,” “have they been effective,” and “do they have minutes” were largely skirted. The DM emphasized that their purpose has been focused on how to get students into PSE. There is a distinct focus, from what I could tell of the M and DM’s rhetoric, on the “labour market” in these committees, and it seems to be the case that these committees exist to harmonize a self-sufficiency agenda with PSE. When asked what sort of university presence exists on these committees, the DM indicated that Robert Campbell, president of MtA, actually chairs one of these committees. Fredericton is really the only place without one of these committees—this is, to me, important, though I’m not exactly sure how yet.

The M then chimed in, with respect to the above four items, to make the broad point that they have worked very hard to start a conversation about PSE in the province—for the M, PSE was not something talked about much, but entities like the Regional Advisory Groups are changing that. And the more it gets talked about, the more likely funding will come its way.

Action/Conclusion: Talk to Presidents about the Regional Advisory Groups and get their take on them. It may be worth advocating for the creation of a RAG for the Fredericton area. We should make contact with the locals, and see what knowledge they might have of the activities of these RAGs. Continue to take delight in the awful acronym.

5. Graduate Research Council

Still at the informal stage—there is currently a report on strategy being formulated by the province. Until it is done, the GRC will not have official existence; until now, there have only been “informal meetings” to discuss research, and these have included the research offices of the universities.

Action/Conclusion: Monitor