Professor Tim Quigley, president of the faculty association at the University of Saskatchewan, outlined his association's concerns about the university's integrated planning initiative in the January 2003 Bulletin. His article provides a unique view of our integrated planning process as developed in consultation with the University Council, our senior academic governing body.

I invite readers to examine our processes and documents, which can be found at www.usask.ca/vpacademic/ integrated-planning/. The university is very pleased with our planning process, which commits the university to an open college- and unit-based system for proposing initiatives and identifying priorities.

The planning process, which is built around a series of foundational documents that identify priority areas for development, was developed through campus-wide consultations and comprehensive council participation.

Professor Quigley's article contains two serious issues that have to be addressed. The faculty association has not shared with us its legal opinion supporting its claim on the "legality" of our administration's planning structures. Suffice it to say this opinion does not accord with the university's view of the matter nor is it consistent with common practice at Canadian universities.

Put simply, the Provost's Committee on Integrated Planning (the focus of Professor Quigley's complaint) advises the provost and vice-president academic and the president on matters relating to resource allocations. The board of governors has rejected Professor Quigley's suggestion and stands firmly with the university's administration in its development and implementation of an anticipatory planning process which links academic and budgetary decision-making.

Further, Professor Quigley has indicated that the university has instituted a "hiring freeze." We have done no such thing, as readers of the Bulletin will note by the advertisements for faculty positions that have appeared over the last few months.

In anticipation of the implementation of integrated planning in 2003-2004, we have required departments and colleges to prepare a longer justification for faculty replacements now than in the past. Colleges are, specifically, required to indicate that positions advertised in 2002-2003 will feature prominently in their integrated plan.

Departments and colleges have complied with this request, and the provost's office has authorized hiring of close to 40 tenure-track faculty positions since July 1, 2002 (which is above and beyond those authorized before that date). This is among the highest rates of approval of appointments this past decade and is far from being the hiring freeze that Professor Quigley charges.

The article raises other issues that could be discussed more fully. The university has strong employment equity requirements and has an equity review built into all faculty recruitment procedures (www.usask.ca/vpacademic/recruitment.shtml).

The University of Saskatchewan has had a lengthy debate about the need for and the nature of integrated planning. We have developed a process that includes the University Council in a comprehensive and appropriate fashion. Professor Quigley's discussion of key elements of the planning process gives a misleading and inaccurate portrait of a comprehensive, open, and creative approach to institutional priority setting and decision-making.

Ken Coates
Acting Provost & V-P, Academic, University of Saskatchewan