A motion that would see union executives banned from serving on Carleton University’s board of governors is a blatant attack on both academic freedom, and freedom of association, critics charge.
The motion, tabled at an open meeting of the board Sept. 30, came without prior consultation or warning, said Chantal Dion, president of the Carleton University Academic Staff Association, which represents more than 800 faculty and staff at the university.
“We’re wondering what prompted it, and on what grounds was such a change proposed,” she said.
The 32-member board is composed of the chancellor and president of the university, two elected faculty members, two elected staff members, two representatives from the alumni association, four students elected from the university’s undergraduate or graduate student societies, two members elected by Senate, and 18 members elected from the community-at-large, two of whom presented the motion for discussion at the meeting.
Dion says a vote on the motion has been put off after referral back to committee for further consideration.
She noted that academic staff have always been free to choose their board nominees throughout the university’s history. All members of the board sign a confidentiality and conflict of interest waiver as a condition of service.
“We already have negotiated language in our collective agreement that protects against conflicts of interest. There is absolutely no reason that past practice needs to be altered,” she said.
The motion could return at the next meeting of the board in December.
“If it comes back as is, with no change, we need to be prepared for that,” Dion said.
She has sent a letter to Carleton’s president and vice-chancellor Roseann O’Reilly Runte, protesting the motion, and saying “At the core of academic freedom is the right to participate in collegial governance. Faculty must be free to choose their representatives on university governing bodies free from restriction. If faculty members choose to appoint a representative who also serves on a union body that is their right.
“There is no need to exclude members of unions or other interest groups — the university is protected by procedures already in place.
“Just as our members have the right to participate in collegial governance, they also have the right to participate in their union without restriction or coercion. This proposal would have a severe negative impact on this right and would limit their freedom of association.”
Dion says she has not received a reply from Runte to the letter.
She said academic staff are hopeful a collegial atmosphere will continue at the university, despite the controversy created by introduction of the motion.