CONCERNS ABOUT INTEGRATED PLANNING

October 12, 2002

The Executive of the Faculty Association has been hearing complaints and concerns from our members all around the campus about the recently-released Provost’s White Paper on Integrated Planning. Many of the concerns raised by members reflect our own as we have read and discussed the White Paper. Among those concerns are:

  • The vagueness of the document: it fails to provide clear details about how the process would work;
  • Contradictions with other planning documents: e.g. in places, the teacher-scholar model is abandoned or downplayed in the White Paper;
  • Workload: this is a constant concern from virtually every unit on campus. The White Paper gives no recognition to this and, in fact, will greatly add to the workload of academic units, especially for Department Heads and Deans, in preparing the necessary plans. We expect that academic units will prepare plans, not because they really need them, but out of the legitimate fear that a failure to do so (and do so well) will result in a further loss of resources. Some units will, of course, do so in the hope that they will actually benefit from the exercise. While the planning process gets underway, the hiring freeze and centralized taxing of tuition fee increases, DesRosiers’ money, and increases in the provincial grant will undoubtedly amount to a cutback in many units. Don’t forget that we have already lost at least 110 faculty positions from 1991 to 2002. As well, numerous support staff positions have been lost over the past several years;
  • Lack of collegial input into decision-making: no faculty members will sit on any of the proposed committees (The Provost’s Committee on Integrated Planning, the Administrative Committee on Integrated Planning, or the Integrated Planning Office);
  • It is topsy-turvy planning: the effect is to require departments and colleges to plan their own retrenchment and cutbacks while the centralized bodies will have the most pleasant task of allocating new resources;
    •
  • The stability of the proposal: it is a strange centralized planning exercise that priorizes its spending towards one-time-only funding, then annual funding with conditions and cycle funding. Why must every unit on campus ante up precious money and resources for the funding of very short-term initiatives?
  • The role of University Council: Council has the legal role in overseeing the academic role of the University. It is troubling that there has been very little consultation to date with Council as a whole and the White Paper envisions only approval in principle of integrated plans. Some years ago, Council saw the need for further integration in planning by coordinating the work of the Budget and Planning Committees. Where has this gone?
  • There is a lack of accountability: why have more planning exercises when there has been little or no action on previous planning activities? Where is the accountability for such previous exercises as the President’s Committee on Renewal, the Academic Planning and Priorities Committee, Renewal Plans, etc.?

At this point, the Association has not developed positions on each of these issues. We are simply reflecting what we have already heard from many members in many different disciplines. However, we would like to know your position on the Integrated Planning White Paper and its implications for your department and/or college. We encourage faculty to e-mail us at  USFA@skyway.usask.ca.  In addition, feel free to provide any comments you wish, which can be either attributed or unattributed.

The Executive will soon begin meeting with interested academic units about integrated planning, faculty workload and faculty complement, and other issues. Please let the Association office know if you would like such a meeting in your academic unit.

In future news bulletins, we will be providing more specific information on various aspects of the Integrated Planning process. It is very important, therefore, that we hear your views.