Open Response Letter to CUPE

November 22, 2011

Dear CUPE Colleagues:

Thank you very much for your thoughtful, critical, and civil open letter which I have read very reflectively. (See http://cupe3908.org/index.php?id=264).

Yours is a substantive letter that surely merits a thoughtful response; you raise many excellent issues, pose solid critiques, and ask thoroughly legitimate questions. May I take this opportunity to respond?

You are absolutely spot on when you comment that "the Academic Plan was meant to provide an overarching framework – a vision of the university – that would serve as the foundation for long-term financial planning". This is why the draft plan begins with an affirmation that the academic enterprise is paramount at Trent. And why it argues that we must stop "chasing the money" and concentrate, rather, on 72 recommendations that cross all executive portfolios (Academic, Administrative, External Relations, and Research.) These recommendations are designed to articulate clearly Trent's unique academic identity.

You are also spot on when you remark that "money continu[es] to be a driving concern." Financial instability is a major concern across the post-secondary sector in Ontario and only a very foolish academic citizen would ignore this reality. This was one of the major challenges in writing the draft: how to be realistic about money yet maintain one's academic vision and integrity? With great respect, I think you are inaccurate in the statement that "the Academic Plan has become something of an adversarial exercise; somehow, imagining a vision of Trent University has got lost in the shuffle.". I would like to point out (a) that the Plan remains, at this point, a living draft (which was posted on the Trent website November 21) and offered to the entire community for more critique and feedback throughout the rest of November and all of December; and (b) with over thirty-five consultation meetings (many of which were attended by LTAs) the process has been anything but adversarial. On the contrary, the draft could not exist in its present form without collective input. I say this with respect.

It is true "that the Academic Plan Committee comprises only full-time faculty members and [one member of] administration [me ]." The Committee was struck in late May/early June through an extensive consultation with the Chairs and Deans. No one disputes the incalculable contribution that CUPE members and LTAs make at Trent, but the feeling around the Provost's Planning Group was that preliminary long-term planning should be initially restricted to tenured faculty who are presumably here for the long term, conditional upon extensive consultations with all members of the community (many of whom are also here for the long term). I agreed (and still agree) with this sentiment; not an ideal solution but one for which I am totally responsible. Quite simply, the Committee needed to be small enough to be nimble and efficient, yet it had to be flexible enough to share "authorship" of the Plan with all who provided input. For this latter reason we were meticulous about seeking input from all of our bargaining units--CUPE, OPSEU, TUFA, as well as many student groups, alumni, and other academic colleagues.

Once again, I thank you for your letter and for the tone it adopts. Please do read through the draft plan and continue to provide feedback. In my opinion, it's only through honest debate and civil argumentation that we can achieve true solidarity and collegiality.