Board discusses search changes
Amendments to rules and procedures for senior administrative appointments were passed by the Board of Governors on May 18.
The amendments came from a committee formed in Feb. 2005 and chaired by Me Rita Lc de Santis, who presented them to the Board.
While trying to maintain the collegial spirit of the existing rules, de Santis explained that they also recognize the growth of the university and the need for a more streamlined process to attract qualified professionals.
In the presidential search, the search committee will present only one candidate to an open meeting with the university community.
This change acknowledges that many potential candidates for this position are unwilling to make their candidacy public. There will be the use of outside search resources for senior academic positions unless three-quarters of the search committee decide otherwise.
After discussion with CUFA, the faculty union, the Board must now give notice of one month to invoke exceptional circumstances to modify the procedures.
There are “academic” and “non-academic” categories of senior administrators. The president will appoint non-academic administrators (i.e., not dealing directly with academic issues and not necessarily holding academic credentials) after consultation with a special evaluation committee of the Board, which can appeal to the whole Board in case of disagreement.
The terms for these positions are open ended, but there will be yearly evaluations by the senior salaries committee of the Board and mandatory evaluations by a Board committee after five years.
The terms for “academic” senior positions remain five years with the possibility of a second term on positive evaluation and subsequent extension of up to one year after that.
There was much discussion of the “non-academic” designation. Some felt that it did not reflect the goal of all senior positions to serve the academic mission and was a departure from university tradition. The terminology used was questioned, as was the seeming lack of academic input in the appointment process as outlined.
Based on the comments, De Santis proposed that the faculty deans be included on the evaluation committee. She also promised to consult widely and come up with a more appropriate term than “non-academic.” The motion, with the amendments, passed the mandatory two-thirds majority vote requirement.
The other issue that raised discussion was the student service fee hike. Vice-President Michael Di Grappa explained that the fee had not changed since 1997, but that recent static enrolment, increased labour costs and the need for stronger student service support had made the increase necessary.
Di Grappa added that by provincial guidelines, Concordia receives a portion of the Student Services revenues through a specifically earmarked government grant and the remaining revenues comes from Student Services fees. Di Grappa noted deficits are not permitted in this area. He pointed out that there had been “transparent and open” discussions of the increase since March and that a CCSL working group will be exploring other opportunities for funding.
The increase in the Student Services fee comes to about $67 per year or less for the 71 per cent of students who register for 24 or fewer credits. While acknowledging the added costs, Enrolment & Student Services Executive Director Roger Côté said student services fees at other English Quebec universities remain higher than Concordia by as much as $85 to $250 per year for a 24-credit courseload.
It was agreed that insufficient government funding was creating hardship for students and administrators alike, although the related issue of increasing tuition fees remains divisive.
The fee increase was approved, as was the establishment of a “School of General Studies,” with the proviso to find a better name.